Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition (47 page)

Once the three stories are seen as a puzzle the solution becomes obvious. Josephus actually has Decius Mundus state the solution to the puzzle within the lampoon:

… value not the business of names …

Decius did not value “the business of names” and took the name of Anubis. To solve the puzzle of Decius, the reader need only do the same.

To solve the puzzle, the reader must simply switch the names of the characters and religions that Josephus has identified as parallel, so that while the stories will be the same, the names of the characters will be different. This technique is used throughout the New Testament and
Wars of the Jews
. The name of a character in one story is given to a character in another, parallel tale.

In the story of Decius Mundus simply switch the name of the character Paulina, who is a member of Cult of Isis, with Fulvia from the third story, who is a member of the Jewish religion. Notice that Josephus has actually shown us that these two characters are interchangeable. Both women have an experience with wicked priests; both have husbands with the same name; both husbands appeal to Tiberius; and both women share the quality of dignity.

Josephus has also indicated that the cult of Isis and the Jewish religion are interchangeable by deliberately reversing which story he tells first and which religion was “at Rome.”

The reader can now replace the name of the character “Decius Mundus” with “Christ” from the first story, the
Testimonium
. Again, Josephus has shown that the names are interchangeable by the parallel attributes of these two characters. They both claim to be gods, they both make revelations regarding their divinity
on the third day
; and they both have made public resolutions to sacrifice themselves.

The new Decius Mundus story, created by switching the names of the characters and religions Josephus has identified as interchangeable, can be summarized as follows:

Decius Mundus, a Roman, is desirous of Fulvia, a Jew of dignity, whom he cannot seduce with money. Learning that her weakness is her religion, he pays wicked priests to convince her that he is the Christ, so that he can “screw” her. On the third day, he reappears to tell her he is not really the Messiah but received pleasure by pretending to be a god. The Jews are then banished and their temple destroyed.

While this new story is still a satire, it is one whose meaning can easily be grasped. The translation that I offer is as follows:

Rome desires Judea but cannot tempt it with wealth because of the staunch religious convictions of its people. Therefore, a Roman fools the Jewish Zealots into believing that he is the Christ. He pays wicked priests to help him carry out the plot. The authors of Christianity “enjoy” the experience of pretending to be the Messiah.

The unnamed Jew in the final tale who “professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses” is identified as Paul in the parallel description in Acts 21 & 25 given above. Josephus also assists the reader with this identification by beginning the parallel stories with descriptions of the genders of “Paulina” and the “Jew at Rome.” Once the reader knows that the stories are designed to have interchangeable elements, it is not difficult to see that by switching their genders Paulina can become Paul, which completely clarifies the identity of the “Jew at Rome.”

The story created by solving the puzzle reveals how Caesar fooled the Jews into calling him “Lord” without their knowing it by simply switching his name to Jesus—the great secret of Christianity. It also reveals the keys to understanding the satiric story within the New Testament—a character may take on another name, stories that share parallels can be combined to create another story, and an unnamed character in one passage will have the same name as a character in a parallel passage.

While the puzzle is simple, the technical idea behind it is ingenious. The story that emerges when the reader reverses the interchangeable characters and religions can be read literally as the historical event Josephus recorded. Thus, Josephus, as he reminds the reader so often, has written the “truth.”

The new Decius Mundus story created by switching the names found in the three tales fits naturally into the history Josephus is relating. It connects to the passages before it, that have to do with the Jews’ reaction to Caesar’s effigies in Jerusalem, and the Roman effort to buy favor with the Jews. The stories that it replaces do not connect to the passages before them, are incoherent, and have a sense of fantasy. Josephus has, as he reminded us so often, written the truth—the truth was just contained in a puzzle.

The puzzle’s main purpose was to show the method by which the true identities of the characters in the New Testament and
Wars of the Jews
can be known, which is simply to combine the stories that contain parallels. This technique reveals the identities of the “certain young man” captured on the Mount of Olives, Mary’s unnamed son whose flesh was eaten, the Apostles Simon and John and, ultimately, Jesus himself. Also notice that Decius’ seduction of Paulina occurs “in the dark,” like Mary Magdalene’s mistaking Lazarus’ tomb for that of Jesus, described previously.

The
Testimonium
is found in
Antiquities of the Jews
, Josephus’ second work of history, which he purportedly wrote during the reign of Titus’ brother Domitian. If Christianity was created by the Flavians so that Caesar could secretly become the Messiah, then Domitian could have seen himself as “Jesus” once he became emperor, following Titus’ death. Domitian’s obsession with his divinity was well known. He demanded, for example, to be addressed by members of the Roman senate as “Master and god.” Thus, Domitian, while overseeing the production of
Antiquities of the Jews,
may have been the basis for the character Decius Mundus.

This conjecture is supported by an interesting parallel between episodes in the life of Domitian and the tale of Decius Mundus. The Flavians overthrew Vitellius, the last of the Julio-Claudian emperors, with a battle that took place in Rome in 69 C.E. During the battle Domitian became trapped behind enemy lines. To escape, he donned a mask of Anubis, exactly as Decius Mundus does, and pretended to be a priest of Isis.

Also of interest is the passage from the Decius Mundus story regarding the character named “Ide.”

…as well as Ide, who was the occasion of their perdition…

The ancient Roman calendar celebrated the Ides of the month on the fifteenth of March, May, July, and October. In the other months the Ides occur on the thirteenth. Nisan, which actually overlaps March and April, is usually translated as April. Josephus dates the Passover to the fourteenth of Nisan.

As now the war abroad ceased for a while, the sedition within was revived;

and on the feast of unleavened bread, which was now come, it being the fourteenth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan], when it is believed the Jews were first freed from the Egyptians …
¹⁵⁸

I suggest that the phrase “the
occasion
of their perdition” is wordplay referring to the Ides of Nisan, the date of Jesus’ crucifixion as recorded in the Gospel of John, which is the Gospel Josephus uses to link dates from his history to the crucifixion—the date of the “perdition.”

In any event, my interpretation of the three stories resolves many longstanding questions about how they relate to one another. This theory resolves all the many elements within the three stories that have struck scholars as mysterious. Further, this interpretation resolves the longstanding debate over how the three stories relate to the passages that are immediately before and after them.

The first sentence in the story of Decius Mundus states that “another sad calamity threw the Jews into disorder.” “Disorder” in Greek
(thorubeo)
also appears in the first two passages in the chapter, which immediately precede the
Testimonium
. By starting with a reference to “another disorder,” the story of Decius Mundus seems to ignore the
Testimonium.
This fact has led some scholars to suspect that the
Testimonium
was therefore inserted into
Antiquities
by later Christian redactors.

G. A. Wells in
The Jesus Myth
argues this point in the following way:

The word (disorder) connects this introduction of 4 (the tale of Decius Mundus), with the “uproars” specified in 1 and 2. Thus 3—the passage about Jesus—occurs in a context which deals with uproar bringing danger or misfortune to the Jews. That 4 follows immediately after 2 is obvious from the opening words of 4—“Another calamity.” There is no possible reference to 3.

Wells’ argument is only one of the various ways in which scholars have tried to explain the strange positioning of the
Testimonium
. In this case, Wells suggests two reasons for suspecting that the
Testimonium
was inserted by later Christian redactors between the Decius story and the preceding passage regarding Pilate. His first argument is that since the word “disorder” occurs in passages one and two and is not found in the third passage of the chapter, the
Testimonium
, but reappears in passage four, this suggests that four should come after two. Wells also argues that since the expression “another calamity,” which begins passage four, cannot be referring to the
Testimonium
, it must originally have followed the second passage, which in fact, describes a calamity.

Many scholars have noticed this apparent lack of continuity between the
Testimonium
and the chapter that contains it. H. St. John Thackeray in his 1929 work on Josephus argues, like Wells, that the lack of continuity on the subject of “disorder” suggests to him that redactors, to make history conform to their faith, created and inserted the
Testimonium
. Thackeray concludes that the argument that the
Testimonium
may have been inserted by redactors “carries great weight.”

Scholars like Thackeray and Wells have mistakenly seen a lack of continuity between the
Testimonium
and the two stories that follow it and the rest of Josephus’ history, simply because they have failed to recognize that the three stories could only have been created in direct relationship to one another and are not independent tales.

To argue that the
Testimonium
was inserted into
Jewish Antiquities
by later Christian redactors who placed it by chance between the stories about Pilate’s “disorders” and the tale of Decius Mundus is illogical. This is because such an argument is based solely upon the perceived gap in continuity on the subject of “disorders” and ignores the continuity created by the parallel “third-day” appearances of Jesus and Decius. Since riots were common in the works of Josephus and third-day declarations regarding divinity are unique in literature, this parallel is clearly more important. It connects the
Testimonium
to the story of Decius in a far stronger manner than the lack of the word “disorder” in the
Testimonium
suggests a disconnect.

Therefore, all three stories
must have been created together
. This small chain of logic has far-reaching consequences because it also demonstrates a purpose for their joint creation. If one accepts that they are a related set created for some purpose, this interpretation seems the only one possible.

It is useful to list the problematic or seemingly incoherent aspects of the three stories that this interpretation resolves, to show how much explanatory power it possesses.

The first resolution to a “problem” I want to show, is the unnatural manner in which the
Testimonium
and its two following tales fit into the narration of Josephus’ history, the problem of a gap in continuity that Wells and Thackeray noted above. To clarify for the reader the nature of this discontinuity, I present the following sequence:

18:35  Pilate arrives in Judea to abolish Jewish laws

18:55–59  Pilate introduces imperial images in the temple, causing a “tumult”

18:60–62  Pilate tries to build an aqueduct, causing another “tumult”

18:63–64  The
Testimonium
appears

18:65–80  The Decius Mundus story appears

18:81–84  The Fulvia story appears

18:85–87  Pilate has a confrontation with the Samaritans

18:88–89  Pilate is removed as procurator

When the sequence of events is viewed in this manner, it is easy to see why scholars like Wells and Thackeray have questioned whether later redactors inserted the
Testimonium
. The historical narration both before and after the
Testimonium
is exclusively about Pilate. Notice, however, that the Decius and Fulvia stories also stand out. None of the stories in this “set” discusses Roman activity in Judea, the theme of the surrounding passages. The interpretation of the “puzzle” I present resolves this lack of continuity in Josephus’ narration. Further, the satire revealed by this solution fits perfectly into the flow of the narration.

This interpretation also resolves the apparently inappropriate opening words of the Decius story, “Another calamity.” As mentioned above, many scholars have believed that this phrase could not possibly relate to the
Testimonium
and Jesus. However, within the context of my explanation, the positioning of the phrase makes perfect, though ironic, sense. The Romans invented Christianity for the express purpose of bringing a calamity on the Jews and throwing them into disorder. Readers will recall how in the “Son of Mary” passage, Mary uses the word “calamity” to describe the effect that her son, becoming a “by-word to the world,” will have upon the Jews.