Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition (27 page)

In Hebrew literature, these typological relationships are a source of open-ended speculation and debate. To the Romans this perhaps seemed part of the barbarous mysticism that provoked the Jewish Zealots to revolt. So they “improved” the nature of their parallels in the New Testament, from the open-ended types found within the Hebrew canon to ones that were very precise in their logical and chronological relationships, and in the identities that they reveal.

The authors of the Gospels were very aware of the typology in Hebraic literature and were, in effect, showing that they were able to produce a more perfect, more complex form of it. Moreover, there was a profound irony in the authors’ requiring the Gospels and
Wars of the Jews
to be read in the manner of Judaic literature in order to learn that they had created a false Judaism.

The insight, that Josephus was using typological parallels, occurred when I noticed that Josephus’ tale regarding the capture of the unnamed “certain young man” on the Mount of Olives is parallel to another passage within
Wars of the Jews
, the passage above, in which Eleazar is whipped and escapes crucifixion. Josephus identified the two stories as being parallel by having each passage tell the same story, their only differences being in location and that the “certain young man” is unnamed in the Mount of Olives version.

For clarification, I present the following list of the parallels between the two passages:

• In each, besieged Jews are encircled by a wall.

• In each, the Jews attack the siege wall.

• In each case the Romans foresee the attack.

• In each, a Jew is literally carried away by a single Roman in a manner that is physically impossible.

• In each, the man who is carried away is in his armor.

Within the works of Josephus there are thousands of passages. These are the only two that share these parallel characteristics. Josephus thus notified the “perceptive reader,” that is, the reader with a good memory, that the two stories are parallel. Further, there is a simple point of logic that the authors require the reader to apprehend, this being that since the passages are parallel, the unnamed “certain young man” who is carried away in one must have the same name as the “certain young man” named Eleazar who has the same experience in the other.

The passages are also the start of a satiric theme that Josephus and the New Testament develop regarding the Messiah who was captured on the Mount of Olives. This theme, which I refer to as the “root and branch,” begins with the last sentence in the passage above from
Wars of the Jews
. Notice that the translator (William Whiston) places brackets around the words that he uses to describe the punishment of the unnamed “certain young man” captured on the Mount of Olives “(with death).”

Whiston used this device to notify the reader that he was deliberately mistranslating the Greek words Josephus wrote in order to render what seemed a more coherent reading. The Greek words he is translating as [with death],
kolasai keleusas
, are translated literally as “commanded to be pruned.”  “Pruned” is, of course, a word that describes a gardening activity. Thus, Titus did not order the “certain young man” to be put to “death,” as Whiston’s translation reads, but to be “pruned,” a word used quite logically on the Mount of Olives. “
Kolasai
” was used by the Greek naturalist Theophratus in the fourth century B.C.E. to describe the pruning necessary to cultivate wild plants. His work on plants was often referenced by individuals from Titus’ era such as Pliny and Seneca, and specifically covered the process by which wild olive trees could be transformed into cultivated ones.
¹⁰²
Theophratus was the scientific ancestor of Pedanius Dioscorides, the Roman scientist and physician who accompanied Vespasian and Titus to Judea and was a key part of the theme of dark comedy concerning the “root and branch.”

This use of the word “pruned” to describe the fate of the “certain young man” is part of a broad satirical theme within the New Testament. The leaders of the Jewish rebellion were used as the historical “tree” onto which Christianity was “grafted.” Paul’s description of Christianity being grafted onto Judaism below is part of this “root and branch” theme. Notice that Paul states that it is an olive tree that is to be grafted onto – the olive tree being, of course, the “tree” that would be “pruned” on the Mount of Olives.

For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom. 11:21–25

Josephus continued with this vegetive theme by making a bleak joke regarding “pressing.” Notice that at the beginning of his description of a capture on the Mount of Olives above, Josephus states that the Jews were “pressed” by famine. This use of the word “press” by Josephus satirically links his passage describing a Mount of Olive capture with the New Testament’s version of a Mount of Olives capture. The garden Jesus wanders into while on the Mount of Olives is called Gethsemane, an Aramaic word that is usually translated as “olive press.” However, as Klausner points out, the word is “difficult” and may also be related to wine.
Beth-Shemanaya
is a name used in the Talmud to describe a “hall of wine and oil.”
¹⁰³

And he said unto them, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

“Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

And they came to a place that was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, “Sit ye here, while I shall pray.”

Mark 14:24-26, 32

We have shown that Jesus’ calling his flesh “bread” is satirically related to the cannibalism that the besieged Jewish rebels engaged in. Likewise, the description of Jesus’ passion in the garden of Gethsemane is a lampoon of his “giving of his blood,” which he described as “wine.”

Saying, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”

And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Luke 22:42–44

Naming the garden “olive press” where Jesus’ sweat is compared to drops of blood, is also part of the satiric theme. However, the passage in the Gospel of Luke that contains the related darkly humorous image, that of the drops of blood that spill from Jesus being like the liquid squeezed from grapes or olives in a press, does not refer to the name of the garden. This must be gleaned from reading versions of the Mount of Olives tale in the other Gospels, in which the name of the garden is Gethsemane.

The derisive comedy of the four Gospels work together, regarding Jesus’ passion at Gethsemane, to show that the Gospels are not four separate testimonies of Jesus, but rather a unified piece of literature with nothing inadvertent in it. All of their seemingly irrelevant or contradictory details have a purpose at the satiric level. In this instance, the authors have kept the black comedy from being too obvious by placing the word for a wine or olive press, Gethsemane, into one Gospel’s version of the story and the image of blood dropping from Jesus in another. Josephus then expands the dark comic theme in
Wars of the Jews
by placing a play on the word “press” in that Mount of Olives story.

Once again, only readers alert enough to combine elements from different versions of the same story can understand the sinister joke. Notice that this technique is consistent throughout. To understand the sardonic humor in Luke regarding Gethsemane the reader must recall another Gospel’s version of the same story. Likewise, the parallels between the two tales from
Wars of the Jews
above, which described a “certain young man” being carried off, can only be grasped by the reader whose memory is sufficient to recall the first story while reading the second. The authors of the New Testament and Josephus created what might be called history’s first intelligence test. The consequence for failing it is belief in a false god.

I would also note that this vegetative theme, regarding a Messiah captured in a garden named olive press or wine press, may have been a parody of a Hebrew metaphor recorded in the Targum, of the Messiah crushing Israel’s enemies in a press. Rome’s mock Messiah did not crush his enemies like “grapes in the wine press,” but rather was “pressed” himself.

How lovely is the king Messiah, who is to rise from the house of Judah.

He girds his loins and goes out to wage war on those who hate him,

killing kings and rulers …

and reddening the mountains with the blood of their slain.

With his garments dipped in blood,

he is like one who treads grapes in the wine press
¹⁰⁴

The “root and branch” theme that the New Testament and Josephus create, regarding the Messiah, is remarkably clear. The “olive tree” that is “pruned” so that Christianity could be “grafted in” just happens to be on the “Mount of Olives” in a garden named “Gethsemane,” a word that means “olive press.” In this instance, the very names and locations give away the fact that the story is contemptuous comedy and not history.

If the Romans did in fact capture Eleazar, the messianic “branch” of the Jewish rebels, on the Mount of Olives, it would have been the specific inspiration for this satiric theme. In Chapter 8, my analysis of this vegetative theme concludes as Titus—called a “gardener” because he has “pruned” Eleazar—“grafts” himself onto the Jewish Messiah’s identity and history and becomes “Jesus.”

I will show in Chapter 8 that this “pruning” of the certain young man, described so off-handedly by Josephus, is the fate of the real Messiah, whom Christianity is based upon.

To continue, the New Testament story of Jesus’ capture is linked to Titus’ campaign in yet another way. The New Testament states that Jesus was captured within a garden named Gethsemane. In the version of his capture recounted in the Gospel of Mark there is a character described only as a naked “certain young man” who, unlike Jesus, was able to escape from the attackers.

“I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.”

And they all forsook him, and fled.

and there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:

And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

Mark 14:49–53

The description of the naked man has puzzled scholars. Why did the author interrupt his description of something as important as the capture of Jesus to record an event as irrelevant as the escape of an unnamed character? I believe that I am able to answer this question and also to identify this unnamed character.