Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition (33 page)

Furthermore, the authors have deliberately made it possible to compute the probability that the perfect fit between the sequence of events within the Gospel of John and the other three Gospels has occurred by chance. This can be done by use of what I refer to as the “chain of multiplication,” which the Romans, being avid gamblers, would have known to use in calculating their odds. The chain of multiplication is, in fact, the method used, for example, to ensure that slot machines are profitable for their owners. If a slot machine pays a 1,000-to-one payoff for displaying five cherries in a row, the likelihood of this occurring must be less than 1,000 to one for the machine to be profitable. To create the impression that five sequential cherries is “likely,” such machines will often have the desired symbol occur in individual slots relatively often, say once in every three pulls. However, one slot will display the symbol rarely, say once in 100 pulls. Thus, the chain of multiplication to determine such a machine’s chances of displaying five cherries would be 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 100, which would give the gambler one chance in 9,100 of hitting the 1,000-to-one jackpot.

If four distinct authors have each created different versions of the first visit to the tomb, then each author has accidentally recorded different facts. For example, in the Gospel of John the author records that the first visit occurs in the dark. Whereas in Luke the author records that the sun has risen before Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb. However, for the combined story to have its perfect logical and temporal sequence, the author of the Gospel of John can only select the position of the sun that indicates that his version begins earliest, which he has only one chance in four of doing. Likewise, each of the authors of the other three Gospels has only one chance in four of accidentally describing his “first visit” as occurring at the next point within the sequence. Thus, the odds of four distinct authors accidentally describing their versions beginning with John’s, then Matthew’s, followed by Mark’s, and finally Luke’s are 4 X 4 X 4 X 4, or one chance in 256.

Notice that this sequence is not accounted for by the four authors all reflecting a shared tradition, since the sequence is created by the
differences
among the four versions, not their similarities. A shared tradition would, if anything, make it less likely that the four authors would each give a
different
time for the first visit. A shared tradition is likewise implausible as an explanation for the logical relationship between any of the elements within the sequence, since the logical fit is created by the
different
facts that the four Gospels use to describe the first visit. Combining their contradictory statements of fact creates the perfect logical fit between the events in the Gospel of John and the other three Gospels; therefore, their relationship cannot be explained away by suggesting that the four different authors might have shared a common source.

Bear in mind that if even
one fact in the four versions were different from what it is, this would destroy the logical sequence between the Gospel of John and the other three Gospels. For example, if the author of Matthew, the Gospel whose position of the sun indicates that its visitors have come directly after John’s, had recorded that the first visitors encountered not one but two angels, then the combined story would become contradictory. This is because this description would then not match the one in John, which states that one disciple arrived first. Therefore, the probability that the author of Matthew accidentally records that the first visitors encounter only one angel and not, as found within the other Gospels, zero or two, is one chance in three. And that probability becomes an element in a “chain of multiplication” for the entire sequence of events.

The following are the statements of fact that four distinct authors would have to accidentally record to produce the perfect sequence of events between the Gospel of John and the other three Gospels. I have included the lowest
odds of each event being recorded by a particular author—for example, events four and five below, where the author of John mentions that the disciple looked into the empty tomb but did not go into it. It can be argued that the odds of this irrelevant detail even being mentioned at this point are far higher than one chance in two. Nevertheless, I give only the binary possibility, that is, the author could either record that the disciple did or did not look in.

1) The sun must indicate that “Mary” comes first to the tomb in the version given in the Gospel of John. One chance in four.

2) Mary must encounter no angels during her first visit to the tomb in the Gospel of John. One chance in three.

3) The other disciple must reach the tomb first, not Peter. One chance in two.

4) The other disciple must not go in. One chance in two.

5) The disciple must look in. One chance in two.

6) Simon Peter, not Peter or the other disciple, must be the one who arrives second at the tomb. One chance in three.

7) He must go in alone. One chance in two.

8) The other disciple must go into the tomb after Simon Peter. One chance in two.

9) The sun must indicate that “Mary” comes to the tomb second in the version given in the Gospel of Matthew. One chance in four.

10) The group described in Matthew must encounter one angel. One chance in three.

11) The angel in Matthew must be outside the tomb. One chance in two.

12) The sun must indicate that “Mary” comes to the tomb next in the version given in the Gospel of Mark. One chance in four.

13) The group from Matthew must encounter one angel. One chance in three.

14) The group from Matthew must encounter the angel inside the tomb. One chance in two.

15) The sun must indicate that “Mary” comes to the tomb last in the version given in the Gospel of Luke. One chance in four.

16) The group described in Luke must discover the angels inside the tomb. One chance in two.

17) This group must encounter two angels. One chance in three.

18) The angel must request that “Peter” not “Simon Peter,” be told. One chance in two.

19) The “Mary” who stands outside weeping in John must encounter two “angels,” because the plural is used in Luke to describe “those” who go to the tomb. One chance in two.

20) The angels Mary sees must be inside the tomb, because those who go to the tomb in Luke are described as not seeing Jesus. One chance in two.

21) Mary must encounter Jesus outside the tomb. One chance in two.

Thus, the chain of multiplication to determine the probability that four distinct authors could record these exact facts by chance would be:

4 x 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 2 x 2 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 4 x 2 x 3 x 2

which equals one chance in 254,803,968.

This demonstrates that four distinct authors did not create the combined story by chance and that it was, therefore, intentionally created. This proof is just as conclusive as, for example, the DNA probabilities that are used in our day and age to match the blood left at a crime scene with that of a suspect. In fact, DNA probabilities are determined using an approach similar to the one above.

My theory is also solid in the sense that it is so easily
disprovable
. In other words, specialists in probability can easily demonstrate any errors in my premises or conclusion. In fact, any curious reader can simply retrace my steps and come to an independent judgment.

If the combined version of the four stories has not been obvious to scholars before, it is because the contradictions within the four passages are designed to hide the combined version. These contradictions must be resolved before one can easily see the satiric version that the four passages create. The authors were, in effect, demanding that the reader be logical before being permitted to see the truth.

Other than the contradiction involving “Simon Peter” and “Peter” mentioned above, all the apparent contradictions between the four different versions of the first visit to Jesus’ tomb involve a character named Mary Magdalene. Within the four versions of the story she is said to arrive at the tomb at four different times and with different people, to have touched and not touched Jesus, and to have told and not told the disciples that the tomb was empty—all logical impossibilities.

However, if the female characters in the four versions of the visit to the tomb were not all named Mary Magdalene, but were each given a different name, say, Mary, Ruth, Ester, and Elizabeth, then these contradictions would not exist and the satiric relationship between the version in John, where the two disciples race to the tomb, and the other versions, where the visitors encounter “angels,” would have become visible. In fact, as readers can ascertain for themselves, the comic version would become all too apparent and Christianity might not be a worldwide religion today. Thus, Christianity’s very viability can be said to depend on the notion that all the characters named “Mary Magdalene” in the New Testament are the same individual.

However, it is not possible that all the “Mary Magdalenes” in the four Gospels are the same person. The authors create two methods that enable any logical reader to determine this. First, as noted above, it is physically impossible for a single “Mary Magdalene” to do every- thing ascribed to her in the four stories. Mary Magdalene cannot “first” visit the tomb at different times. She cannot both be telling Simon Peter that the tomb has had its stone rolled away and at the same time be coming with spices to anoint Jesus. Also, each of the first visits she makes to the tomb is with different individuals, another physical impossibility.

Further, the Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of Mark, who is told to tell “Peter” that Jesus has risen, is said to have told no one. However, the Mary Magdalenes in Luke and Mark do tell the disciples that he has risen; therefore, logically, neither can be the “Mary Magdalene” in Mark. Likewise, the Mary Magdalene in John cannot be the Mary Magdalene in Matthew, because the Mary in John is not permitted to touch Jesus whereas in Matthew she is described as clinging to his feet. Therefore, a rational reader must conclude that each Mary Magdalene is a distinct character.
¹¹⁴

The illogical reader—that is, the one who takes the New Testament “seriously” and therefore sees Jesus as divine—must accept the contradictions that the four versions of the first visit to Jesus’ tomb create. Such a reader accepts that Mary Magdalene first visits the tomb at different times and with different people, that she both touches and does not touch Jesus, and that she both tells and does not tell the disciples that Jesus has arisen. The authors of the Gospels may have believed that such a reader deserves, and perhaps even needs, “Jesus.”

For the logical reader, who understands that each “Mary Magdalene”
must
be a separate character, these contradictions are resolved. The contradictions regarding the time of the first visit, the different number of people in the group that visits the tomb “first,” as well as how many “angels” the different groups find near the tomb, are all resolved by this single insight. As are the contradictions of Mary Magdalene’s touching and not touching Jesus, and her telling and not telling the disciples that Jesus has risen. This single insight allows the truth, that is, the combined version, to be seen.

Moreover, “Mary Magdalene,” like “Jesus Christ,” can also be seen as a title, not just a name. Mary Magdalene means simply Mary from Magdala, a town in Galilee. From the Roman perspective, any rebellious female—that is, any “Mary”—from Magdala would be a Mary Magdalene.

The point that the authors wish the logical reader to understand here, is simply that the same name can be given to more than one person. The authors of the New Testament constructed the puzzle of the empty tomb in such a way that its solution, the realization that more than one character is being referred to by the same name, is also the solution to understanding the New Testament itself. There can be more than one Mary Magdalene, and, therefore, there can be more than one Jesus.

The notion that the New Testament is referring to more than one individual as “Jesus,” while seemingly far-fetched, is actually the only way to resolve the contradictory facts within it. In fact, as with “Mary Magdalene”, the authors made it logically impossible for the “Jesuses” described in the four Gospels to have been the same person. And, as I have shown, logic, memory, and humor are the prerequisites the authors of the New Testament require of a reader to understand its truth. One way in which the New Testament reveals that there is more than one “Jesus” is the different genealogies for the Jesuses in Matthew and Luke. Since there is nothing inadvertent within the New Testament, two distinct genealogies would indicate, of course, two distinct individuals.

Likewise, the Jesus who is crucified in the Gospel of John could not be the Jesus who is crucified in any of the Synoptic Gospels, because he is crucified on the day before Passover, whereas all the other Jesuses are crucified on Passover itself. Also, each of the Jesuses in the four Gospels has a group of disciples with slightly different names. And, of course, nowhere in the Gospels is there a physical description of Jesus.

One of the reasons that the satiric element of the many Jesuses was not noticed previously is that early in Christian history a redactor made an editorial change to the name of the New Testament character known today as Barabbas. Barabbas is a composite word made up from the Hebrew
bar
(son) and
abba
(father), which is to say “son of the Father.” While the character is known today simply as Barabbas, this was not his name in the version of the New Testament which early church scholars were familiar with. We know from Origen (c. 250 C.E.) and others
¹¹⁵
that the versions of the New Testament they were familiar with, referred to this character not as Barabbas but as Jesus Barabbas.

Origen wrote concerning his dismay over the fact that the name of the criminal, whom Jesus was imprisoned with, was “Jesus Barabbas,” that is Jesus, the son of the Father. Although he did not recognize the name as satirical, he sensed intuitively that there was something wrong with Jesus’ cellmate having a name so similar to his own. This concern was evidently shared by later church officials, because all the earliest extant copies of the New Testament (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus) refer to this character only as Barabbas. However, based on modern scholarship, both the New English Bible and the Scholar’s Version
¹¹⁶
have decided to give Jesus Barabbas as the name of this character in their translations.