Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition (13 page)

“Did not I choose you—the Twelve?” said Jesus, “and even of you one is a devil.”

He alluded to Judas, the son of Simon the Iscariot. For he it was who, though one of the Twelve, was afterwards to betray Him.

John 6:71–72

Scholars have commented on the possibility that “Iscariot,” the last name of Judas, is somehow related to “Sicarii,” the word Josephus uses to describe the messianic rebels. As Robert Eisenman notes, the only difference between the two Greek words is the switching of the iota, or “I,” with the sigma, or “s.” I concur, and will show below that it is simply one of the many puns that the author(s) of Josephus and the New Testament use in challenging the reader to discover that the two works describe the same characters.

I determined that the following passage from the Gospel of Matthew
could
be read as a satire on John, the leader of the rebellion, as well as on the “wicked generation.” Notice that “John” is accused of having a demon because he is not eating and drinking, which certainly can be likened to the rebel John’s situation in the subterranean caverns.

John is shown as a mirror opposite of the “Son of Man,” who is eating and drinking and is “the friend of tax gatherers,” and who will “upbraid towns” “because they had not repented”—this description of Jesus having a clear parallel in Titus’ activities in Judea. Therefore, if the passage has the satirical meaning I suspected, then the “John” described within the passage is meant to be understood as John, the leader of the rebellion, and Jesus’ prophecy is actually envisioning Titus’ campaign through Judea
.

“But to what shall I compare the present generation? It is like children sitting in the open places, who call to their playmates.

“ ‘We have played the flute to you,’ they say, ‘and you have not danced: we have sung dirges, and you have not beaten your breasts.’

“For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’

“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they exclaim, ‘See this man!—given to gluttony and tippling, and a friend of tax-gatherers and notorious sinners!’ And yet Wisdom is vindicated by her actions.”

Then began He to upbraid the towns where most of His mighty works had been done—because they had not repented.

Matt. 11:16–20

My analysis of the New Testament story of the demons of Gadara suggests that, the “subterranean caverns” the Jewish rebels fled into at the end of the siege of Jerusalem, were satirized as “tombs” within the New Testament. The following passage from the Gospel of John appeared to me to be using this theme. However, notice that if this interpretation is correct, then in the passage Jesus is actually comparing himself to Titus, in that Titus is the individual sent by “god,” that is, his father Vespasian, to hand out “life” – or “judgment” – to the Jews hidden in “tombs,” that is, the caverns beneath Jerusalem.

This interpretation indicates a different origin for the Christian concept of “resurrection” than that traditionally held. It is not based on the Pharisaic belief that God will return the dead to life, but rather is a satire of the “raising” of the dead by Titus at the end of the siege. In other words, the Gospels’ concept of “resurrection” refers to those Jews found “buried” within the “tombs” under Jerusalem at the end of the siege. If this is correct, it is another example of the theme of Jesus seemingly speaking symbolically, but Josephus’ history showing an ironically literal meaning to his words.

“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself,

“and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice

“and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

“I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 5:26–30

While these interpretations of the passages above are logical, they do not, in and of themselves, provide direct support for the contention that the Apostles John and Simon were satires of the leaders of the Jewish rebellion. Further analysis of the New Testament produced more examples of this kind, but nothing that provided the clarity I sought. Finally, I realized what had been staring me in the face the entire time. There is a passage within the New Testament that provides extraordinary support for the premise that the Apostles Simon and John were lampoons of the Jewish rebel leaders Simon and John.

The Gospel of John concludes with a discussion between Simon (Peter) and Jesus. Jesus foresees that Simon will be bound and carried “where you do not wish to go.” Jesus also tells Simon that he will have a martyr’s death, “to glorify God.” In the midst of this discussion, “the disciple that Jesus loved,” clearly meaning the Apostle John, appears. Simon asks Jesus what the fate of John is to be. Jesus replies, “It is my will that he remain.” The passage then points out that John “is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things” referring to the Gospel of John itself.

Below is the entire passage. Notice how the author goes to great lengths to avoid calling the Apostles by their real names, Simon and John.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.”

(This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”

Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?”

When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?”

Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!”

The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”

This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

John 21:18–24

This passage, which is the conclusion to Jesus’ ministry, is exactly parallel to Titus’ judgments concerning the rebel leaders Simon and John at the conclusion of his campaign through Judea. Thus, at the
conclusion
of the Gospel above, Jesus tells Simon “when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” Jesus tells Simon to “follow me” and that his
death will “glorify God.” However, Jesus also states that it is his will that John is to “remain.”

At the
conclusion
of his campaign through Judea, Titus, after capturing “Simon,” girds him in “bonds” and sends him “where you do not wish to go,” this being Rome. During the parade of conquest at Rome, Simon follows, that is, is “led” to a “death, to glorify God,” the god “glorified” being Titus’ father, the
diuus
Vespasian. However, it is Titus’ will to spare the other leader of the rebellion, John.

Notice that in the following passage, Josephus records Simon’s fate before John’s, just as it occurs in John 21. A seemingly innocuous detail but one that I will show has great significance.

Simon … was forced to surrender himself, as we shall relate hereafter; so he was reserved for the triumph, and to be then slain; as was John condemned to perpetual imprisonment.
⁷⁸

Josephus also records that Jesus’ vision of Simon “following” also comes to pass for the rebel leader Simon.

Simon … had then been led in this triumph among the captives; a rope had also been put upon his head, and he had been drawn into a proper place in the forum.
⁷⁹

In the passage from the Gospel of John above, notice that the author does not call the Apostle John by his name but rather as
“the disciple whom Jesus loved,” and as the individual who had said at the Last Supper, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” Later in the chapter the author identifies this disciple with yet another epithet when he states, “This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things”
—
even here not referring to John by name but requiring the reader to determine it by knowing the name of the author of the Gospel. The author’s use of epithets here, instead of simply referring to the disciple as “John,” seems clearly an attempt to keep the parallel conclusion of Jesus’ and Titus’ “ministries” from being too easily seen.
⁸⁰
The author also has Jesus call Simon by his nickname, “Peter,” for the same reason.

The same technique is used throughout the New Testament and
Wars of the Jews.
To learn the name of an unnamed character, the reader must be able to recall details from another, related passage. In effect, the New Testament is designed as a sort of intelligence test, whose true meaning can be understood only by those possessing sufficient memory, logic, and irreverent humor.

For clarification, I present the following list showing the parallels between the ends of Jesus’ ministry and Titus’ campaign:
 

•   Characters are named Simon and John

•   Both sets of characters are judged

•   Both sides of the parallel occur at the conclusion of a “campaign”

•   Jesus predicts and Titus fulfills Simon going to a martyr’s death after being placed in bonds and taken someplace he does not wish to go

•   In each, John is spared

•   In each, Simon “follows”
 

Further, the two events continue the theme of a prophecy made in one work being fulfilled in the other. In other words, what Jesus predicts, Josephus records as having “come to pass.”

This group of parallels seems too complex to have occurred by chance and provides direct support for my premise that the Apostles Simon and John were lampoons of the leaders of the Jewish rebellion, as well as my suspicion that the “Son of Man,” whose coming the New Testament predicts will bring destruction to Jerusalem, is Titus.

If this was the case however, one thing seemed strange to me. Why had Josephus not recorded a parallel to the most central event in the ministry of Jesus – his crucifixion? There seemed to be no parallel to the event in
Wars of the Jews
. Armed with the understanding that the campaigns of Jesus and Titus occurred in the same sequence, however, I began to analyze Josephus’s other works to see if any of them contained a crucifixion parallel.

I discovered the crucifixion parallel in Josephus’s biography
- The Life of Flavius Josephus
. The author of the works of Josephus understood that if the crucifixion parallel had been placed next to the story of the human Passover lamb, the combination would have made their relationship to the Gospels’ story too transparent. He therefore placed it in another section of the work. To establish its place in the overall sequence however, the author provided the necessary details to place the event between the “human Passover Lamb” and the condemnation of “Simon” and the sparing of “John”. Below is the incredible parallel.

Moreover, when the city Jerusalem was taken by force …

I was sent by Titus Caesar … to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp; as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them;

so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

Life of Flavius Josephus
, 75, 417, 420-421

There will be a more complete explanation of the relationship between the passage and the Gospels’ crucifixion story below. But at this point it is enough to recognize that not only does Josephus’ passage mirror the Gospels by depicting three men being crucified and one who “miraculously” survives, but that the name of the “good counselor” who begs the Roman commander to take the survivor down from the cross is Joseph. In fact, the name of the Gospels’ “good counselor” – Joseph of “Arimathea” is obviously a play on words of Titus’ “good counselor” Josephus’ real name – Joseph bar Matthias. 

Studying these parallels I realized that there was a larger implication to what I had discovered. The reader will recall the parallel beginnings to the “ministries” of Titus and Jesus; that is, both were “followed” by “fishers of men.” The conclusions of Titus’ and Jesus’ stints in Judea are also conceptually parallel. When I looked at the relative placements of the Gadara and the “son of Mary whose flesh was eaten” and the “three crucified, one survived” parallels, I found that those too occurred in the same sequence.