Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition (17 page)

3) Keep holy the Sabbath by restoring the “right hand”

Continuing with the typological mapping, we next find a story in Luke that features the restoration of a “right hand” and a discussion of who knows best how to keep the Sabbath holy – Jesus or his accusers.

Now it happened on the second Sabbath after the first that He went through the grain fields. And His disciples plucked the heads of grain and ate [them], rubbing [them] in [their] hands.

And some of the Pharisees said to them, "Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?"

But Jesus answering them said, "Have you not even read this, what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him:

how he went into the house of God, took and ate the showbread, and also gave some to those with him, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat?"

And He said to them, "The Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

Now it happened on another Sabbath, also, that He entered the synagogue and taught. And a man was there whose right hand was withered.

So the scribes and Pharisees watched Him closely, whether He would heal on the Sabbath, that they might find an accusation against Him.

But He knew their thoughts, and said to the man who had the withered hand, "Arise and stand here." And he arose and stood. 

Then Jesus said to them, "I will ask you one thing: Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy?"

And when He had looked around at them all, He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he did so, and his hand was restored as whole as the other.

But they were filled with rage, and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus.

 Luke 6:1-11

Josephus then records a transparent and witty parallel to Luke 6:1-11. In Josephus’ version, a group of rebels asks Titus to extend to them the “right hand” of Roman peace. Titus decides to “save life” rather than “destroy” on the Sabbath. In the story, Titus is a parallel to Jesus in that, unlike the Jews, he was the one who really kept the Sabbath “holy”.

Now Titus, as he rode out to Gischala, found it would be easy for him to take the city upon the first onset; but knew withal, that if he took it by force, the multitude would be destroyed by the soldiers without mercy. (Now he was already satiated with the shedding of blood, and pitied the major part, who would then perish, without distinction, together with the guilty.) So he was rather desirous the city might be surrendered up to him on terms.

Accordingly, when he saw the wall full of those men that were of the corrupted party, he said to them, - That he could not but wonder what it was they depended on, when they alone staid to fight the Romans, after every other city was taken by them;

especially when they have seen cities much better fortified than theirs is overthrown by a single attack upon them; while as many as have intrusted themselves to the security of the Romans' right hands, which he now offers to them, without regarding their former insolence, do enjoy their own possessions in safety;

for that while they had hopes of recovering their liberty …

But John returned Titus this answer: That for himself he was content to hearken to his proposals, and that he would either persuade or force those that refused them.

Yet he said that Titus ought to have such regard to the Jewish law, as to grant them leave to celebrate that day, which was the seventh day of the week, on which it was unlawful not only to remove their arms, but even to treat of peace also;

and that even the Romans were not ignorant how the period of the seventh day was among them a cessation from all labors; and that he who should compel them to transgress the law about that day would be equally guilty with those that were compelled to transgress it;

and that this delay could be of no disadvantage to him; for why should any body think of doing any thing in the night, unless it was to fly away? which he might prevent by placing his camp round about them;

and that they should think it a great point gained, if they might not be obliged to transgress the laws of their country; and that it would be a right thing for him, who designed to grant them peace, without their expectation of such a favor, to preserve the laws of those they saved inviolable.

Thus did this man put a trick upon Titus, not so much out of regard to the seventh day as to his own preservation, for he was afraid lest he should be quite deserted if the city should be taken, and had his hopes of life in that night and in his flight therein.

Now this was the work of God …

Wars of the Jews
, 4, 2, 92-104

4) Cast out the supporters of the Son of Man

Luke then goes on and describes individuals who try and promote the “son of man” but are “hated” and “cast out” for their efforts.

“Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake.”

Luke 6:22

Josephus links to Luke 6 with a story of two pro-Roman priests - Jesus and Ananus who maintain the same vision of the future as the Jesus in the Gospels. They predict that if the Jews do not repent they will be destroyed. In the lengthy story the two priests attempt to turn the Jews away from the rebellion and back to obedience to the true “Son of Man”, the Flavian Caesar.  But for their efforts they were – as Jesus predicted in Luke 6:22 – “hated” and “cast out”.

I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city …

He was a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people;

he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed …

Jesus was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest;

and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction …

… when, they were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts.

Wars of the Jews
, 4, 5, 318-324

5) John possessed by a demon

Continuing with the Luke/Josephus typology, both authors describe a “John” with a demon. The passage in Luke is important in that it shows the basis for the Gospels’ character “John the Baptist”.  Within the typological pattern, it is clear that “John the Baptist” – like the apostle “John” – is simply a “type” who “foresees” the rebel John of Gischala.

“For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, `He has a demon!'  

“The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, `Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' 

“Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children."

Luke 7:33-35

To digress, the positive light of tax collectors in the passage from Luke above, and in other passages in the Gospels, is Flavian humor. The Flavians were the best known tax collectors in Roman history.

Josephus then also describes a “John” who is possessed by a demon, though to understand this, the reader must be able to recall information Josephus has provided in another passage.

By this time John was beginning to tyrannize, and thought it beneath him to accept of barely the same honors that others had; and joining to himself by degrees a party of the wickedest of them all, he broke off from the rest of the faction.

This was brought about by his still disagreeing with the opinions of others, and giving out injunctions of his own, in a very imperious manner; so that it was evident he was setting up a monarchical power.

Now some submitted to him out of their fear of him, and others out of their good-will to him; for he was a shrewd man to entice men to him, both by deluding them and putting cheats upon them. Nay, many there were that thought they should be safer themselves, if the causes of their past insolent actions should now be reduced to one head, and not to a great many …

Now as it is in a human body, if the principal part be inflamed, all the members are subject to the same distemper …

Wars of the Jews
, 4, 7, 389-391, 407

Though he does not record them in the above passage, Josephus gives the specific details indicating that rebel leader John was a “demoniac” who – like the demoniac in the Gospels - unleashed thousands of demons into the countryside at other places in his text. This was a necessary obfuscation. Because as readers may judge for themselves, if Josephus had included the above details, indicating that John was a demoniac, into his description of “John” that was followed by the battle of Gadara below, its connection to the Gospels’ story of a “demoniac of Gadara” would be so transparent that Christianity might not be a worldwide religion today. Notice that the definition of “demons” given by Josephus is the correct one for the word’s usage in the Gospels. Whenever Jesus is curing a “sickness” or exorcising a demon, he is paralleling Titus’ removing the “demon” of rebelliousness against Rome from Jewish rebels.

John … filled the entire countryside with ten thousand instances of wickedness.

Wars of the Jews
, 7, 8, 263

Demons … are no other than the spirit of the wicked.

Wars of the Jews
, 7, 6, 185

6) The legion of demons

Luke begins the sequence of events in the “demoniac of Gadara/Geresa” story with a description of a man possessed by a legion of demons. (I address the confusion about the two different locations of the story given in the Gospels below.)

Then they sailed to the country of the Gadarenes, which is opposite Galilee.

And when He stepped out on the land, there met Him a certain man from the city who had demons for a long time. And he wore no clothes, nor did he live in a house but in the tombs.

When he saw Jesus, he cried out, fell down before Him, and with a loud voice said, "What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me!"

For He had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For it had often seized him, and he was kept under guard, bound with chains and shackles; and he broke the bonds and was driven by the demon into the wilderness.

Luke 8:26-29

Luke then describes a “legion” of demons inside the infected man.

Jesus asked him, saying, "What is your name?" And he said, "Legion," because many demons had entered him.

Luke 8:30

Keeping a precise dual sequence, in his version of the story Josephus also identifies the size of the rebel force that had “left” John and ravaged the countryside as being a “legion”; that is to say it was a group larger than a “gang of thieves” but smaller than an army.  Once again, the reader should note how transparent the parallel would be if Josephus had simply chosen to call the group a legion of thieves.

… yet were these men that now got together, and joined in the conspiracy by parties, too small for an army, and too many for a gang of thieves …

Wars of the Jews,
4, 7, 408

7) Demons infect another group

Luke then states that the “demons” that left the man infected another group.

And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss.