Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition (41 page)

and as they intended to have
Zacharias the son of Baruch, one of the most eminent of the citizens, slain, so what provoked them against him was, that hatred of wickedness and love of liberty which were so eminent in him …

Now the seventy judges brought in their verdict that the person accused was not guilty, as choosing rather to die themselves with him, than to have his death laid at their doors;

hereupon there arose a great clamor of the zealots upon his acquittal, and they all had indignation at the judges for not understanding that the authority that was given them was but in jest.

So two of the boldest of them fell upon Zacharias in the middle of the temple, and slew him; and as he fell down dead, they bantered him, and said, “Thou hast also our verdict, and this will prove a more sure acquittal to thee than the other.” …
¹³²

As I have pointed out, Matthew 24 is a continuation of the same speech Jesus begins in Matthew 23. Jesus leaves the interior of the temple, where the dialogue of Matthew 23 occurs, and then continues this speech (Matthew 24) outside the temple. Therefore, the parallel between Zacharias, son of Barachiah, and Zacharias, son of Baruch, both slain in the temple, should be understood to be in the same stream of prophecy Jesus gives in Matthew 24, because it is from the same speech. In light of the numerous parallels in Matthew 24 and
Wars of the Jews
, we are on solid footing when we understand this to be another example of Jesus “seeing” something in the future that Josephus documents.

There is a problem with accepting that the parallel belongs in the same set as Jesus’ famous eschatological prophecies, however. The character that Jesus refers to, appeared not in his future but in his past. The prophet “Zachari’ah the son of Barachi’ah” is a character from the Old Testament, so how can Jesus be foreseeing him in the future? Further, how could Josephus then record that Jesus was right, that Zacharias’ death occurred in 70 C.E., along with the other prophecies envisioned by Jesus in Matthew 23 and 24?

I include Whiston’s fascinating comment regarding the passage from Josephus. He was aware of the parallel between the Zacharias in Josephus and the Zachari’ah in the New Testament and was troubled by its implications.

Some commentators are ready to suppose that this “Zacharias, the son of Baruch,” here most unjustly slain by the Jews in the temple, was the very same person with “Zacharias, the son of Barachias,” whom our Savior says the Jews “slew between the temple and the altar,” Matthew 23:35. This is a somewhat strange exposition; since Zechariah the prophet was really “the son of Barachiah,” and “grandson of Iddo,” Zechariah 1:1; and how he died, we have no other account than that before us in St. Matthew: while this “Zacharias” was “the son of Baruch.” Since the slaughter was past when our Savior spake these words, the Jews had then already slain him; whereas this slaughter of “Zacharias, the son of Baruch,” in Josephus, was then about thirty-four years future. And since the slaughter was “between the temple and the altar,” in the court of the priests, one of the most sacred and remote parts of the whole temple; while this was, in Josephus’ own words, in the middle of the temple, and much the most probably in the court of Israel only (for we have had no intimation that the zealots had at this time profaned the court of the priests. See B. V. ch. 1. sect. 2). Nor do I believe that our Josephus, who always insists on the peculiar sacredness of the inmost court, and of the holy house that was in it, would have omitted so material an aggravation of this barbarous murder, as perpetrated in a place so very holy, had that been the true place of it.
¹³³

Thus, Whiston attempts to explain away the troubling parallel by arguing that the slaying of Zacharias in Josephus could not be the incident that Jesus prophesied because:

1.  Zacharias the prophet died before Jesus’ birth.

2.  Barachiah and Baruch are different words.

3. The “middle of the temple” is not “between the temple and the altar”

Whiston’s first point is irrelevant. His second ignores the many slight changes in spelling between the same words in Josephus and the New Testament. For example, a type of fish from the Sea of Galilee is spelled “Coracin” in Josephus and “Chora’zin” in the New Testament. His third point, regarding the possible differences in the location of the slayings, is contradictory of his acceptance of the other parallels between the same passages in the New Testament and Josephus as evidence of Christ’s divinity.

Further, it is obvious that Jesus’ prophecy regarding “Zechari’ah the son of Barachi’ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar,”
¹³⁴
would have been understood by an uneducated first-century convert to Christianity as having come to pass by the passage in Josephus that states, “so two of the boldest of them fell upon Zacharias (the son of Baruch) in the middle of the temple, and slew him.”

Josephus and the New Testament consistently avoid verbatim parallels by one degree. In Chapter 13, I will discuss that Jesus speaks of the “abomination of desolation,” while Josephus refers to the “end of the daily sacrifice.” In fact, both expressions refer to the same thing. Someone to whom the two works would be read would then make the connection between the “different” terms and thereby come to the conclusion that Jesus had been able to see into the future. By means of this name-switching technique, the authors of the New Testament and Josephus wittily hide the fact from the uneducated masses for which Christianity was invented, that the same source created both works. As I have shown above, Simon becomes Peter, John becomes “the disciple Jesus loved,” etc.

The two passages above regarding Zacharias use this technique. Jesus uses the expression “between the sanctuary and the altar,” while Josephus uses the expression “middle of the temple.” Jesus speaks of “Zechari’ah the son of Barachi’ah.”
Josephus refers to
“Zacharias the son of Baruch.” Different words again express the same concept.

Since Jesus’ eschatological prophecies all came to pass in the same chapter from
Wars of the Jews
, is it not more logical to presume that the Zacharias stories are another example of this set of fulfilled prophecies?

However, pursuing this line of thought was impossible for Whiston.
¹³⁵
To do so, he would have had to accept that both Jesus and Josephus were in error because they each “saw” something that could not have happened in 70 C.E. To Whiston, Jesus could not err, by definition, because he was God. Likewise, to Whiston, as to so many Christian scholars, Josephus could not be mistaken because his history records God’s handiwork.

This is a demonstration of the power of the combination of the two works. The belief that they came from two distinct sources creates the effect that they demonstrate the supernatural, which is to say, Jesus’ power of prophecy. The New Testament reveals the true “Son of God” because Christ’s predictions come true. A “historian” records them. Josephus’ histories must be accurate because they record the works of God. Jesus predicts the events that Josephus witnesses.

Whiston’s intellect is powerless to analyze what is right in front of him because of the divinity that the two works “demonstrate.” If someone had suggested to Whiston that the Zacharias story in Josephus and Christ’s prediction regarding Zacharias in the New Testament combine to form a sardonic joke, he would not and could not have understood such humor.

Of course, the passages would have been wickedly funny to an intellectual at the Flavian court—one who was familiar with the Old Testament and therefore understood the humor between the two passages. Jesus, in the midst of a series of predictions, describes something that has already occurred. Josephus then “records” it coming to pass, a second time, in the future. An absurd spoof, comparable with the woe-saying Jesus being struck dead by a stone. Imagine someone today who, claiming to be able to see the future, gives a list of events that will happen in the coming century. At the end of the list, he predicts that Germany will lose World War II. The comedy is ludicrous.

There are several points. First, the most straightforward, nonsupernatural explanation is that the same source produced both the Zechari’ah, son of Barachi’ah, passage in the New Testament, and the Zacharias, son of Baruch, passage in Josephus. This is because it is unlikely that two distinct authors would have both written such a close parallel by accident.

Further, the passages work together to create a derisively humorous piece, another example of the New Testament and
Wars of the Jews
producing a satiric effect when read together.

The New Testament passage regarding Zacharias is also notable in that it gives a point in time when “these things shall come upon this generation.” In other words, Jesus is predicting exactly when the tribulation of the “wicked generation” shall occur—that is, directly following their killing of Zacharias.  David Brown wrote in 1858:

Does not this tell us plainly as words could do it, that the whole prophecy was meant to apply to the destruction of Jerusalem? There is but one way of setting this aside, but how forced it is, must, I think, appear to every unbiased mind. It is by translating, not “this generation,” … but “this nation shall not pass away”: in other words, the Jewish nation shall survive all the things here predicted! Nothing but some fancied necessity, arising out of their view of the prophecy, could have led so many sensible men to put this gloss upon our Lord’s words. Only try the effect of it upon the perfectly parallel announcement in the previous chapter: “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers … Wherefore, behold, I send you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city … that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation” … (Matt. xxiii. 32, 34–36). Does not the Lord here mean the then existing generation of the Israelites? Beyond all question he does; and if so, what can be plainer than that this is his meaning in the passage before us?
¹³⁶

Brown is arguing that the context of Jesus’ use of the word “generation” in the Zacharias passage, proves that Jesus is referring to the events of 70 C.E. I could not agree more. When Jesus states that the Jews have been wicked “from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias,” and that this generation will “fill up” on the measure of their fathers, a first-century convert to Christianity would have understood that he was “predicting” the Jews’ destruction in 70 C.E. Indeed, what other interpretation of Jesus’ words is possible?

In addition, by giving “the blood of Zacharias” as the end point of the Jews’ wickedness, Jesus is also clearly stating that it will be an event immediately before the “wicked generation” will “fill up” on their “tribulation.” Jesus is clearly predicting that Zacharias’ blood will be spilled immediately before the Jews’ destruction by the Romans.

This temporal parallel, that both Jesus and Josephus “saw” Zacharias as being killed by the “wicked generation” immediately before the destruction of the temple, is of great importance. By each placing the destruction of Zachariah immediately before the destruction of the temple, the authors of the New Testament and
Wars of the Jews
create another of their “milestones,” conceptually parallel events that occur in the same sequence.

The final “fulfilled prophecy” I want to analyze from Jesus’ doomsday speech in Matthew, is the one that he makes regarding a “stone” that will crush. In the passage, Jesus also predicts that another nation, obviously Rome, will be given the “Kingdom of God.”

“Have you never read in the Scriptures,” said Jesus, “The Stone which the builders rejected has been made the Cornerstone: this Cornerstone came from the Lord, and is wonderful in our eyes?

That, I tell you, is the reason why the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to a nation that will exhibit the power of it.

He who falls on this stone will be severely hurt; but he on whom it falls will be utterly crushed.”

Matt. 21:42-44

In the Whiston translation of
Wars of the Jews,
published by J. M. Dent in 1915, I found the following extraordinary pun regarding the “stone” that “crushed.”

First is the passage as I originally read it (in a more recent translation). This is the translation given in most modern English versions of Josephus:

… The engines, that all the legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also.

Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space.

As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of a white color, and could therefore not only be perceived by the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its brightness;