Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition (46 page)

Decius Mus’ famous self-sacrifice, which parallels Jesus’, was performed to “free the Romans from all religious fears.” To accomplish this he offered his life to both the gods of the Romans (the Quirites) and the gods of his enemies. This technique was aimed at “appeasing” the gods of Rome’s enemies and thus freeing the Romans from concerns about whether these gods would give divine assistance to their enemies. Notice that Decius also appealed to “new gods.” I suspect that Decius “Mundus” or Decius “World” would have been understood by a patrician as a pun calling to mind Decius Mus on a worldwide scale, showing the Romans’ global intentions for their new religion. This wordplay to show a larger scale for Decius Mus is emphasized by the fact that “mus” means “mouse” in Latin. If a playwright created a character named Napoleon World, it would be obvious which character in history he was lampooning. Decius was perhaps Rome’s most famous war hero and all patricians were aware of his exploits. For example, the Roman satirist Juvenal, writing during the Flavian era, waxed glowingly about the heroics of Decius Mus. Juvenal clearly understood that his audience was familiar with Decius and his
devotio,
as he refers to both without explanation.

In Josephus’ story, the author writes that Decius Mundus had a “resolution to kill himself, (for he did not conceal his intentions to destroy himself from others).” Decius Mundus is, thus, parallel to both Decius Mus and Jesus in that none of them concealed from others their intention to destroy themselves. Josephus has placed this idea in parentheses, underscoring the importance of it. This revelation makes clearer the connection between Decius Mus and Decius Mundus. A Roman patrician would have understood a character named Decius Mundus as a lampoon of Decius Mus.

It also establishes a parallel between Decius Mundus and Jesus. This parallel is clear because Jesus went out of his way to make others aware of his coming self-sacrifice.

“You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”

Matthew 26:1-2

The following passage from the Gospel of John likens Jesus’ self-sacrifice to the
devotio
of Decius Mus. Notice that Caiaphas, the priest who will later oversee Jesus’ crucifixion, states that
one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perishes not.
This is the very definition of the
devotio
. Also, Caiaphas makes clear his belief that Jesus must be sacrificed to save all “the children of God,” expressing the idea of a
devotio
on a worldwide scale.

Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, “What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

“If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.”

And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, “Ye know nothing at all,

“Nor do you consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.”

And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one, the children of God that were scattered abroad.

John 11:47-52

From the perspective of the Flavians, Jesus’ self-sacrifice is much like a
devotio
. The religion that Jesus established with his death certainly helped to neutralize the militaristic, messianic Judaism that the Flavians fought against. In fact, to the Flavians, whereas Decius Mus’ sacrifice had only helped save a Roman legion, Jesus’ sacrifice can be said to have helped to save the whole Roman world (
mundus
).

An interesting historical point to this line of thought is that while Jesus is certainly meant to be understood as the Messiah whom Daniel predicted would be “cut off,” the real meaning behind Jesus’ self-sacrifice may lie not in Judaism, as has been universally believed, but in a rite of the Roman religion, as a spoof of the
devotio
.

Whether this conjecture regarding the parodic meaning of the name Decius Mus is correct, it is the case that “Decius,” the name of Rome’s most famous self-sacrifice, is the name of the hero of the tale that directly follows the
Testimonium
, Josephus’ description of history’s most famous self-sacrifice. I will show below that Decius Mundus and Jesus share a much more profound and unique parallel.

The clearest clue Josephus provides to inform us that we are dealing with a puzzle is that both the story of Decius and Paulina and the story of Fulvia have the same plot. As I have shown, parallels within the New Testament and
Wars of the Jews
are significant. In both tales, wicked priests deceive a woman of “dignity” and in both tales the woman’s weakness for religion is exploited. Further, not only do both stories have the same plot, but they also contain a number of elements that are interchangeable. Both of these deceived women of dignity, amazingly, have husbands named Saturninus. Both these husbands named “Saturninus” just happen to know the Emperor Tiberius, to whom each husband goes to complain about what has been done to his wife. In both tales, among other punishments, Tiberius then “banishes” one or more of the perpetrators.

Josephus also provided other statements to help the reader recognize that the two stories are to be understood as parallel and therefore interchangeable. First, he reverses the order in which he states that he will describe them.

About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome.

I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs.

Further, at the beginning of the third story Josephus claims to be returning to an episode about the Jews “at Rome” as he had “formerly” stated.

I now return to the relation of what happened about this time to the Jews at Rome, as I formerly told you I would.

However, it was the “shameful practices at the temple of Isis” that Josephus previously claimed to have occurred “at Rome,” not the episode regarding the Jews. Josephus does not mention where the “sad calamity [that] put the Jews into disorder” occurred. He last mentioned the Jews in a story regarding their persecution by Pontius Pilate in Judea. Josephus appears to be treating the two stories as though they are interchangeable. In doing so he continues the strange “logic” that exists between them, since their only significant differences are in the
names
of some of the elements in them.

It is also notable that Paulina “began to come to the sense of the grossness of what she had done, and rent her garments.” The rending of garments is a well-known Jewish expression of grief and is actually required by Jewish religious law in some instances. In the Gospel of Mark, for example, when the High Priest who questions Jesus hears him refer to himself as the “Son of Man,” he rends his garments. He does this because in the Sanhedrin it states that a judge who has heard blasphemous words must do so. The Talmud recounts ten “sad accidents” for which Jews are instructed to rend their garments. Josephus also records numerous occasions in his histories where Jews rend their garments as an expression of grief. Therefore, why would Paulina, a member of the cult of Isis, be the one to rend her garments and not Fulvia, the Jew, when she has the same experience?

There is another clue, a parallel that links the
Testimonium
to the tale of Decius Mundus. It is one of the most significant parallels that I will present to the reader in this work.

The
Testimonium
describes Jesus’ resurrection, stating that he “appeared to them alive again on the third day.” Decius Mundus also appears to Paulina on the third day. There is, of course, a difference. Whereas Jesus appears
on the
third day
to show that he is a God, Decius appears
on the
third day
to announce that he is not a god.

It is implausible that something as unusual as two “third-day divinity declarations” would wind up next to one another by chance. The
Testimonium
contains the only non–New Testament first-century description of the life of Jesus. The probability that a
mirror opposite
of Jesus’ resurrection, a singular event in literature, would occur by chance in the paragraph following its only historical documentation is, I believe, too low for consideration. In fact, in all of literature these are the
only
two stories I am aware of that describe anyone coming on a “third day” to proclaim that he is or is not a god. The only rational explanation is that this mirror-opposite parallel has, for some reason, been placed next to the
Testimonium
deliberately.

Another connection between Decius and Jesus is the fact that Anubis, the god Decius pretends to be, is a god with many parallels to Christ.  Anubis, like Jesus, is a son of god, and is referred to as the “Royal Child” within the cult of Isis. According to some Egyptologists, Anubis is a god who comes back from the dead. The cult of Isis actually celebrated his death at the hands of Set and his subsequent resurrection (before Osiris took over this position). The myth of Anubis’ resurrection also contains, like that of Jesus, a strong eschatological message.

All three stories are described as occurring at “about the same time,” which links them to one another temporally. While it is hardly unusual for events to be said to occur at about the same time, Josephus links the Fulvia story to the
Testimonium
in another, more unique way. In the passage he writes:

There was a man who was a Jew, but he had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man. He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses.

There is a known individual who was a Jew and had been driven away from his own country and had had accusations laid against him for transgressing the laws of the Jews. He was also under fear of punishment for these transgressions and was known to have lived at Rome, and professed to instruct men in his understanding of the laws of Moses. The character is, of course, the Apostle Paul.

But, when the seven days were nearly over, the Jews from the province of Asia, having seen Paul in the Temple, set about rousing the fury of all the people against him. They laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help! help!

“This is the man who goes everywhere preaching to everybody against the Jewish people and the Law and this place …”

The excitement spread through the whole city, and the people rushed in … and gates were immediately closed.

But while they were trying to kill Paul, word was taken up to the Tribune in battalion, that all Jerusalem was in a ferment.

He instantly sent for a few soldiers and their officers, and came down among the people with all speed. At the sight of the Tribune and the troops they ceased beating Paul.

When Paul was going up the steps, he had to be carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob …

… “I could not discover that he had done anything for which he deserved to die; but as he has himself appealed to the Emperor, I have decided to send him to Rome.”
¹⁵⁶

That the wicked man in the Fulvia story can be seen as a lampoon of Paul seems difficult to dispute.
¹⁵⁷
Josephus links the Fulvia story to the
Testimonium
in yet another way.

These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem …

Purple was the royal color in the first century. Sending purple to the temple at Jerusalem suggests that the ruse the wicked priests use to fool Fulvia somehow involves a king, or a person of royal rank, among the Jews. Perhaps one who is religious as well as secular. Because Josephus has indicated that this event occurs at “about the same time” that Jesus lived, he would be at least a candidate for the one referred to as royal. Indeed, since the reference to purple occurs on the same page as the
Testimonium
, the only historical description of Jesus, what other “king of the Jews” can possibly come to mind?

So Jesus came out, wearing the wreath of thorns and the purple cloak.

Then they began to march up to Him, saying in a mocking voice, “Hail, King of the Jews!”

John 19:5, 3

All the “clues” above work together to suggest that some relationship exists among all three stories. For example, the
Testimonium
seems related to the Decius story because they share third-day divinity declarations. Likewise, the Fulvia story must be related to the Decius story because they share the same plot, the name of both husbands is the same, etc. The parallels and interchangeable elements within the three stories show that the author has deliberately established some relationship among them that is not apparent on the surface, some problem the reader must attempt to “solve.” In other words, the three stories are a puzzle.