Josephus, Pilate and Paul: It’s Just a Matter of Time (Part 4)

Who Was Pilate?

According to Philo, Pilate was a nasty piece of work. Josephus agrees more or less, but tends to try to humanize him. The
following are two parallel passages about Pilate from Josephus:
Wars 2.9.2–4 (169–77) Antiquities 18.3.1–2 (55–62)
Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into
Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images
of Caesar that are called ensigns into
Jerusalem. This excited a very great tumult
among the Jews when it was day; for those
that were near them were astonished at the
But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea,
removed the army from Caesarea to
Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters
there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So
he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were
upon the ensigns, and brought them into the
sight of them, as indications that their laws
were trodden under foot; for those laws do
not permit any sort of image to be brought
into the city. Nay, besides the indignation
which the citizens had themselves at this
procedure, a vast number of people came
running out of the country. These came
zealously to Pilate to Caesarea, and besought
him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem,
and to preserve them their ancient laws
inviolable; but upon Pilate's denial of their
request, they fell down prostrate upon the
ground, and continued immovable in that
posture for five days and as many nights.
On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in
the open market-place, and called to him the
multitude, as desirous to give them an
answer; and then gave a signal to the soldiers,
that they should all by agreement at once
encompass the Jews with their weapons; so
the band of soldiers stood round about the
Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the
utmost consternation at that unexpected
sight. Pilate also said to them that they
should be cut in pieces, unless they would
admit of Caesar's images, and gave
intimation to the soldiers to draw their
naked swords. Hereupon the Jews, as it were
at one signal, fell down in vast numbers
together, and exposed their necks bare, and
cried out that they were sooner ready to be
slain, than that their law should be
transgressed. Hereupon Pilate was greatly
surprised at their prodigious superstition,
and gave order that the ensigns should be
presently carried out of Jerusalem.
After this he raised another disturbance, by
expending that sacred treasure which is
called Corban upon aqueducts, whereby he
brought water from the distance of four
hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had
indignation; and when Pilate was come to
Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and
made a clamor at it. Now when he was
apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he
mixed his own soldiers in their armor with
city; whereas our law forbids us the very
making of images; on which account the
former procurators were wont to make their
entry into the city with such ensigns as had
not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who
brought those images to Jerusalem, and set
them up there; which was done without the
knowledge of the people, because it was
done in the night time; but as soon as they
knew it, they came in multitudes to Caesarea,
and interceded with Pilate many days that he
would remove the images; and when he
would not grant their requests, because it
would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet
they persevered in their request, on the sixth
day he ordered his soldiers to have their
weapons privately, while he came and sat
upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so
prepared in the open place of the city, that it
concealed the army that lay ready to oppress
them; and when the Jews petitioned him
again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to
encompass them routed, and threatened
that their punishment should be no less than
immediate death, unless they would leave off
disturbing him, and go their ways home. But
they threw themselves upon the ground, and
laid their necks bare, and said they would
take their death very willingly, rather than
the wisdom of their laws should be
transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply
affected with their firm resolution to keep
their laws inviolable, and presently
commanded the images to be carried back
from Jerusalem to Caesarea.
But Pilate undertook to bring a current of
water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred
money, and derived the origin of the stream
from the distance of two hundred furlongs.
However, the Jews were not pleased with
what had been done about this water; and
many ten thousands of the people got
together, and made a clamor against him, and
insisted that he should leave off that design.
Some of them also used reproaches, and
abused the man, as crowds of such people
usually do. So he habited a great number of
the multitude, and ordered them to conceal
themselves under the habits of private men,
and not indeed to use their swords, but with
their staves to beat those that made the
clamor. He then gave the signal from his
tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now
the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of
them perished by the stripes they received,
and many of them perished as trodden to
death by themselves; by which means the
multitude was astonished at the calamity of
those that were slain, and held their peace.
his soldiers in their habit, who carried
daggers under their garments, and sent them
to a place where they might surround them.
So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they
boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave
the soldiers that signal which had been
beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them
much greater blows than Pilate had
commanded them, and equally punished
those that were tumultuous, and those that
were not; nor did they spare them in the
least: and since the people were unarmed,
and were caught by men prepared for what
they were about, there were a great number
of them slain by this means, and others of
them ran away wounded. And thus an end
was put to this sedition.
You can see how the tale grows in the telling. That is definitely not Philo’s version of the story![312] Notice also the repeating
theme of building aqueducts or transporting water in some way, which was a significant feature of the Archelaus tale, a
mystery which may be solved by considering that Salome, the sister of king Herod, owned “a great plantation of palm trees,
and their fruit is excellent in its kind.”
[NOTE: Explain how it solves the mystery. Are you saying that Josephus used an element of Salome’s life to create one for
Archelaus?]
Now, notice again, in the above passage from Wars, there is no mention of prior prefects or procurators of Judea other than
Coponius, back in Chapter 8 (117), the mention of whom precedes the discussion of the four philosophies, as in Antiquities. I
would argue that all of these things taken together strongly indicate that Tiberius sent Pilate immediately upon his taking
over the government, i.e. in 14/15 AD. And, as Philo wrote, his governorship was a disaster and Tiberius was the one who
had to order him to remove the shields – not ensigns with images – to Caesarea.
The "Pilate Stone" confirms that Pilate was there as prefect. Tacitus’ mention is little help, because it is later hearsay.[313]
Philo’s discussion of Pilate really sheds no light on the chronology either, because it is retrospective and undatable. Plus,
Josephus thinks that army standards were involved while Philo says gilded shields with inscriptions. The most famous Roman
infantry standard was the eagle. So we have a sort of hybrid: golden eagles? One wonders if the “Golden Eagle Temple
cleansing”, followed by the execution of Judas the Galilean actually belongs to the time of Pilate, and the reason for the
massive rebellion following the death of Herod was simply that Simon of Peraea declared himself king.
[NOTE: Price comments: “Somebody’s going to charge you with rewriting the history to serve a theory/agenda rather in the
manner you are suggesting Josephus did.” Maybe you could devote a bit of time in the intro to your method? Maybe add
something along the lines of: Yeah, history is in such a state that we will probably never know the full truth about many
events with absolute certainty. Maybe historians should stick to “just the facts”. But that won’t get us any closer to the truth
if the facts are insufficient for telling us what really happened. If we want to get there, we need some speculation, like a
detective coming up with plausible stories that can account for the facts we DO have.]
The Testimonium Flavianum
The Testimonium Flavianum (TF), Josephus’ infamous mention of Jesus Christ, comes after his description of the Pilate
sedition, which he says was solved because Pilate was awed by either the Jews’ superstitions or their courage – and not
because Tiberius came down on him and ordered him to make things right – and before the Samaritan debacle that Josephus
claims resulted in Pilate being “sent down”, so to say. There’s been enough ink spilled on this one to float an aircraft carrier
and frankly, if people can’t see how completely it disrupts the text and how totally out of character it is for Josephus, in any
version, I just don’t know what to say. Here it is.
Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher
of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the]
Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at
the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten
thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.[314]
I’m not going to discuss the various interpretations about what may or may not be interpolated, or the numerous
reconstructions that have been attempted; the general scholarly opinion is that it is not authentic. Even then, many argue that
there was something there originally which formed a nucleus that was later subjected to Christian editorial modification. I can
agree with that, I just don’t think it was what the Christian scholars wish to make of it, nor can I even consider any of their
reconstructions as possibly realistic. We need to keep constantly in mind that Josephus, himself, by his own admission, was a
member of the rebel priesthood that initiated the Great Rebellion and he has what could be said to be a “life or death” interest
in modifying anything that might create a consistently understandable history about what was going on in Judea from the
time of the death of Herod the Great until the destruction of Jerusalem. Do not forget this. Messianic claimants were robbers,
thieves, brigands, tyrants, and every other derogatory term Josephus could come up with.
We also need to keep in mind that there are no manuscripts of Josephus that can be dated before the 11th century. It seems
obvious that, since all surviving manuscripts have been preserved by monastic scribes who hand-copied them, there are many
deliberate and accidental modifications. Thus, even though there is no doubt among scholars that most (but not all[315]) of
the later copies of the Antiquities contained references to Jesus, James, and John the Baptist, it cannot be proven that these
passages were original to Josephus.
Historian Robert Eisler exerted a great deal of energy to reconstruct the TF using a Slavonic version of Josephus’ Wars, which
apparently included the TF as an interpolation, which is odd, as this passage is from Antiquities. This text is now universally
considered to have been a production of an 11th-century ideological struggle against the Khazars. A 10th-century Arabic
translation was discovered in 1971, and a 12th-century Syriac version by Michael the Syrian, but both of them include versions
of the TF and have only added to the process described by Donald Redford that I quoted earlier. Nevertheless, we ought not
to be tossing the tub out with the baby and the bathwater. Some early interpolations might very well indicate at least the
stages of development of wrong ideas!
Also, we have to keep in mind that during the first two centuries when the passage is claimed to have existed, not a single
Christian commentator or apologist ever refered to it! If Josephus had said anything about a messiah, every one of the overly
prolific writers such as Justin (mid-2nd century), Irenaeus and Theophilus of Antioch (late 2nd century), Tertullian and Clement
of Alexandria (turn of 3rd century), Origen and Hippolytus (early 3rd century), Cyprian (mid-3rd century) Lactantius and
Arnobius (late 3rd century) would have been all over it! And, if Josephus had written something hostile about Jesus, you can
bet they would have been flaming and rebutting him. Keep in mind that Origen cited Josephus eleven times in different
works! We know that Origen had read Antiquities because in Contra Celsum (1.47) he summarizes what Josephus said about
John the Baptist in Antiquities 18.5.2 (116–9). However, he notes that Josephus did not recognize Jesus as “the Christ” when
mentioning him.
Earl Doherty mentions another interesting reference:
Frank Zindler[316] has called attention to another Christian commentator who, though versed in Josephus’ writings and employing
them in his homilies, nevertheless makes no reference to any version of the Testimonium: St. John Chrysostom, who wrote late in the
4th century. In Homily 76, he subscribes to the by now well-established Christian view that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the
crucifixion of Jesus. He appeals to Josephus as evidence that the destruction was indeed horrific, something that could only be
explained by a deed as monstrous as deicide. Also, he says, there can be no truth to the fantasy that Josephus was actually a Christian
believer, “For he was both a Jew, and a determined Jew, very zealous.” Yet there is no discussion of any Josephan testimony to Jesus
himself by Chrysostom, and certainly not to the question of what the historian might have had to say about Jesus’ messianic or ‘more
than human’ status. Other homilies by Chrysostom contain other appeals to Josephus, but none to the Testimonium. Most striking is
Homily 13. Here he says that Josephus imputes the destructive war to the murder of John the Baptist. Nowhere in the extant texts of
Josephus is such an imputation to be found, one which also stands in contradiction to statements by Origen and Eusebius that Josephus
regarded the destruction of Jerusalem as punishment by God for the murder of James the Just—an allegation, too, which cannot be
found in surviving texts. (Josephus actually implies at one point that the destruction of the war was due to the Zealots’ murder of the
former High Priest Ananus.)[317]
Notice what Doherty says above and consider our previous discussion of John the Baptist. Here we have a piece of evidence
that places “John the Baptist” at the time of the war against Rome. Perhaps my speculations about Josephus’ Bannus, John of
Gischala, and John the Baptist are not so crazy after all.
Obviously, the process of arguing over whether or not Josephus wrote something about Jesus could go on forever. I would just
like to repeat emphatically that it is unlikely that Josephus would have written anything even remotely like the
reconstructions of the TF for the simple reason that no “messianic” claimant ever, under any circumstances, gets good press
from Josephus. And that is for a very good reason: Josephus is busy as a beaver exculpating the Jews as a whole, and himself
in particular, from any seditious inclinations, and all of the blame for the Great Rebellion is repeatedly and consistently put
entirely on the shoulders of the messianic types that Josephus contemptuously refers to as robbers, tyrants, charlatans,
bandits, and worse. So, the possibility that Josephus wrote anything like “there was a wise man named Jesus … a worker of
glorious deeds … thought to be the Christ … Pilate condemned him … his disciples continued to love him … reported that he
appeared alive after three days … prophets of God spoke about him…”, etc., is vanishingly remote; pigs are more likely to fly.
Even if such a person had made an appearance, Josephus would have never written anything like that, because messianic
claimants were authors of sedition. It’s absurd for any intelligent scholar who has read Josephus, who knows Roman history, to
even propose “reconstruction” that is “neutral”. It boggles the mind.[318] What part of what was going on in Judea that led to
the destruction of Jerusalem and the deaths of maybe half a million people do they not understand?
Judas of Nazareth: The Dog That Didn’t Bark
None of what became the Jesus of Nazareth story as it exists today is easily comprehended. You simply see elements here and
there scattered through time and space, and when each of them is picked out and lifted from the period, they fit together like
puzzle pieces of story written much later that was then claimed to be history. There are even many theological elements in
Philo that show up in Paul's thought, as well as some interesting little historical tidbits that one can compare as a corrective to
what Josephus wrote.
One of the more sensible ideas to come along since the beginning of this mess is that of Daniel T. Unterbrink in his book Judas
of Nazareth. He points out the obvious: Jesus was a literary construct replacing Judas the Galilean. Jesus of Nazareth is a
composite character whose life and deeds are “infused with Paul’s new gospel”:
Paul of Tarsus [as represented in Acts] is also a composite character, with the life and deeds of the Herodian Saul and Josephus himself
rewritten in order to hide Saul’s true identity.[319]
The synoptic gospels succeed in placing Paul’s gospel back in time. It is not history, but sheer invention, shaping Jesus from the image
of Paul. No wonder some see continuity between Jesus and Paul, but they are looking at the relationship from the wrong perspective.
…
Acts’ sloppy history and obvious dependence on Josephus have been widely ignored by scholars. Very few realize that the dates and
events in Acts cannot be trusted. In fact, Acts’ history is polemical revisionism. In every other historical study the ancient historian
would be given more credence than a religious text. But in the study of Christianity Christian history (the gospels and Acts) is accepted
as true, even if contradicted by contemporary historians (chiefly Josephus). … the scholarly community places greater emphasis on the
gospels and Acts than on Josephus and the Roman historians.[320]
Unterbrink’s point is that there was a historical messiah who preached the kingdom of heaven to the Jews – and only to the
Jews: Judas the Galilean. The Christian Jesus is a rip-off of this noble and heroic character, who would be spinning in his grave
at how he has been represented.
[NOTE: Do you really want to say Judas was noble and heroic?]
Jesus of Nazareth is fictional … this Jesus is a rewrite of a real individual, Judas the Galilean, infused with the theology and life
experiences of Paul. … Judas the Galilean is not fictional! If Judas the Galilean lived, then so did his brothers and sons. Combined, they
formed the Fourth Philosophy, a movement that scholars and mythicists have overlooked in their search for the real “Jesus.”[321]
Indeed. It is so obvious that the fact that it has been ignored by biblical scholars doesn’t make them look very competent (or
psychologically healthy for that matter, but I digress into ad hominemism). What is also quite obvious is that Josephus needed
to denigrate those he formerly consorted with, and the gospels needed to make sure their Jesus was free of any taint of
revolutionary fervor. Unterbrink, however, then goes on a speculation spree that sometimes goes over the edge and beyond
what is reasonable. Even so, it’s a valuable work that points out some things that are so obvious it is astonishing that scholars
haven’t noticed them before. Or, if they have noticed, but rejected this obvious solution, that is not just astonishing, it
borders on being complicit in criminal fraud.
The Testimonium Flavianum is, in fact, “The Dog That Didn’t Bark”.[322] Josephus repeatedly refers to Judas the Galilean in
various guises throughout his works, but never mentions his death. That is astonishing. Josephus is so interested in this
personage that every time he mentions a descendant, he recites the pedigree – even if pejoratively. The life and legacy of
Judas the Galilean is the thread of Ariadne that leads one out of the labyrinth of Josephus. The question that Unterbrink asks –
which is the obvious question to ask – is this:
Was the spurious Jesus passage a replacement for Judas’s death by crucifixion? The death of Judas by crucifixion should not be
seriously doubted. Judas fights against Rome, actions punishable by crucifixion. In addition, two of Judas’s sons, James and Simon, are
crucified a generation later (46–48 CE).[323]
As I said, Unterbrink speculates freely, but his attention to the texts could be said to be more perspicacious than that of most
biblical scholars. He adduces a lot of evidence that is convincing, and one of the matters that he takes up is the dates of the
birth and death of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth (according to the gospels) and how these are clues that lead directly to Judas
the Galilean. Using a convoluted (but interesting) set of texts and reasoning, he concludes that Judas was executed in 19 AD. I
am arguing the same point, though I am coming at it from a very different angle and for a different reason. The bottom line is
that the rebellion (including the cleansing of the Temple), the capture, and the execution of Judas the Galilean is what
occupied the space where the anemic Testimonium Flavianum now stands.
Hugh Schonfield is another who sometimes speculates over the edge and is considered to be somewhat controversial in
conservative circles. Nevertheless, his speculations often shed light from new angles and are well worth considering. He
writes:
It was characteristic of the Essenes, as professed masters of secret lore, that they employed attributes and disguises with reference to
particular individuals and groups. This was to indicate that they were representative of qualities and forces, good and bad, as well as of
actual people. … Thus in the texts we encounter the “True Teacher, the Wicked Priest, the Lion of Wrath, and so on. …
But the Essenes also employed various types of codes and ciphers, largely for didactic and expository purposes, but sometimes as a
safeguard to prevent disclosure of a vital secret.[324]
Schonfield cites J. M. Allegro, who reported that some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written backwards, and using mixtures of
alphabets, including an entirely invented one of their own. Schonfield applied the famous Atbash cipher, known to have been
used in the Old Testament, to what appeared to be meaningless words in the Qumran “Damascus Document”. He achieved
some interesting results though I’m not going to pursue that line here. The important thing is to know that this was the kind
of activity going on behind the scenes, and Josephus, by his own admissions/claims, was at least on the periphery of these
circles, if not actually closer to them at least at some point. So, ciphers, codes and exemplars might be something that
Josephus himself would employ; we’ve already considered this in a way with the discussion of the number thirty-seven.
The Tale of Two Women
It is here, and with that in mind, that I want to turn to the two stories that are included in the text of Antiquities immediately
following the Testimonium Flavianum. Keep in mind as you read them that the TF space was probably originally occupied by
an account of the “demagogue” Judas the Galilean, who led so many Jews astray with his “Fourth Philosophy”, possibly
including the Golden Eagle temple cleansing that was removed to the time of Herod the Great, and the capture and execution
of Judas, followed by a general revolt. The execution of a beloved teacher of the Law, as Judas was described, would have
been quickly communicated to Jews in Rome and could have caused unrest there, which is reported by Tacitus for the year 19
AD. With that in mind, let’s look at the first story that immediately follows the TF:
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.
There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular
conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that
flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty. She was married to Saturninus, one that
was every way answerable to her in an excellent character.
Decius Mundus fell in love with this woman, who was a man very high in the equestrian order; and as she was of too great dignity to
be caught by presents, and had already rejected them, though they had been sent in great abundance, he was still more inflamed with
love to her, insomuch that he promised to give her two hundred thousand Attic drachmae for one night's lodging; and when this would
not prevail upon her, and he was not able to bear this misfortune in his amours, he thought it the best way to famish himself to death
for want of food, on account of Paulina's sad refusal; and he determined with himself to die after such a manner, and he went on with
his purpose accordingly.
Now Mundus had a freedwoman, who had been made free by his father, whose name was Ide, one skillful in all sorts of mischief. This
woman was very much grieved at the young man's resolution to kill himself, [for he did not conceal his intentions to destroy himself
from others,] and came to him, and encouraged him by her discourse, and made him to hope, by some promises she gave him, that he
might obtain a night's lodging with Paulina; and when he joyfully hearkened to her entreaty, she said she wanted no more than fifty
thousand drachmae for the entrapping of the woman.
So when she had encouraged the young man, and gotten as much money as she required, she did not take the same methods as had
been taken before, because she perceived that the woman was by no means to be tempted by money; but as she knew that she was
very much given to the worship of the goddess Isis, she devised the following stratagem: She went to some of Isis's priests, and upon
the strongest assurances [of concealment], she persuaded them by words, but chiefly by the offer of money, of twenty-five thousand
drachmae in hand, and as much more when the thing had taken effect; and told them the passion of the young man, and persuaded
them to use all means possible to beguile the woman. So they were drawn in to promise so to do, by that large sum of gold they were
to have.
Accordingly, the oldest of them went immediately to Paulina; and upon his admittance, he desired to speak with her by herself. When
that was granted him, he told her that he was sent by the god Anubis, who was fallen in love with her, and enjoined her to come to
him. Upon this she took the message very kindly, and valued herself greatly upon this condescension of Anubis, and told her husband
that she had a message sent her, and was to sup and lie with Anubis; so he agreed to her acceptance of the offer, as fully satisfied with
the chastity of his wife.
Accordingly, she went to the temple, and after she had supped there, and it was the hour to go to sleep, the priest shut the doors of
the temple, when, in the holy part of it, the lights were also put out. Then did Mundus leap out, [for he was hidden therein,] and did
not fail of enjoying her, who was at his service all the night long, as supposing he was the god; and when he was gone away, which
was before those priests who knew nothing of this stratagem were stirring, Paulina came early to her husband, and told him how the
god Anubis had appeared to her. Among her friends, also, she declared how great a value she put upon this favor, who partly
disbelieved the thing, when they reflected on its nature, and partly were amazed at it, as having no pretense for not believing it, when
they considered the modesty and the dignity of the person.
But now, on the third day after what had been done, Mundus met Paulina, and said, "Nay, Paulina, thou hast saved me two hundred
thousand drachmae, which sum thou mightest have added to thy own family; yet hast thou not failed to be at my service in the
manner I invited thee. As for the reproaches thou hast laid upon Mundus, I value not the business of names; but I rejoice in the
pleasure I reaped by what I did, while I took to myself the name of Anubis." When he had said this, he went his way.
But now she began to come to the sense of the grossness of what she had done, and rent her garments, and told her husband of the
horrid nature of this wicked contrivance, and prayed him not to neglect to assist her in this case. So he discovered the fact to the
emperor; whereupon Tiberius inquired into the matter thoroughly by examining the priests about it, and ordered them to be
crucified, as well as Ide, who was the occasion of their perdition, and who had contrived the whole matter, which was so injurious to
the woman. He also demolished the temple of Isis, and gave order that her statue should be thrown into the river Tiber; while he only
banished Mundus, but did no more to him, because he supposed that what crime he had committed was done out of the passion of
love. And these were the circumstances which concerned the temple of Isis, and the injuries occasioned by her priests. I now return to
the relation of what happened about this time to the Jews at Rome, as I formerly told you I would.[325]
Now, certainly, upon reading the above story one might think that it was something that really happened at Rome – aren’t we
thankful that Josephus has preserved it for us, even if we suspect that he may have embellished only a little? However, if we
try to find it by cross-checking with other historians, we have no luck, because, of course, we think we are in the time of Pilate
– 27 to 37 AD, according to the accepted chronology – and that is where we might be inclined to look. However, this little
story is actually more of a problem than just that, because it is so similar in dynamics to an account of a legal case that can be
found in Tacitus:
About the same time Octavius Sagitta, a tribune of the people, who was enamoured to frenzy of Pontia, a married woman, bribed her
by most costly presents into an intrigue and then into abandoning her husband. He had offered her marriage and had won her consent.
But as soon as she was free, she devised delays, pretended that her father's wishes were against it, and having secured the prospect of
a richer husband, she repudiated her promises.
Octavius, on the other hand, now remonstrated, now threatened; his good name, he protested, was lost, his means exhausted, and as
for his life, which was all that was left to him, he surrendered it to her mercy.
When she spurned him, he asked the solace of one night, with which to soothe his passion, that he might set bounds to it for the
future. A night was fixed, and Pontia intrusted the charge of her chamber to a female slave acquainted with her secret. Octavius
attended by one freedman entered with a dagger concealed under his dress. Then, as usual in lovers' quarrels, there were chidings,
entreaties, reproaches, excuses, and some period of the darkness was given up to passion; then, when seemingly about to go, and she
was fearing nothing, he stabbed her with the steel, and having wounded and scared away the slave girl who was hurrying to her,
rushed out of the chamber.
Next day the murder was notorious, and there was no question as to the murderer, for it was proved that he had passed some time
with her. The freedman, however, declared the deed was his, that he had, in fact, avenged his patron's wrongs. He had made some
impression by the nobleness of his example, when the slave girl recovered and revealed the truth. Octavius, when he ceased to be
tribune, was prosecuted before the consuls by the father of the murdered woman, and was condemned by the sentence of the Senate
under "the law concerning assassins."[326]
All the elements of the story concocted by Josephus are there in Tacitus' report of an actual legal case. Of course, we can see
that these elements have been creatively utilized rather in accordance with Lévi-Strauss’ theories of mythical transposition.
[NOTE: Give a brief run-down of this theory, or a source, or an example.]
But there is a bigger problem here: In Tacitus, the event he recounted occurred in 58 AD. One could say that the story must
have been something of a big scandal and perhaps stuck in Josephus' mind to be pulled out, decomposed and reworked in his
own way for his own purposes. After all, Josephus was allegedly in Rome when he was 26 – between 63 and 64 AD – so he
certainly could have heard about the case at a distance in his early twenties. That is a reasonable explanation except for one
odd little detail. When reading the Tacitus text, one can’t help but notice that just a couple paragraphs above the tragic
murder story, there is an account of other affairs that includes the name “Saturninus”.
[327] That would suggest that the tale
had been obtained from a written work – perhaps an annalistic account? – and the eye of the author had fallen upon, and
registered, the name "Saturninus", which was then utilized twice as the husband of the afflicted women.
If that little slip is evidence that the author of the passage had read Tacitus, that means it could not have been Josephus
himself, because Tacitus' work was published a number of years after Antiquities. More than that, the only “law concerning
assassins” that I find on a cursory check is the Lex Titia (43 BC), which gave Octavian, Mark Antony and Lepidus full powers to
defeat the assassins of Julius Caesar and legalized the second triumvirate. What is interesting is the use of the name Octavius
Sagitta in this story that ends with “the law concerning assassins.” Also, one wonders about the possible relationship of a
woman named “Pontia” and a man named “Pontius Pilate”, considering the way Romans named their children. Is Tacitus
telling us something in code here too?[328] Or is some unknown author sending a message in a bottle through time?
But before we delve too deeply into that, let’s look at Josephus’ next tale, since it appears that they are a pair and go together
for some obscure reason in Josephus’ mind. The following tale is about Jews defrauding a Roman noblewoman named Fulvia,
who is also married to a Saturninus, which only raises the eyebrows even higher:
There was a man who was a Jew, but 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. He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with
himself, to be his partners. 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; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent
the money themselves, on which account it was that they at first required it of her. Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of
the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all the Jews to be banished out of
Rome; at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia; but punished a greater
number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews
banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.[329]
Fulvia was, of course, the wife of three of the most influential Populares of the late Republic: Publius Clodius Pulcher, Gaius
Scribonius Curio, and Marcus Antonius. All three of her husbands were tribunes and supporters of Julius Caesar, which points
us back to the Lex Titia. All very odd indeed.
These two stories, following just after the Testimonium Flavianum, pose a number of interesting problems. Taken together at
face value, they combine a Roman rejection of the Egyptian worship and Jewish worship. Tacitus records the banishing of the
religions of the Jews and Egyptians in the reign of Tiberius, 19 AD, as follows:
Measures were also taken for exterminating the solemnities of the Jews and Egyptians; and by decree of Senate four thousand
descendants of franchised slaves, all defiled with that superstition, but of proper strength and age, were to be transported to
Sardinia; to restrain the Sardinian robbers; and if, through the malignity of the climate, they perished, despicable would be the loss:
the rest were doomed to depart Italy, unless by a stated day they renounced their profane rites.[330]
This bit of text is something of a problem considering the glowing review that Philo gave Tiberius in regard to his
consideration of the Jews. We’ve already noted that persons who adhered to that variation of Judaism that later became
known as Chrestianity were accused of a “vile superstition” or atheism. So are we really seeing here a notice that there were
Chrestians that early, in 19 AD? Notice that several essential particulars match between Tacitus and Josephus: the number
four thousand is present in both accounts about the expulsion of Jews, as well as Sardinia being the destination, so it is certain
that both are talking about the same event since. In Tacitus, it is noted that the four thousand are “descendants of franchised
slaves, all defiled with that superstition”, which suggests that they were converted to something, and we suspect it was not
the same Judaism that Tiberius was known to acknowledge and at least tacitly approve. Josephus’ text is about Romans being
converted to Judaism, but a perverted form of it being taught by con artists. So, something is definitely being said in these two
texts that is not apparent on the surface. They aren’t just gossip.
Additionally, what are these stories doing right there in the midst of the governorship of Pontius Pilate, which, according to
Christian chronology, was supposed to extend from 27 to 37 AD? These two events allegedly precede a banishing of Jewish
and Egyptian rites from Rome as well as the exiling of many Jews (or pseudo-Jews) from Rome by Tiberius, something that
occurred in 19 AD without question. So why does Josephus begin the TF with “Now there was about this time…”, and the
following stories with “About the same time also another sad calamity…”? If the TF is authentic it is clearly being placed in the
context of the 19 AD event. If it is not authentic – if it is redacted or a replacement text – it is still in the context of 19 AD! If
there was nothing there at all and the previous section about Pilate’s attack on the Jews flowed right into the Paulina and
Fulvia stories, it is still in the context of 19 AD! Whoever inserted the TF thought that was the right place for it. It was
probably only later that the chronological difficulties were realized and a bit of patching was done to bring things more into
line; additional governors and years were added.
What does seem clear to me is that whatever stood in that spot originally – assuming that something else did – must have
been something that was a “sad calamity” that “put the Jews into disorder”, because that is what the lead-in of the next
paragraph refers to. Of course, the TF could be removed without any disruption in the flow at all, so it’s not necessary to
assume that something else stood there. There was already a previous sad calamity involving Pilate. However, since the two
tales that follow the TF, as far as I can see, have no purpose in that location whatsoever – especially not in historical terms – it
might be conjectured that they may originally have been intended to convey some message about whatever stood originally in
the TF spot. Because, certainly, they taste and feel like Josephan, novelized gossip.
Recall Josephus’ confused account of the events following the death of Herod, which he associated with the deaths of Judas
and Matthias and their pupils, while Archelaus was in Rome pleading his case before Augustus:
But now came another accusation from the Jews against Archelaus at Rome, which he was to answer to. It was made by those
ambassadors who, before the revolt, had come, by Varus's permission, to plead for the liberty of their country; those that came were
fifty in number, but there were more than eight thousand of the Jews at Rome who supported them ¼[331]
In rather lurid terms, these ambassadors pleaded to have their country joined to Syria and to be given a Roman governor.
They wanted no part of Archelaus. But, as we noted, that is not credible. We also noticed the congruence of the second text
following the TF, about the expulsion of Jews from Rome, with the account from Tacitus.
If there were four thousand men among that group of military age and ability, that means there were probably around eight
thousand Jews in total, which would match the figure given at the time of Archelaus’ trial. So I would suggest that the fifty
ambassadors from the Jews supported by the clamor of eight thousand Jews in Rome better reflects the reactions of the Jews
to Pilate at the time of the execution of Judas the Galilean, and Archelaus has been constructed as a scapegoat. That’s not to
say Archelaus was anybody’s darling, but the doublets and triplets that run through the text from the time of the death of
Herod until Josephus’ own time suggest that Josephus was quite busy constructing his text along certain lines for certain
reasons, including spreading the blame for the revolt(s), putting much of it on Jewish zealots of various sorts, and at the same
time, exculpating his Roman masters.
I have already suggested that greater reliance might be placed on Josephus’ first book, Wars, than his later, blatant apology
for the Jews, mainly because it was an Imperially sponsored project designed to be read by a Greco-Roman audience, many of
whom knew full well the events of the time. There, we notice that Josephus does not fiddle with the Roman side of things,
though he does appear to feel free to invent things on the Jewish side. In Wars, it is as plain as it can possibly be that Pontius
Pilate was Tiberius' man and was sent to Judea upon Tiberius’ accession to power. Philo's digression about Pilate doesn't help
with the dating issue, but it helps to know Pilate better and the impression is certainly that it was longer ago than just ten
years (i.e. from 30 to 39/40). The tone of Philo's passage makes more sense if he is reminding the emperor Gaius of things
that happened twenty years ago (or more) when he was very young and wouldn’t be likely to recall.
All of these elements, taken together, argue for the fact that Pilate was in Judea much earlier than biblical "history" suggests –
or allows – and that he also left much earlier and in disgrace. One gets the impression that Josephus really knew nothing
about the reign of Archelaus and, since his behavior was similar to that reported of Pilate, simply gave him some bits of
Pilate's history and said less about Pilate for reasons of political discretion. Interestingly, Eusebius, quoting early apocryphal
accounts, stated that Pilate suffered misfortune in the reign of Caligula (37–41 AD), was exiled to Gaul and eventually killed
himself there in Vienna.[332] One might wonder why this association was made? (Remember, Archelaus was said to have
been exiled to Vienna.)
Nevertheless, the looping stories, doublets, and triplets, argue for the fact that Josephus was making up a lot of his material
between the death of Herod the Great and his own times. The story of the Golden Eagle rebellion alleged to have occurred
during the reign of Herod may very well be a retrojection of the Pilate affair into the past with a multiple purpose: it slanders
Herod the Great, makes Pilate less obnoxious, and takes power and authority away from Judas the Galilean. Philo said Pilate
brought golden shields into the city. Given his closer proximity to the events in question, and his connections, Philo probably
gave a far more accurate version of the events than Josephus. I think that those who attribute fact-finding abilities to
Josephus give him too much credit and, perhaps, forget the conditions of Judea in the years before Josephus' birth.
Of course, the Golden Eagle event was said to be the trigger for the rebellion that caused Archelaus to kill 3,000 Jews at
Passover, but I have doubts about several aspects of that affair. First, with his craving for the approval of the Jews, would
Herod the Great really have been likely to have decorated his masterpiece, the Jewish temple, with a golden eagle? I don't
think so. However, it seems rather certain that Varus' war took place. So what really triggered it? For the period in question,
this is all that Tacitus has to say:
After Herod's death, a certain Simon assumed the name of king without waiting for Caesar's decision. He, however, was put to death by
Quintilius Varus, governor of Syria; the Jews were repressed; and the kingdom was divided into three parts and given to Herod's sons.
Under Tiberius all was quiet. Then, when Caligula ordered the Jews to set up his statue in their temple, they chose rather to resort to
arms, but the emperor's death put an end to their uprising. The princes now being dead or reduced to insignificance, Claudius made
Judea a province and entrusted it to Roman knights or to freedmen; one of the latter, Antonius Felix, practised every kind of cruelty
and lust, wielding the power of king with all the instincts of a slave; he had married Drusilla, the grand-daughter of Cleopatra and
[333]
Antony, and so was Antony's grandson-in-law, while Claudius was Antony's grandson.
Simon of Perea, of the Jeselsohn Stone, put to death by Varus. It looks like Herod died, Simon declared himself king, and Varus
came in to put down the insurrection. Or perhaps Simon declared himself king because of the rapacity of Varus and his
legates, and Josephus was busy rewriting history for his new masters? Maybe Archelaus was innocent, lived a boring life, and
died naturally after being betrayed by his brothers. Or, perhaps he was involved in supporting the rebels, as is suggested by
his releasing the brother of Athronges, a cover for Judas the Galilean, and it was for this kind of activity that he was banished
to Vienna.
Perhaps the Jewish records of unknown feast and fast days mentioned by Martin relate to the deaths of Judas, Matthias and
their students in 19 AD, not earlier. Or, they could commemorate Herod's execution of his son and his own death, or the
death of Simon of Perea, which was obviously important enough to some Jews to merit a record associating him with angels.
The bottom line is this: removing Pilate from Judea at the time alleged for the crucifixion of a "Jesus of Nazareth" – and there
appears to be a good case for it – destroys the timeline of the Jesuine "history". It also means that billions of people have
been reciting a lie every Sunday when they declare their beliefs in the Nicene Creed or the Apostle's Creed.
Time Traveling
When Josephus’ history continues in the next chapter (18.4), we come upon an even greater problem: a sudden leap to the
Vitellius and Artabanus story that leads into the Antipas-Aretas conflict we began with. Why is this so problematical? Well,
notice that the first mention of Pilate is at Ant. 18.2.2, at the very end of the paragraph: “When Gratus had done those things,
he went back to Rome, after he had waited in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.”
Now, as we have already noted, this Gratus is highly suspect, and by even a reasonable count of years we are nowhere near
27 AD. But what is telling is that Josephus then recounts the death of Phraates, king of the Parthians (Antiquities 18.2.4 [52]).
This is also covered by Tacitus in Annales 2.2ff., dated to 16 AD. Josephus notes, in the same chapter, that Silanus was
president of Syria. Tacitus, too, notes that Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus was governor of Syria (Ann. 2.4.3). So we are
tracking well.
The next event reported by Josephus (Ant. 18.2.5) is the death of Antiochus, king of Commagene. This was 17 AD. At this
point, Josephus notes that the Roman senate decreed that Germanicus should be sent to settle the affairs of the east. Tacitus,
too, notes this (Ann. 2.42.5), along with the following:
But Tiberius had removed from Syria Creticus Silanus, who was connected with Germanicus by marriage … and placed in charge Cn.
Piso, temperamentally violent … implanted in him by his father Piso (who in the civil war helped the resurgence of the party in Africa …
against Caesar and then, after following Brutus and Cassius, was allowed to return …)[334]
Then, at the very end of Antiquities 18.2, there is a brief remark about the death of Germanicus due to being poisoned by
Piso. When Josephus comes back to Pilate in Chapter 3 (55ff.), it is immediately following his remark about the death of
Germanicus, and he appears to be going back to Pilate after a digression to the other matters (the building projects of the
Herodians and the Artabanus business, which tracks with Tacitus’ discussion of the Vonones/Artabanus saga of 16 AD, which
was why Germanicus was sent out to the East to begin with).
At this time died Antiochus, the king of Commagne [17 AD] … So the senate made a decree that Germanicus should be sent to settle
the affairs of the east, fortune hereby taking a proper opportunity for depriving him of his life; for when he had been in the east, and
settled all affairs there, his life was taken away by the poison which Piso gave him, as has been related elsewhere.[335]
So, now Josephus comes back to Pilate:
But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Caesarea to Jerusalem to take their winter quarters there, in order to
abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar’s effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city …[336]
Taken as it is written, without the artificial divisions and removing the authorial asides, it would say: “At this time died
Antiochus, the king of Commagne [17 AD] … So the senate made a decree that Germanicus should be sent to settle the affairs
of the east … But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Caesarea to Jerusalem.”
This would be where the Golden Eagle temple cleansing should fit and it is entirely possible that Josephus himself placed it
earlier in the text in the time of Herod the Great and simply created a silly tale about Pilate being nonplussed by the Jews’
willingness to die over this matter. If we recall Philo’s discussion of Pilate and the affair of the golden shields, we can notice
that the princes and magistrates were the ones who confronted Pilate. That seems to be a reflection of the collecting of all
the chief men of the country into an arena as Herod the Great was said to have done with the plan of having them all
executed as soon as he was dead. Sorry, but I can’t believe that Herod did that; Josephus spends way too much energy trying
to blacken his name and that’s just one of his many slanders. However, based on how Philo described Pilate, as well as what
Josephus did include in his account, the whole scenario belongs to the period 18/19 AD:
Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the
people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Caesarea, and interceded with
Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury
of Caesar [Tiberius], while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons
privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed
the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them
routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and
go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very
willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution
to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Caesarea.[337]
In Wars, the story is equally confusing, so it seems almost certain that it was Josephus himself who manipulated the text:
Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into
Jerusalem. This excited a very great tumult among the Jews when it was day; for those that were near them were astonished at the
sight of them, as indications that their laws were trodden under foot; for those laws do not permit any sort of image to be brought
into the city. Nay, besides the indignation which the citizens had themselves at this procedure, a vast number of people came running
out of the country. These came zealously to Pilate to Caesarea, and besought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem, and to
preserve them their ancient laws inviolable; but upon Pilate's denial of their request, they fell down prostrate upon the ground, and
continued immovable in that posture for five days and as many nights.
On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in the open market-place, and called to him the multitude, as desirous to give them an
answer; and then gave a signal to the soldiers, that they should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their weapons; so
the band of soldiers stood round about the Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the utmost consternation at that unexpected
sight. Pilate also said to them that they should be cut in pieces, unless they would admit of [Tiberius] Caesar's images, and gave
intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords. Hereupon the Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers together,
and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed.
Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition, and gave order that the ensigns should be presently carried out
of Jerusalem.[338]
We know from Philo that the above did not happen; that letters were sent to Tiberius who then ordered Pilate to remove the
offending items. We also notice that the above incident is described as taking place in Caesarea, but is then replicated in
Jerusalem below:
After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban upon aqueducts, whereby he
brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to
Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed
his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not
indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do
as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of
them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were
slain, and held their peace.[339]
What is odd in Wars is how the topic then jumps to Agrippa in Rome – “in the meantime” – supposedly at the time that
Tiberius is practically on his deathbed.
In the mean time Agrippa, the son of that Aristobulus who had been slain by his father Herod [the Great], came to Tiberius, to accuse
Herod the tetrarch [Antipas]; who not admitting of his accusation, he staid at Rome, and cultivated a friendship with others of the men
of note, but principally with Caius the son of Germanicus, who was then but a private person. Now this Agrippa, at a certain time,
feasted Caius; and as he was very complaisant to him on several other accounts, he at length stretched out his hands, and openly
wished that Tiberius might die, and that he might quickly see him emperor of the world. This was told to Tiberius by one of Agrippa's
domestics, who thereupon was very angry, and ordered Agrippa to be bound, and had him very ill-treated in the prison for six months,
until Tiberius died, after he had reigned twenty-two years, six months, and three days.[340]
Antiquities mentions Agrippa going to Rome at the tail end of the Vitellius/Artabanus saga:
So Vitellius truly retired to Antioch; but Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus, went up to Rome, a year before the death of Tiberius, in order
to treat of some affairs with the emperor, if he might be permitted so to do.[341]
The only problem with the above is that Agrippa did not make the accusations against Herod Antipas until 39 AD,[342] and he
brought the accusation to Caligula, at which point, by either chronology, Pilate was certainly not in Judea.[343] Caligula exiled
Antipas to Gaul – just like Archelaus! – and he was apparently accompanied by the seductress, Herodias. So it looks as if
Josephus retrojected this back in time, but he makes a mess of things in the process.
In any event, after his discussion of the effigies that arrived with Pilate, Josephus mentions the Corban/water issue that also
was noted in Wars. (In Wars, it was 400 furlongs, in Antiquities, it’s 200, but who’s counting?) It was allegedly this use of
temple funds that caused the next upset and led to Pilate planting sicarii in the crowd. The Testimonium Flavianum follows
immediately, and the two tales about the expulsion of the Jews and Egyptians follow that, so despite the prestidigitation of
the text, we are certainly still in the temporal environment of 19 AD.
When we pick up the historical narrative in Judea again, i.e. with Pilate, we have yet another disruption due to
Samaritans.[344] Notice that Coponius also had problems with Samaritans (more doubling?).[345] Pilate apparently killed a
number of them and the Samaritans complained to Vitellius, who is now, suddenly, governor of Syria when just before, as
noted, it was Silanus. Vitellius pulls rank on Pilate, sends Marcellus to handle Judea, and orders Pilate to Rome. But, Josephus
then tells us that Tiberius was dead before Pilate could get there!
That is an absolutely astonishing leap from 19 to 37 AD! Eighteen years, in fact. So, how the heck did that happen?
I would suggest that the text originally said that Pilate was being sent for judgment and/or correction to Germanicus – the
new co-proconsul of Syria – and it was he who was dead before Pilate reached him. That is, after all, in keeping with the
whole general context of the surrounding passages.
Let me recap: I propose that Tiberius sent Pilate – possibly at the urging of Sejanus – and Pilate immediately set about doing
all the things that Philo described him as doing: “he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and
might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence,
and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and
uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity”.
By the time Pilate sent the shields into Jerusalem, he had probably been there a few years. Maybe there is a seed of history in
the tale: he sent the army to Jerusalem for the winter in late 18 AD. At that point, Judas the Galilean and his followers
effected the “Golden Eagle temple cleansing” followed by military action on the part of Pilate and his troops, and ultimately,
the capture and execution of Judas. (There was a partial eclipse of the moon on the night of 10 January 19 AD.) Following this
there were uprisings that probably included an attack on the people at Passover with the killing of many individuals in the
temple precincts.
In the meantime, the Jews had appealed to Tiberius and he ordered Pilate to remove the shields to Caesarea. At this point,
Germanicus returned from his tour of Egypt to find that Piso had controverted his arrangements, and things were a mess in
Judea thanks to Pilate, and so he ordered Piso to Rome but died shortly thereafter in Antioch, probably poisoned. The crimes
of Pilate faded into the background in the uproar over the death of Germanicus. It was widely thought that Piso poisoned
Germanicus under orders from Tiberius, but Piso committed suicide before he could be tried. Tacitus opined that Tiberius may
have had him murdered before he could implicate the emperor in Germanicus' death. More likely, it was Sejanus who was
behind it. It was the death of Germanicus that destroyed the regard of the people for Tiberius and created a climate of fear in
Rome.
We are told by Josephus that the Samaritans sent an embassy to Vitellius who was suddenly “president of Syria” and that
Vitellius sent a Marcellus – about whom nothing is known – to take care of Judea and ordered Pilate to Rome to answer the
accusations of the Jews. “So Pilate, when he had waited ten years in Judea, hurried to Rome, and this in obedience to the
orders of Vitellius, which he dared not contradict; but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.”
Twice now we have been told specific numbers of years for the governors of Judea: Gratus and Pilate. And somehow we have
skipped from Silanus to Vitellius, some 18 years. Plus, we have jumped from one Artabanus story to another. Is it possible to
sort this out and make some sense of it?
The Friends of Germanicus – A Prosopographical Excursus
Let’s take up the problem of this sudden appearance of Vitellius, who had such a fun part to play in the Antipas-Aretas story
and who was surely in Judea later: in 37 AD.
There are several Vitelliuses in Tacitus but only two would have qualified for proconsular duties: 1) L. Vitellius, consul 34, 43,
and 47 AD, who is our Vitellius of later adventures; and 2) A. Vitellius, consul in 48 AD, who is too late to consider. But, we
also find a Vitellius who was a “friend of Germanicus”. We find him in Germany in Annales 1.70; in 2.6 he heads off to do a
census of the Galliae; in 2.74, we find the most interesting mention. It is immediately following the death of Germanicus, and
it takes place in Syria:
There was next a debate between the legates and other senators who were present as to who should be placed in charge of Syria. And,
after only modest exertions from the others, for a long time the issue was between Vibius Marsus and Cn. Sentius. Then Marsus
yielded to the seniority and keener contention of Sentius;[346] and he, for his part dispatched to the City [Rome] a woman infamous
for poisonings in the province and particularly dear to Plancina, by name of Martina, in response to demands from Vitellius and
[347]
Veranius and the rest, who were drawing up charges and accusations as if against persons already cited as defendants.
So, that means that a Vitellius was with Germanicus in Syria at the time he died. This Vitellius was drawing up charges and
accusations, appears to have been “in charge”, and thus, there is a simple explanation for why Pilate was said to have been
sent back to Rome by Vitellius: because he was! It just wasn’t the same Vitellius. The fact that this Vitellius was with
Germanicus in Syria is detailed later in Tacitus, when Piso is being arraigned back in Rome for poisoning Germanicus:
On the next day Fulcinius Trio arraigned Piso before the consuls. Yet Vitellius and Veranius and the other of Germanicus’ companions
maintained that there was no role for Trio; nor were they accusers themselves, they said, but as informants and witnesses of events
they would deliver Germanicus’ instructions.[348]
Next:
Then Fulcinius embarked on past irrelevancies, namely the fact that Piso’s tenure of Spain had been marked by corruption and greed
[Piso had been legate there in 9/10 AD] … After this, Servaeus and Veranius and Vitellius with like enthusiasm (and with much
eloquence on Vitellius’ part) cast the charge that in his hatred for Germanicus and his enthusiasm for revolution Piso, by licensing
maltreatment of the allies, had corrupted the common soldiers to such a degree that the basest of them called him “parent of the
legions.” Conversely, they said he had been savage to all the best men, especially to the companions and friends of Germanicus.
Finally, he had annihilated the man himself by curses and poison: hence the rituals and abominable offerings by himself and Plancina,
his claiming the state by arms, and – to ensure his appearance as the accused – his defeat in the line of battle.[349]
One cannot help but think that Piso may have been behind the abominable treatment of the Jews attributed to Pilate because
he licensed “maltreatment of the allies.” This is followed by another brief mention 3.17, and then:
A few days after Caesar [Tiberius] initiated the senate’s granting of priesthoods to Vitellius and Veranius and Servaeus. … That was the
end to the avenging, though Germanicus’ death was bandied about in various rumors not only among those men who lived then but
also in following times. So is it the case that all the greatest matters are ambiguous, inasmuch as some people hold any form of
hearsay as confirmed, others turn truth into its converse, and each swells among posterity.[350]
P. Vitellius later committed suicide under indictment for something in 31 AD, following the fall of Sejanus.[351] Tacitus’
narrative is missing the end of 29, all of 30, and most of 31 AD. That period is, of course, the very period in which Jesus is said
to have been crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate, and might have included some pertinent information that contradicted
such a claim. So, we don’t know what Vitellius was being charged with – possibly revolutionary actions against Tiberius? Being
in cahoots with Sejanus? Being a friend of Germanicus? P. Vitellius’ wife, Acutia, was also arraigned on some charge in 37 AD.
Now, also consider that this “Marcellus”, supposed to have been sent to order Pilate to Rome and take over Judea, may have
been Vibius Marsus, mentioned by Tacitus above. We’ve seen how often Josephus garbles Roman names (or deliberately
obfuscates them as in the case of Judas the Galilean) and this may be such a case. Gaius Vibius Marsus was also sent to
summon Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso to Rome to stand his trial. His name occurs again 7 years later in 26 AD, in the debates of the
senate; and just before the death of Tiberius in 37 he narrowly escaped his own death, being accused as one of the
accomplices of the notorious Albucilla.[352] In 47 we find him governor of Syria.[353] The name of "Gaius Vibius Marsus",
proconsul, appears on several coins of Utica in Africa, struck in the reign of Tiberius.[354]
As to the governor of Syria named Vitellius, as we already know from our discussion above, he was there in 35–37 AD. He is
also mentioned in Annales 6.41 as sending troops to the “nation of the Cietae”, including the legate M. Trebellius; that was in
AD 36. And, we are reminded, in all of the above, that Cn. Sentius Saturninus took over as governor of Syria/Judea
immediately after the death of Germanicus, so the name could be said to have been handily available for use and not
necessarily drawn from the Tacitean tale.
Now, let’s look again at the role of Saturninus, who is husband to both Roman women taken in by religious frauds, according
to Josephus à la the Walrus and the Carpenter.[355] In addition to the Saturninus who we discovered was a friend of
Germanicus, there was a Gaius Sentius Saturninus who was appointed Roman consul in 19 BC. Around 14/13 BC, Sentius
Saturninus was appointed the proconsular governor of Africa. From 9 to 7 BC Sentius Saturninus served as Legatus Augusti
pro praetore (or imperial governor) of the Roman province of Syria. It was his second son Gnaeus – our Saturninus of 19 AD –
who replaced Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso as governor of Syria and compelled him to return to Rome to stand trial for the murder
of Germanicus.
Tertullian (c. 160–225 AD), the Christian law expert from Carthage in North Africa, wrote that Jesus was born while Gaius
Sentius Saturninus was Legate of Roman Syria, i.e. between 9–7 BC. Could it be that he was confusing things? That the “birth
of Jewish Messianism” occurred in 19 AD under the influence of the psychological/emotional trauma of the death of Judas the
Galilean, compounded by the Empire-wide mourning for the savior Germanicus, and when Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus was
governor of Syria?
We have already seen a Vitellius and now a Saturninus turn up around Germanicus, two names of important characters that
show up in Josephus’ narrative. Now let’s take a look at a few other characters we’ve encountered so far in Josephus’ tale:
Valerius Gratus, Silanus and Sabinus.
Gratus Redux
According to the "biblically" understood history, Valerius Gratus was the Roman Prefect of Judea province under Tiberius from
15 to 26 AD. He succeeded Annius Rufus and was replaced by Pontius Pilate. Here is the list derived from Antiquities again:
· Varus and Gaius Caesar (with Sabinus)
· Archelaus
· Coponius (with Cyrenius/Quirinius)
· Marcus Ambivius (Ambivulus)
· Annius Rufus
· Death of Augustus – AD 14
· Valerius Gratus – AD 15 to 26
· Pilate
We know who Varus is: Publius Quinctilius Varus is certainly attested, even if the Roman history doesn't exactly fit with
Josephus' history due to the misdating of the eclipse. Syme dates him based on the biblical dates that have been imposed on
Josephus.
There are a few problems with identifying Coponius. The Coponii were a plebeian family, prominent at Rome during the first
century BC. The most famous was Gaius Coponius, praetor in 49 BC and a partisan of Pompey. He was proscribed by the
triumvirs in 43, subsequently pardoned, and ended up a respected member of the Senate. Relying, again, on Josephus, Syme
says: "When Judaea was annexed (AD 6), Coponius, a Roman knight or a respectable family from Tibur, became its first
governor.”[356] We find that a Marcus, Gaius, and Titus Coponius are mentioned by Cicero.[357] But there is actually no
specific mention of this Coponius on the Roman records side. However, since we find this Coponius in Josephus’ Wars, we
have some confidence that he was there (remember, Josephus had a particular target audience for Wars and was less likely to
fudge about things they could know about themselves).
Syme points out that in the last years of Augustus, 4 to 14 AD, some new names show up, indicating the advancement of novi
homines, most of them military. The two Poppaei came from an obscure community in Picenum. "The most striking example
of continuous service is afforded by the novus homo from Picenum, C. Poppaeus Sabinus (cos. AD 9). During 25 years this man
had charge of Moesia, for most of the time with the provinces of Macedonia and Achaia as well."[358] This could possibly be
Josephus’ Sabinus of Varus war fame, but we notice that he was pretty busy elsewhere for most of his career. Yet, he could
have been the legate to Varus before he was made consul in 9 AD.
We know who Cyrenius is: Publius Sulpicius Quirinius.
P. Sulpicius Quirinius (cos. 12 BC) passed through a long career of faithful service to Augustus and to the State. Among his achievements
(perhaps before his consulate) was a campaign against the Marmaridae, a tribe of the African desert dwelling to the south of Cyrene.
At some time in the twelve years after his consulate Quirinius governed Galatia and subdued the Homonadenses (Tac. Ann. 3.48;
Strabo, p. 569, 9–8 or 4–3 BC). In AD 2, after the disgrace and death of Lollius, Quirinius took his place with C. Caesar. Three or four
years later he was appointed legate of Syria, in which capacity he annexed Judaea after the deposition of Archelaus the ethnarch,
introduced Roman rule by ordering a census and crushed the insurrection ... (AD 6).[359]
Here we notice that Syme obtains his dates, again, from the biblical dates that have been imposed on Josephus because of
the wrong dating of the eclipse.
We don't find any "Marcus Ambivius" or anything similar. There are hundreds of coins minted in Judea that scholars have
raditionally tied to the various prefects, including Coponius, Ambivius and Rufus. However, the only identifying marks on the
coins are numbers indicating years in the Roman calendar; the images are neutral images like palm trees or wheat, and the
only names present (if at all) are the emperor’s. In other words, there is actually nothing on the coins to indicate the prefect
or procurator's name. It is simply assumed, based on the biblically imposed timeline of Antiquities and its little collection of
names that cannot otherwise be attested, that the coin(s) were struck under this or that procurator. In fact, scholars are
catching on that the picture is not so simple:
The issue of the absolute dates of the governshorships of those representing Roman rule in Juidea at this time is the subject of
continuing debate. Because there is in fact little agreement among historians about the chronology of many of these governorships, in
2007 the journal Israel Numismatic Research took the editorial position whereby governors’ names are no longer employed in
describing these coins.[360]
No Annius Rufus either. There is an L. Tarius Rufus (cos. suff. 16 BC), who was another novus homo, but he is obviously too old
to show up in Judaea at the time indicated.
Can we find Valerius Gratus in Tacitus? No, though we do find a number of other Valeriuses. (It is unlikely, with that name,
that this alleged prefect of Judea would have been an equestrian and therefore unlikey to be a prefect, which was an
equestrian position.) Nevertheless, the first Valerius that would have been eligible in the time period in question (i.e. 15–26
AD, according to the Antiquities chronology) would have been Marcus Valerius Messalla Messalinus, who was consul in 3 BC.
We learn about him that, at the death of Augustus, during a debate in the senate afterward, "Messala Valerius added that the
oath in Tiberius' name should be renewed annually..."[361] This Valerius was the son of the famous orator M. Valerius
Messalla Corvinus. He (the son) shows up again – surprise, surprise – around the death of Germanicus! When Tiberius is
dealing with the "vengeance" for the death of Germanicus, Tacitus writes: "Valerius Messalinus proposed that a golden statue
should be set up in the temple of Mars the Avenger..."[362] Tiberius demurred. There isn’t much else of interest. There is no
indication that he was ever in Syria/Judea.
There is another M. Valerius, consul in 20 AD (five or 6 years too late) and, apparently, the son of Marcus Valerius Messalla
Messalinus, consul in 3 BC. There is another possible: Marcus Valerius Messala Volesus who was consul in 5 AD and had been
proconsul of Asia in 11/12 AD. But, as noted, with his rank, he would never have been a prefect of Judea. Anyway, it looks like
Valerius Gratus is a bust. We have to remember that many of these names that get tossed around about Judea by Josephus
are thought to have been there only because he said so.
Now on to Silanus, governor of Syria, whom Josephus mentions just before his introduction of Pilate. We already know that
this is Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus, who was consul in 7 AD, and governor of Syria from 13 to 17 AD.[363] Tacitus
tells us that another Silanus, C. Junius Silanus (consul in 10 AD), was arraigned in 22 AD for extortion in the cities of Asia.[364]
About this arraignment:
C. Silanus, the proconsul of Asia, arraigned by the allies for extortion, was seized simultaneously by Mamercus Scaurus, one of the
consulars, Junius Otho, a praetor, and Bruttedius Niger an aedile, and they cast at him the charge that he had violated Augustus'
divinity and spurned Tiberius' sovereignty ... The number of accusers was increased by Gellius Publicola and M. Paconius, the former the
quaestor of Silanus, the latter his legate. There was held to be no doubt that he was liable on charges of savagery and of taking money
... Tiberius, in order that his intentions for Silanus might be received more justifiably with the help of an example, ordered the
documents of Divine Augustus concerning Volesus Messala (likewise a proconsul of Asia) and the senate's decision passed against him
to be read out.[365]
The above provides us with a clue that the earlier Marcus Valerius Messala Volesus, who was consul in 5 AD and had been
proconsul of Asia in 11 or 12 AD, must have had charges brought against him as well. Anyway, they are all ganging up on
Silanus, but Tiberius has a bit of mercy on him at the request of Silanus' sister, "Torquata, a Virgin of old-time sanctity."
(According to A. J. Woodman, an inscription was found that attests to her having been a Vestal Virgin for 64 years.) The story
is in Annals 3.66–70.
There was a C. Appius Junius Silanus who was consul in 28 AD and could possibly have been sent out in 29 or 30. Here's what
Tacitus says about him:
With Junius Silanus and with Silius Nerva as consuls, a foul beginning to the year was made with the dragging to prison of the illustrious
Roman equestrian Titius Sabinus owing to his friendship with Germanicus.[366]
Now, isn't it interesting that there is a Sabinus hanging out with Germanicus, too, recalling that there was an alleged Sabinus
causing problems by going after Herod the Great's estate when Archelaus headed off for Rome? Apparently, Silanus’
prosecution was delayed, and we find him again in 32 AD:
¼ Annius Pollio and Appius Silanus[367] along with Scaurus Mamercus and Sabinus Calvisius were arraigned for treason ...[368]
The name "Annius Pollio" catches the eye. Was that where Josephus got the idea for "Annius Rufus"? I'm just struck by the
names "Rufus and Gratus" appearing in juxtaposition as governors after they appeared several other times in Josephus' text
as army captains in the rebellion. I don’t think Josephus made up additional procurators of Judea; I think a Christian editor did
– one who saw the chronological problems of Pontius Pilate’s term of office being way too early to fit the Jesus timeline. It
seems that it was done by someone who didn’t understand the Roman nomenclature or social/political ranking.
Coming back to Sabinus, who was connected to the death of Herod the Great as the agent of Augustus (allegedly) and later,
one by that name (Titius Sabinus) as a friend of Germanicus, Tacitus writes of the year 24 AD:
With Cornelius Cethegus and Visellius Varro as consuls ... [Tiberius] was being hounded by Sejanus, who repeatedly censured the fact
that the community was split as in a civil war: there were, he said, people calling themselves members of "Agrippina's faction" [widow
of Germanicus] ... It was for this reason that he attacked C. Silius and Titius Sabinus. Ruinous to each of them was their friendship with
Germanicus, but to Silius was also the fact that, as controller of a mighty army for seven years and, after winning the triumphal insignia
in Germany, as victor in the Sacrovirian war, he was likely to fall with a heavier crash ... Silius' wife was Sosia Galla, resented by the
princeps on account of her affection for Agrippina. The decision was made to seize them both, deferring Sabinus for a time ...[369]
In short, this is perhaps either the same alleged person who was the "agent of Augustus" in 1 BC, or his son. But if it was the
son, it is odd that Tacitus does not mention the family connection, because he is usually very diligent about those things.
In other words, it looks like Josephus – or a redactor – again has used the name of one of Germanicus' friends/staff/entourage
to take some position or other in his rewriting of the tale of the Sorrows of Judea. The bottom line is, however, we are having
a hard time lining any of these real people and events up with the novelized version by Josephus. While some of the
characters are attested in Tacitus (e.g., Creticus Silanus, governor of Syria), we can’t find the alleged governors of Judea whom
Josephus (or a redactor) adds into his Antiquities: Marcus Ambivius/Ambivulus, Annius Rufus, or Valerius Gratus; it seems that
they never existed except in the imagination and only for the purpose of being placeholders. We notice how in Wars,
Josephus goes from the end of the ethnarchy of Archelaus to the death of Augustus and the sending of Pilate to the end of
Tiberius’ reign in just a few paragraphs. One gets the distinct impression that something is missing, that something has been
removed. And even if we determine that Pilate was there from the death of Augustus to the death of Germanicus, we are still
in the dark about what was happening during those years of the leap to 36 AD that are unaccounted for by Josephus or
anyone else. That’s one of the perils of history: there are some things we will just never know.
Paul
Robbers, Pirates, Brigands and Tyrants
Let’s have a short recapitulation before we move on to our next important study. We have established with a high degree of
probability that the Testimonium is given in a 19 AD context all the way around. It appears that Pilate came in 14 or 15 and
was “sent down” in 19 possibly because of the “maltreatment of the allies” encouraged by Cn. Piso, the alleged murderer of
Germanicus. We have also examined the possibility that someone of some importance to the Jews was executed under
Pontius Pilate, and that this was described in a text that occupied the place of the TF. Also, that this execution happened in 19
AD. Since we are missing an account of the death of Judas the Galilean, I think that Unterbrink is correct: it belongs there. I
have speculated that it takes the form of the account of the Golden Eagle Temple cleansing found at the time of the death of
Herod the Great. Did Josephus put it there himself, or did a redactor? I think a redactor did. As we have learned from bits and
pieces reported by early Christian writers, the Josephan text they had was significantly different from the one we have now. It
seems that the main differences involve those three areas of the text marked by the number thirty-seven, as I have discussed
above.
[NOTE: Last few sentences above: delete, otherwise, has to be more firmly established, i.e., list the attestations in church
fathers that each of these sections was tampered with. The one about James/JtB is weak, because Origen was probably
quoting Hegesippus, not Josephus. The only one that sticks in my memory is the reference to the 49 AD explusion, but that
isn’t even one of the three areas regarding 37, so I think most readers would need a very short refresher here backing up the
claim.]
Josephus refers to the messianists as robbers, pirates, brigands, tyrants, etc., leading people to rebel against Rome and get
themselves killed and Jerusalem destroyed. Yet, Josephus has a lot to hide. According to his autobiography, he tried joining
the Essenes/Zealots/Zadokites himself when he was young and hung out with a John the Baptist type whose name, Bannus, is
reflected in the story of John the Baptist. When the Romans demonstrated that they were going to win the war (or perhaps
before), Josephus completely turned and became convinced that the Jewish god was on the side of the Romans because the
Jews had been so wicked in rebelling. Further, he was convinced, that the Roman emperor was the messiah who was to come
out of Judea and rule the world. Or he could have just claimed these things because it was convenient to do so.
Josephus tries to make a clear distinction between the Essenes and the “Fourth Philosophy” of Judas the Galilean, whom he
blames most heartily for the revolt (in which he, himself, willingly participated) and the ultimate destruction of Jerusalem and
possibly a million Jews. But as noted numerous times, Josephus was blowing a lot of smoke over the whole affair, busily
dissembling and covering his own backside while trying to clean up the image of the Jews as a whole and the Essenes and
Pharisees in particular, not to forget his Flavian masters. It would be not an unreasonable assumption that Josephus was very
familiar with the Essenes and their ideas, and our knowledge of this group has been greatly enhanced by the discovery of the
hidden texts at Qumran. When one reads these texts, it seems that the community at Qumran was rather close in ideology to
Josephus’ Judas the Galilean and his Fourth Philosophy.
So, while he is trying to keep the Essenes clean, he is separating out the revolutionary messianism and apocalypticism and
assigning it to a Fourth Philosophy, which I think he just made up as a category to hold the violent elements of the sect. If you
read some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, you can feel the incandescent hatred of the brotherhood for the Romans and all they
represented. For example, here are some excerpts from the “War of Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness” scroll:
On the day when the Kittim [i.e. Romans] fall there shall be a battle and a tremendous slaughter before the God of Israel, for He has
appointed a day for Himself from of old for a war of annihilation against the Sons of Darkness. ¼ On the trumpets of the slain they shall
inscribe, “The Hand of God’s Might in Battle to Strike All Treacherous Men Dead.” On the trumpets of ambush they shall inscribe, “The
Mysteries of God to Destroy Wickedness.” On the trumpets of pursuit they shall inscribe, “God’s Smiting of All the Sons of Darkness.”
(His anger will not return until they are completely destroyed.) ¼
On the blade of the javelins they shall inscribe, “The Lightning Flash of a Spear for the Power of God.” Upon the weapons of the second
group they shall inscribe, “Bloody Missiles to Bring down Those Slain by God’s Anger.” Upon the javelins of the third group they shall
inscribe, “A Sword Flash Devouring the Wicked Who Are Slain by God’s Judgment.” ¼ they shall defile their hands with the corpses of
the Kittim in striking them down ¼ All of these [shock troops] will take up the pursuit [of the fleeing enemy] in order to exterminate
the enemy in the battle of God in an eternal annihilation. ¼ When the slain are falling, the priests shall keep sounding the trumpets
from a distance, but they shall not come among the corpses so as to pollute themselves with their unclean blood, for they are holy
men, and shall not defile the oil of their anointing as priests with the blood of a worthless nation.[370]
Further, one finds that the sect referred to its members as “saints” and “the elect” and its totality as the true “church of god”
and “The Way”, all terms that show up in early so-called Christian literature, even Paul’s writings. That leads to the ineluctable
conclusion that the so-called early Jerusalem church was nothing more than the support/recruiting arm of an
Essene/Zadokite/Zealot/Sicarii group fomenting rebellion against Rome; and that leads to the idea that what they were doing
in their so-called evangelizing was gathering recruits, supporters, and funds to conduct their war, and using messianic hopes
to promote it, to gather support, and to maintain the spirits and loyalty of the revolutionaries. Based on the historical
evidence, that is the sum and substance of the early so-called Jerusalem church. It was certainly messianic and cultic, but not
at all in the way the later Christian myth-makers and apologists imagined. That means that Paul was undoubtedly familiar
with the Essenes as well, at least in terms of the chapters scattered around the empire to which Josephus and Pliny give
witness. When Paul went to Jerusalem, he probably met the leaders of the coming rebellion: the three “pillars”, James,
Cephas/Simon/Peter, John/Jude(?).[371]
However, the church as understood by the later myth-makers also has a foundation in historical elements. It seems that Paul
had very different ideas about what a messiah should be. It is in the context described above that we can gain an
understanding of the conflict between Paul and the “Jerusalem James Gang”. The Three Pillars were intent on creating a war
and Paul was intent on preventing one. They preached two completely different messiahs, as is clear from Paul’s writings. So
how did they get combined?
In the Fifteenth Year?
In order to deal with the question of how a revered uber-Jewish rebel and teacher of the law was amalgamated with the
Pauline figure who was sacrificed to save all of humanity, we need to consider a few other things. First, we should notice that
the Lukan gospel has the following:
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar – when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee [Antipas],
his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene ¼[372]
Many scholars believe the original beginning of Luke’s gospel was 3:1 and that the longer intro was added later. In fact, the
early heretic Marcion created the first “New Testament”, including a shorter version of the gospel of Luke, and 10 of Paul’s
letters – the same 10 identified as authentic by Douglas Campbell. His version of the gospel was arguably more original than
the version that has come down to us in the “official” New Testament.[373] Marcion’s version simply began with the words,
“In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when Pilate was governing Judea ¼”
We have in this statement the original combining of the two tales: two completely different times attached to two completely
different events combined into one. Based on all the clues I have gathered together here, it seems rather certain that Pontius
Pilate was never in Judea in the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius". The 15th year of Tiberius would be 29/30 AD, the time
traditionally assigned to the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. According to what I am proposing here, that would
be 10/11 years after the death of Judas the Galilean. It seems to me that the fifteenth year marks the beginning of Paul’s
mission, his messianic vision of a very different Christ from the one executed in 19 AD by Pontius Pilate
Perhaps after the legend that Jesus had started his ministry in 29 AD had become established, it was noticed that the time was
all wrong, so additional years and prefects/procurators were added. Tacitus’ remark that Christians are disreputable people
who worship someone who was executed under Pilate was simply based on a report about what the Christians of the time
were saying themselves. They were messianists who were members of Essene-like ecclesia who knew about the earlier
respected teacher of the law, Judas the Galilean, executed in 19 AD under Pontius Pilate.
Regarding this issue of the conflict between the fifteenth year of Tiberius and what we have learned about Pilate – that he
was not there then – we find in Ellegård an explanation even if he does not fully realize what he is explaining:
… the Jesus of the Gospels is essentially a myth. The Gospels are largely fiction. They were created around the turn of the first and
second century in order to give concreteness and substance to the Jesus who, as the Messiah, had appeared to Paul and his fellow
apostles in ecstatic visions. …
As for the time of Jesus' death the point of departure was one fairly definite date: the time when Paul and his fellow apostles had
received their visions. They had seen Jesus sitting in the heavens around the year 30. It was therefore a most natural hypothesis that
Jesus had been crucified and resurrected shortly before that time. Now, around the year 100, more than half a century and a
disruptive internal war later, nobody could or would invalidate that very plausible hypothesis. Accordingly, those who tried to
reconstruct a life of Jesus at this time could safely place the Crucifixion at the time of the notorious Roman governor Pontius Pilate.
…[374]
I will agree that the point of departure for the mythical Jesus was the time when Paul had his vision and began his apostolic
work, but I will also argue that the messiah Paul preached was very different from the messiah of the Jerusalem ecclesia. The
latter actually did have a connection to Pilate, though Pilate was in Judea much earlier and assigning his presence there to the
time of the beginning of Paul’s mission was the big mistake made by the early gospel writers. Ellegård goes on to say:
Briefly, it is assumed that memories of the historical Jesus, crucified under Pilate, gave rise to oral traditions among his followers, and
that these traditions were eventually written down and finally incorporated in the Gospels towards the end of the first century CE. Now
if the assumption of a historical Jesus crucified under Pilate is removed, this construction is left without a foundation. Such a complete
reversal of the received view would amount to a paradigm shift in New Testament studies.[375]
Ellegård is partly right and partly wrong. There probably was a Jewish messiah-type executed by Pilate in 19 AD. And for ten
or eleven years he appeared to his followers in ecstatic visions. The messianic return of Judas the Galilean, of Simon of
Peraea, of any number of other messianic types who were coming with god and his angels to destroy the Romans was what
the Jerusalem ecclesia – and probably other Essene-type groups of the Diaspora – were all about. Paul came along and, in the
fifteenth year of Tiberius, had a vision of a very different messiah.
I am going to propose and argue something of a Jesus-myth hybrid; that there was a real person – or several – who were
assimilated to the Jesus story, and that Pontius Pilate did execute one of them – possibly the most important figure to the
anti-Roman Jews of that time, but that this character had nothing whatsoever to do with the Christ Crucified of Paul. The
messiah of the Jerusalem ecclesia was a completely different type of messiah than the one Paul taught, and in the end, the
two were combined in an uneasy amalgamation – a chimera that has left theologians scratching their heads for millennia.
Paul's epistles are almost unanimously agreed by scholars to be the earliest Christian documents, yet Paul shows complete
ignorance of the events of the gospels. Indeed, the gospels give strong indications to have been composed using Paul's ideas
and words as their foundation and framework.[376]
Based on a careful reading of Paul’s texts we learn that there was, apparently, a messianic cult in Judea with headquarters in
Jerusalem, with which Paul had a very problematical relationship. Actually, it is assuming to even say that: we don't know
what the Jerusalem ecclesia with which Paul had connections was about, though Josephus gives us some idea when he
describes the character Judas the Galilean and his Fourth Philosophy and rebel associates. By making the logical connections
with the group that left behind what are now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have a more complete picture of these
zealots, militant Essenes, Zadokites, sicarii, and so on. We also get the strong impression that Josephus was one of them for a
time, or at least wanted in their club. Perhaps they rejected him?
[NOTE: Below is doubtful. Were all the Dead Sea Scroll texts referring to the liar composed and written in the few years before
68, when Qumran was destroyed? Josephus went to Rome in 63, started his stuff in Galilee in 65, was arrested in 67 and
wasn’t freed until 69. Doesn’t seem plausible to me.]
One even wonders if Josephus could be "The Liar" of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He certainly fits the bill better than Paul, who was
always far away and had very little, if anything, to do with the Jerusalem activities (though the author of Acts does his
damnedest to locate Paul there as often as possible). For more than a decade, Paul wasn’t even on the James Gang’s radar,
and he only visited Jerusalem twice. Could he really have been such a thorn in their side? They were probably happy enough
with him bringing Gentiles into the fold to get some name brand recognition in the far reaches of the empire, which they
thought was helping them to get some new recruits to “make Aliyah” and fight for the cause. But that wasn’t what Paul was
doing and when the Jerusalem gang found out, things got a bit ugly for Paul.
Paul was off in his own world, for the most part, busily creating his own cult with elements borrowed from many sources.
From his fevered Old Testament exegeses, he developed a cult figure who was an atoning sacrifice. From the Hellenistic
mystery religions, he developed a divine savior in whom followers can become mystically incorporated, by participating in his
death and rebirth. There was, of course, more to it than that, but we’ll get there. We have a few things to cover first.
Paul and Josephus
We now have a general idea that there were several Jewish messiah figures who were exactly that – Jewish Messiah types, of
Jews, for Jews, and by Jews and expected to wipe out the Romans: the Qumran “Teacher of Righteousness”, the founder of
the sect; Simon of Peraea, the “king of the Jews” slain by Gratus and commemorated on the Jeselsohn Stone; and Judas the
Galilean, who appears to have been the most important and influential, because Josephus devotes an extraordinary amount
of text to him and members of his family throughout Wars and Antiquities. Maccoby[377] and Hilsenrath[378] both highlight
the fact that elements of these figures made their way into both the gospels and Acts, which tells us that the authors of these
texts certainly were aware of what they were doing. Maccoby and Hilsenrath are convinced that the Jewish Messiah was all
there was and Paul just perverted it, so they go on to cast Paul in the role of betrayer and mythmaker. As we will soon see,
there was much more to it than that.
As those early authors searched Jewish texts – including Josephus – for clues to create their Jesus of Nazareth, they found a
number of characters whose actions were incorporated into the tale, including several with the name “Jesus”, the saddest
being Jesus, the son of Ananus, whom Josephus identifies as a plebeian and a husbandman and who
… began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem
and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he
went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great
indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say
anything for himself, or anything peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before.
Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman
procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears,
but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And
when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he
made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and
dismissed him.[379]
It’s odd that Josephus appears to restrict his mention of individuals with the name “Jesus” in his Antiquities while there are
several of them in Wars. One suspects that the above individual was neither a plebeian nor the son of Ananus, a
husbandman. A close comparison of the various Jesuses in Antiquities and Wars might produce interesting results.
[NOTE: Expand on the above or delete. What suggests he wasn’t any of those things? What was he?]
In any event, with a comprehensive knowledge of the texts of Josephus, it becomes glaringly obvious that the gospel writers
had certain knowledge of Judas the Galilean as a messiah figure, and were deliberately and consciously writing their texts with
his historical reality in mind, but heavily overlaying it with the Pauline Christ, who was an altogether different figure. It
constitutes deliberate fraud and I don’t think this realization can be avoided when all the pieces and context of the times are
considered. The gospels were rhetorical works consciously designed to be religious propaganda.[380] What those writers did
to both Judas the Galilean and to Paul’s Son of God borders on criminal.
Does Josephus have anything to say about Paul? It doesn’t look like it, but there are some interesting elements that were
probably utilized by the author of Acts in his efforts to infuse his composition with verisimilitude. They involve a fellow named
Costobarus and his brother Saul.
According to Josephus, in c. 37 BC, Marc Antony appointed Herod the Great as Tetrarch of Judaea; and Herod appointed
Costobarus as Governor of Idumaea and Gaza.[381] Soon afterwards, c. 34 BC, Herod gave his sister Salome in marriage to
Costobarus. Not long after, Costobarus got on the wrong side of Herod. Supposedly, Salome issued a writ of divorce (which a
woman was not permitted to do under Jewish law), c. 27–25 BC. Salome then informed Herod that Costobarus was getting
ready to flee the country in the company of Herod’s own brother Pheroras, who was out of favor because of his romantic
attachment to a slave. Even worse, Costobarus had been hiding some of Herod’s enemies for years. These were the “Sons of
Baba”, a politically powerful family that led the resistance against Herod at the time of the siege of Jerusalem in 37 BC.
Costobarus and the Sons of Baba were, apparently, arrested and executed by Herod c. 25 BC, and that should be the end of
that. However, Josephus also tells us that Salome and Costobarus had a son.[382] In another place, Josephus tries to sort out
the family of Herod, where we learn that Salome had a son named Antipater and a daughter named Bernice, the latter being
specifically referred to as a child of Costobarus. Apparently, Herod took his niece, Bernice, as a wife and they had a son. Skip
some of the confusion and we come to this passage:
¼ but Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of
Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country,
and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husband's brother by the father's
side … But these descendants of Alexander, soon after their birth, deserted the Jewish religion, and went over to that of the
Greeks.[383]
Now let’s look at a short passage from Wars that is discussing the early days of the Jewish insurrection. Here, a Costobar, Saul
and Antipas called on Agrippa II to send help to fight the rebels. What followed was the Battle of Beth-horon (25 November 66
AD) in which the Jews defeated the Roman general Cestius:
After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as from a ship when it was
going to sink; Costobarus, therefore, and Saul, who were brethren, together with Philip, the son of Jacimus, who was the commander of
king Agrippa's forces, ran away from the city, and went to Cestius. … Cestius sent Saul and his friends, at their own desire, to Achaia, to
Nero, to inform him of the great distress they were in, and to lay the blame of their kindling the war upon Florus, as hoping to alleviate
his own danger, by provoking his indignation against Florus.[384]
Notice that we have a doublet of sorts: two Herodian women (Salome and Herodias) divorcing their husbands. In the first
case, Salome’s husband, Costobarus, is planning to flee with the brother of Herod the Great. In the second instance, another
Costobarus is going to flee with his brother and a friend. And notice the eminent men deserting the Jewish religion. The
second divorcing woman, Herodias, is supposedly the woman who was so sharply criticized by John the Baptist, leading to his
execution.
Florus was the Roman procurator of Judea from 64 to 66 AD, so it is pretty obvious that this Saul can have nothing to do with
the apostle Paul who, by the way, is only referred to as “Saul” in Acts; Paul never indicates or suggests that his real name was
Saul. In view of Paul’s own statements about his activities and whereabouts at various points, the further parts of the above
passage are interesting:
In the meantime, the people of Damascus, when they were informed of the destruction of the Romans, set about the slaughter of
those Jews that were among them; and as they had them already cooped up together in the place of public exercises, which they had
done out of the suspicion they had of them, they thought they should meet with no difficulty in the attempt; yet did they distrust their
own wives, which were almost all of them addicted to the Jewish religion; on which account it was that their greatest concern was,
how they might conceal these things from them; so they came upon the Jews, and cut their throats, as being in a narrow place, in
number ten thousand, and all of them unarmed, and this in one hour's time, without anybody to disturb them.[385]
It’s suggestive that Paul’s own mild statements that he persecuted the “church” were turned into a rather violent sort of
activity by the author of Acts, who drew on Josephus. And several researchers, including Robert Eisenman, have read into the
story about Costobarus and Saul that this was the apostle Paul, and that he was a Herodian; never mind the extremely late
date and implausibility, and forget the fact that none of this is represented in the epistles. This Saul is too late to be our Paul,
though it might indicate something of the reason why Paul was persecuted in Damascus: the wives of the Damascenes were
quite taken with the Jewish religion and perhaps Paul’s teachings didn’t go over so well (either with the women themselves,
or their husbands!)?
Which brings up the idea of Paul’s persecution of a group he later “converted” to. Of what could this “persecution” have
consisted? I think we have the answer in Paul’s own story of being hunted by the ethnarch of Aretas. The group that Paul had
apparently converted to was a group known to be fomenting rebellion against Rome. Paul was busy establishing his bona fides
among them and that is what led to his being chased out of Damascus. The ethnarch of Aretas was having none of that
revolutionary stuff going on in his city!
There is a further passage in Wars that may have given ideas and shape to the author of Acts in his novelization of the
reconciliation of the Pauline and Petrine ideas and activities.[386] It refers to an individual named Simon, a son of one Saul. I
would suggest that this name and the activity of the individual is what attracted the attention of the author of Acts – he
thought he might make use of the dynamic in his portrayal of Paul in his former life as an antagonist toward the Jerusalem
James Gang.[387] This Simon ben Saul was a “man of reputation among the Jews”, who, for some reason or another, was at
war with his own people (Jews):
It will deserve our relation what befell Simon; he was the son of one Saul, a man of reputation among the Jews. This man was
distinguished from the rest by the strength of his body, and the boldness of his conduct, although he abused them both to the
mischieving of his countrymen; for he came every day and slew a great many of the Jews of Scythopolis, and he frequently put them
to flight, and became himself alone the cause of his army's conquering. But a just punishment overtook him for the murders he had
committed upon those of the same nation with him; for when the people of Scythopolis threw their darts at them in the grove, he
drew his sword, but did not attack any of the enemy; for he saw that he could do nothing against such a multitude; but he cried out
after a very moving manner, and said, "O you people of Scythopolis, I deservedly suffer for what I have done with relation to you,
when I gave you such security of my fidelity to you, by slaying so many of those that were related to me. Wherefore we very justly
experience the perfidiousness of foreigners, while we acted after a most wicked manner against our own nation. I will therefore die,
polluted wretch as I am, by mine own hands; for it is not fit I should die by the hand of our enemies; and let the same action be to me
both a punishment for my great crimes, and a testimony of my courage to my commendation, that so no one of our enemies may have
it to brag of, that he it was that slew me, and no one may insult upon me as I fall." Now when he had said this, he looked round about
him upon his family with eyes of commiseration and of rage [that family consisted of a wife and children, and his aged parents]; so, in
the first place, he caught his father by his grey hairs, and ran his sword through him, and after him he did the same to his mother, who
willingly received it; and after them he did the like to his wife and children, every one almost offering themselves to his sword, as
desirous to prevent being slain by their enemies; so when he had gone over all his family, he stood upon their bodies to be seen by all,
and stretching out his right hand, that his action might be observed by all, he sheathed his entire sword into his own bowels. This
young man was to be pitied, on account of the strength of his body and the courage of his soul; but since he had assured foreigners of
his fidelity [against his own countrymen], he suffered deservedly.[388]
It cannot refer in any way to the apostle Paul, even assuming he was formerly called Saul, because it is too late. But elements
of it surely could have been used for novelistic inspiration about Paul and retrojected into the past.
Paul’s Mission
This brings us to the problem of Paul and his Son of God Messiah. Paul obviously knew the messiah of the Jerusalem ecclesia,
but just as obviously, he wasn’t much impressed by them or their messiah. He tells the Corinthians that they appear to be
easily taken in by “a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached” and in the next breath, he refers to those “super-apostles”
whom he then goes on to excoriate as “false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder,
for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of
righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.” It becomes even more evident who he is talking about: “Are they
Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I.”[389]
No, Paul’s Son of God was not Judas the Galilean or any other Jewish figure, despite the fact that later redactors have tried to
make it appear that they were one and the same.
In Galatians he announces clearly, “Paul, an apostle – sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the
Father”, and then accuses his readers, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the
grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you
into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel
other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” He continues, “I want you to know, brothers and
sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I
received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” Further on, when talking about his second trip to Jerusalem, he mentions the
leaders of the Jerusalem ecclesia specifically, making the side comment: “As for those who were held in high esteem –
whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism – they added nothing to my message.” His
opponents finally come into focus: “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back
and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.”[390] I don’t
think it’s unreasonable to suggest that these statements, along with Paul’s repeated focus on crucifixion, indicate that the
pillars’ gospel did not include any focus on crucifixion. If it did, their interpretation of it couldn’t have had much in common
with Paul’s, because he repeatedly contrasts the two, and highlights their differences.
Based on the way this group spied on Paul, hounded him, interfered with his work and his groups, and the way he responded
to them, it is obvious that Paul was not preaching the same Christ and the Jerusalem group was becoming more and more
hostile about it. It seems fairly clear from what we know so far, that Paul could not have been ignorant of Judas the Galilean
and his Fourth Philosophy, or that he – and possibly other dead rebel leaders – was most likely the messianic figure preached
by the Jerusalem ecclesia. But this is obviously not the messiah who inspired Paul. The real character on whom the Jewish
Jesus was loosely modeled was of absolutely no interest to Paul. That, in and of itself, is an astonishing thing. But that
realization leaves us free to try to discover exactly what it was that drove Paul, because it is clear he wasn’t myth-making or
running a con job; he was utterly devoted to his mission, body and soul. And since Paul is, ultimately, the author of the main
Christian theology and Christology, we should very much want to discover what he was thinking.
We have already discussed Wells’ take on Paul’s theology in our discussion of the early documents of Christianity. As he
points out, the highly developed angelology of Jewish literature of the time clearly influenced Paul, who not only believed in
the angels but also the multi-layered universe. This was part of the intellectual environment of the Middle Platonists, who
apparently influenced the development of gnosticism.[391] Paul was apparently engaged in a battle against these obviously
terrifying forces, and his vision was one where a single being could stand against this series of worlds lower than God himself,
and act as the defender and redeemer of humanity.
From Phil. ii, 5–11 we learn that Jesus is a divine figure who came down into the material world to suffer an ignominious death. Then
he reascended and received a mystic name as powerful as the name of God. Couchoud regards this story of the descent and reascension of the divine being as the key to Paul’s conception of Jesus and he remarks that we are fortunate enough to posses an
ancient Jewish apocalypse which gives the story in greater detail, and so fills out the picture which is merely sketched by Paul.[392] He
is referring to the so-called Ascension of Isaiah ¼[393]
As Wells notes, Paul seems to have had a revelation similar to that of the author of the Ascension of Isaiah (see the section,
“Daniel, Enoch, and the Ascension of Isaiah”). Keep in mind the following, quoted by Wells from Paul’s Col. 2:15: Jesus “made
a spectacle of the cosmic powers and authorities, and led them as captives in his triumphal procession”. It is a clue.
It is in the book of Isaiah that we find what was driving Paul. As many scholars have noted, messiah simply means anointed
and could apply to priests, kings, and prophets. Interestingly, in Isaiah we find the only non-Jew in the OT who was identified
as the messiah, or anointed one of Yahweh. Isaiah tells us that Yahweh spoke “to his messiah, to Cyrus, whom I [Yahweh]
took by his right hand to subdue nations before him” (Isa. 45:1, “Second Isaiah”). It seems clear that, to the author of this text,
“Yahweh’s anointed” is something more than a title; it is a theological construct expressing that this individual is appointed
and protected by God, the God of the Jews, for a special role in relation to them.
[394] Josephus appears to have understood
the term in a similar way, because he was easily able to switch sides and announce that Vespasian was the messiah. Perhaps
Paul did something similar?
Paul describes his call to be an apostle in Gal. 1:15–7, where he says:
But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I
might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were
already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus.
Rainer Riesner points out the clear relationship between the formulation of this passage and Isaiah 49:1: “Listen to me, you
islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the Lord called me; from my mother’s womb he has spoken my
name.”[395] Riesner also highlights the numerous places where Paul identifies with the Deutero-Isaianic Servant of God and
appears to have planned his mission based on this text. He notes:
… the most unequivocal statements of hope concerning the Gentile world appear in the second part of the book of Isaiah (Isa. 45:20–2;
51:4f.; 56:1–8) specifically in connection with the figure of the Servant of God (Isa. 42:1, 3f, 6; 49:1, 6, 22). The promise in Isa. 9:1
belongs to a particular geographic context that was not a matter of indifference to part of Jewish and Christian expectation: “In the
former time he [God] brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the coming time he will make glorious
the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light;
those who lived in a land of deep darkness – on them light has shined.” (Isa. 8:23–9)[396]
In Josephus, we learn that the territory of Naphtali extended to Damascus (Ant. 5.1.22 [86]), and texts from Qumran reveal a
sharp interest in this region (1Qap-Gen 21:28–22:10). Essene groups settled in Damascus apparently because they thought
that the messianic age would begin there. Based on the evidence adduced by Riesner, it seems clear that the Essenic type of
messianic thinking affected Paul. He came to understand his own revelation as the beginning of the ingathering of the
Gentiles.
The theological frame of the Damascus revelation in 2 Cor. 4:6 appears to exhibit similarities in language to the Essene-like
Testament of Levi, which tells us: “And his star shall arise in heaven as of a king, lighting up the light of knowledge as the sun
the day; and he shall be magnified in the world. He shall shine forth as the sun on the earth, and shall remove all darkness
from under heaven (18:3) … And in his priesthood the Gentiles shall be multiplied in knowledge upon the earth, and
enlightened through the grace of the Lord” (18:9). Parallels can be drawn to the fictional transfiguration of Jesus, said to have
occurred in the area around Mount Hermon, and Gal. 1:15 cited above. In short, it looks like Paul saw himself as a sort of
earthly messiah, an anointed prophet chosen before he was born, the Servant of God, whose task was to proclaim the
revealed Son to the Gentiles and begin the fulfillment of the prophecies of Isaiah. Riesner also proposes that Paul’s itinerary
was governed by Isaiah 66:18–21:
“And I, because of what they have planned and done, am about to come and gather the people of all nations and languages, and they
will come and see my glory.
“I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations – to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians
(famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will
proclaim my glory among the nations. And they will bring all your people, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an
offering to the Lord – on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels,” says the Lord. “They will bring them, as the
Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple of the Lord in ceremonially clean vessels. And I will select some of them also to be
priests and Levites,” says the Lord.[397]
It seems that Paul was convinced that he was living this plan for the Gentiles. Traces of Paul’s exegesis of Isaiah can be
detected in Rom. 15:16–24, and the entire chapter is loaded with direct citations and allusions to the OT.
But his redemptive-historical identification as “the servant of circumcision on behalf of the truth of God in order that he might confirm
the promises given to the patriarchs” (Rom. 15:8) demonstrates that without an origin rooted in the ancient Jewish people of God,
neither is there any hope for the Gentiles (Rom. 15:8–13). Paul cites Isa. 11:10: “The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule
the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles shall hope” (Rom. 15:12).
The reign of the Christ over the nations will begin when “by the word and deed” of Paul he “wins obedience from the Gentiles” (Rom.
15:18). Just as Christ became “a servant for circumcision” (Rom. 15:8) in order to put into effect for the Gentiles the promises to the
patriarchs (Rom. 15:9), so also does Paul now understand himself “because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ
Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable” (Rom. 15:15f)
… In the eleventh chapter, the apostle gave the Roman congregation a glimpse into the mystery revealed to him, namely, that the
entry of the “full number of the Gentiles” constitutes the condition for the eschatological deliverance of Israel (Rom. 11:25–27). In Isa.
66:19, proclamation of God’s glory among the “nations … that have not heard of my fame” is the condition for the diaspora Jews being
“brought as an offering … to the holy mountain Jerusalem” (Isa. 66:20). From this perspective, it would not be surprising for Paul to
consider it his commission first to win the “full number of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:25) – a number predetermined by God – to a certain
extent as an offering, by “fulfilling the gospel of Christ” (Rom. 15:19) through his geographically expansive proclamation. That was his
task; he is silent here concerning the obligation of others to engage in a vigorous mission to the Jews.[398]
Looking closely at Isa. 66:19a, “I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations”, we
notice two things: the “setting of a sign” – Christ on the Cross – and human agents being obliged to respond to this sign
appropriately. And here is where we come up against a conundrum. Going strictly by the instructions in Isaiah, Paul should
have evangelized Judaism in its purest form, but that’s not what he did. Judas the Galilean or any of the other Jewish-type
messiahs meant nothing to Paul. To him, they were “another Christ” and “a different gospel” preached by “false apostles,
deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.” For Paul, the Jewish law was no longer of any value because of Christ
on the Cross. Wells thinks that this was because Paul had a vision of a criminal on a cross, revealed to him as the Son of God
and so he had to change his mind about things and thus came to his ideas about the negating of the Jewish law. Wells’ take on
it bears reviewing:
The argument he [Paul] gives to show that [the Law] is unnecessary is that a crucified Jesus contradicts the law of Deut. 21.23 that a
man whose dead body is hanged upon a tree is accursed of God. Paul quotes this passage and comments: ‘Christ brought us freedom
from the curse of the law by becoming for our sake an accursed thing’ (Gal. iii.13). The argument is: the law says that the man crucified
is accursed. Jesus was crucified but could not be accursed. Therefore a case has occurred for which the law is not valid. But as it must
be either valid absolutely or invalid absolutely, it is by this one case rendered wholly invalid.[399]
I think Wells was going in the right direction, though I don’t think that Paul had a vision of a criminal on a cross. As Wells
notes, while it was possible for orthodox Jews to think of their Messiah as suffering to atone for the sins of the world, they
certainly did not hold the idea that the Messiah might die as a bloody, atoning sacrifice. Paul got that part of his Christology
elsewhere.
It is fairly easy to suggest that Paul adopted the idea of the dying and resurrecting gods of the pagans, but I don’t think it is
quite that simple. Something profoundly moved Paul to think of a man on a cross as a sign: “I will set a sign among them”,
not an “accursed” thing, but rather a symbol of triumph: “he ‘made a spectacle of the cosmic powers and authorities, and led
them as captives in his triumphal procession.’” How did Paul get from 2+2=4 to 2+2=5?
Consider again that Paul’s guide, Deutero-Isaiah, referred to the king of Persia as the Lord’s anointed, a messiah. The entire
passage reads:
“This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of
their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut: I will go before you and will level the mountains; I will break
down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron. I will give you hidden treasures, riches stored in secret places, so that you may
know that I am the Lord, the God of Israel, who summons you by name. For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I
summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me. I am the Lord, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the
place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other. …
“Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay
say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘The potter has no hands’? Woe to the one who says to a father, ‘What
have you begotten?’ or to a mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’
“This is what the Lord says – the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children,
or give me orders about the work of my hands? It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the
heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts. I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my
city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the Lord Almighty.” ¼
“Gather together and come; assemble, you fugitives from the nations. Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood, who pray to
gods that cannot save. Declare what is to be, present it – let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it
from the distant past? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me.
“Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has
uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of
me, ‘In the Lord alone are deliverance and strength.’” All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame.[400]
Cyrus is called God's anointed; he was designed and qualified for his great service by God himself, and we see God
condemning those who criticize the fact that he has chosen a non-Jew to do his work: “Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What
are you making?’” We find this echoed in Romans 9:20–1:
But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like
this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for
common use?
Isaiah makes it clear that the true God (from Isaiah’s and Paul’s perspective) was unknown to Cyrus and yet God foreknew him,
called him by name, and that it was for the sake of Israel that he was raised up.
Why might Paul and groups of messianic Essenes around the Empire not have made a similar inference about another figure
who made a similarly profound impression on the Jews of the preceding century? There was one Gentile leader, also an object
of cultic devotion, who was known as a friend of the Jews, and after his bloody assassination, where his body was ripped to
pieces by knives, his blood poured out like a sacrifice, Roman Jews stayed for days at the site of his funeral pyre, weeping over
his death: Julius Caesar.
The cross element, if not the entire idea of a victorious crucifixion, combined with the announcement of divinity by a great
star – a great comet – is so obviously a representation of the death, funeral and apotheosis of Julius Caesar that it is surprising
that this is not more widely acknowledged. In order to claim this event for the Old Testament god, Paul finds it necessary to
anchor it in OT prophecies. However, it is fully acknowledged by scholars that he gives no historical setting for this event,
gives no biographical details of a "real man", and essentially goes to some extremes to actually avoid such. Wells even
mentions the solution without realizing it:
The preternatural darkness for three hours (asserted by the gospels) and the earthquake (asserted by Matthew alone) are not
mentioned by historians of the time. Gibbon notes[401] that this prodigy of darkness ‘happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the
elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects or received the earliest intelligence of the prodigy’ which is said to
involve ‘the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman Empire’. ‘Each of these philosophers’, he continues, ‘in a
laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, eclipses, which his indefatigable
curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has
been witness since the creation of the globe. A distinct chapter in Pliny is designated for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and
unusual duration; but he contents himself with describing the singular defect of light which followed the murder of Caesar, which ‘had
already been celebrated by most of the poets and historians of that memorable age’.
[402]
Julius Chrestus
One hundred years before the lifetime of Judas of Galilee, Gaius Julius Caesar was born in Italy – perhaps in Bovillae, the
“place of the ox” – a man who was destined to be one of the most remarkable characters who ever lived. After twenty
centuries, his name is as well known as it was in his own time. Most people would look aghast at the suggestion that Caesar
and Jesus have a lot in common, but if we look carefully we will see that the similarities are profound.
It was while reading Stefan Weinstock’s Divus Julius[403] that the conviction began to grow in my mind – unbidden I must add
– that Julius Caesar was the ultimate model for the figure of Jesus Christ – the Christ of Paul, the Son of God, not the Jewish
itinerant preacher or revolutionary. Like most other people, when I heard the name “Caesar”, I tended to think: “politician,
conquering general and dictator”. Like most people, I was not aware of the incredibly broad range of interests and abilities
that Caesar manifested, nor the roles he played in Rome, including Pontifex Maximus – the religious head of the Roman
Republic. I was unaware that he was famous for his mercy, though I did know he had been “deified” after his death. This was
a vague concept that seemed rather ignorant and barbaric to me. I knew he had written reports on his wars, but I didn’t know
he had written a book about grammar, love poetry, tragedies, travel reports, and more.
Obviously, the reason for my ignorance is the same as for nearly everyone else except specialists: Roman history is not taught
in any detail in schools anymore, and most people learn their distorted history from comic books and docu-dramas. Also, as
mentioned by Gelzer, the word “dictator” in our world tends to elicit a knee-jerk image of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. The
very word “Caesarism” was coined for this sort of thing, which is a total misnomer and has nothing at all to do with the real
Caesar. Now, after five years of intensive study of Caesar and the Roman Republic, I get quite irritated when anyone uses that
word.
It’s difficult to talk about the life of Caesar due to the massive misunderstandings about him that have grown up following the
rediscovery of ancient Rome during the Renaissance. At first, when the writings of Cicero were brought to light, Caesar was
seen through his eyes the same way John of Gischala was seen through the jealous, small-minded eyes of Josephus. Cicero,
an authoritarian personality type suffering from serious Dunning-Kruger syndrome, portrayed Caesar as a brutal, power-mad,
immoral dictator. It was only when the Italian scholar and poet Petrarch discovered the letters of Cicero in the 14th century
that Cicero’s true nature was revealed: he was arrogant, utterly self-serving, paranoid, and a complete hypocrite, none of
whose opinions and value judgments could be trusted. But that hasn’t stopped countless scholars and lovers of history from
adopting his views. Once Cicero’s letters, speeches and philosophical writings were published, they were able to influence
gullible minds for centuries to come.
I think a person’s heroes say something about their own character. There are people who respect and admire figures like John
and Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Princess Diana and John Lennon. But there are also people who championed their
deaths, and those who idolize people like J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, Dick Cheney, or Adolph Hitler. They seem somehow
constitutionally unable to differentiate these people’s characters. Not only that, they seem to identify with those who possess
the lowest type of character.
Many figures are controversial, and that’s where I think a close reading of the available materials about them, and the context
in which they lived, is important. If you grew up in the Hoover household, hating Kennedy, that might color your views. But if
after reading as much as you could about the man, what he accomplished, and what he was trying to do you still think it was a
great thing he was assassinated, that says something. I think the same goes for Caesar. And Cicero.
French historian Jerome Carcopino referred to Cicero as “the most odious creature who ever lived.”[404] He was right. Just
read his letters. Unfortunately, Carcopino didn’t take that realization the next step and deduce that Cicero’s representations
of Caesar were deeply prejudiced. Beginning with Cicero, nearly everything Caesar did has been interpreted and represented
by historians according to their own psychological biases, ideological agendas, and inner character. The first historians of
Rome were no Howard Zinns writing “people’s histories”; they were rich, upper-class supporters of the status quo. Later
historians were little different – what Michael Parenti calls the “gentlemen historians”. These men, like Cicero, were oligarchs,
and they shared the same mindset: anti-populist, pro-1%.
Consider those among Caesar’s contemporaries who saw him as a conniving conspirator: the “optimates”, an oligarchy of
aristocratic families who dominated the Senate and monopolized state offices in order to profit from the city's corruption and
the ruthless exploitation of foreign conquests. A more rapacious bunch has seldom been seen on planet Earth (though the
current crop are certainly running neck and neck with those of the late Roman Republic). They were the 1% of their time, and
the fact that they despised Caesar speaks volumes. The most hypocritical of these declaimers of virtue were Cicero and Cato.
(Tellingly, these two men continue to be the most idolized by the political and academic establishments.)
In fear that the optimates might lose total control, and thus riches and glory, they blocked the beneficial changes that were
proposed by Caesar and previous champions of the people. They stifled anyone who advanced progressive programs or
coopted them by violence. Although the state was collapsing under this pathological rulership, the optimates stubbornly
resisted any fair resolution of the empire’s problems and claimed that it was they who stood for the Roman tradition – their
heritage. These were the views shared by Caesar’s assassins.[405] They made high-profile claims for their Republican
sentiments, but that merely meant preserving the club of oligarchs.
In many cases, I think the same thing applies today. Many who see Caesar’s actions simply as steps in a self-aggrandizing
power-grab simply can’t understand such a man as Caesar was. Caesar was consistent from the beginning of his life, when he
refused to divorce his wife upon the orders of Sulla, even though he had to go on the run for his life, right to the end, when he
covered his face and resigned himself to death in the face of the mortal hatred of those he saved and loved. He showed
remarkable intelligence, self-control, prudence, courage, creativity, self-discipline, and faithfulness.
Theodor Mommsen, Arthur Kahn, and Michael Parenti are among the historians who seem to really “get” Caesar, and see
through the slander penned by that odious creature Cicero.[406] Mattias Gelzer[407] wrote what is still the gold standard
account of Caesar’s life. In Gelzer’s view, Caesar was a heroic character who was determined from an early age to overthrow a
corrupt aristocracy that fed on the lifeblood of the masses of ordinary people. He notes:
Much has been written about Caesar. The appearance of despotic rulers of quite a different stamp has not always been favourable to
the judgment passed on him. A fresh study of the sources has, on the whole, convinced me of the correctness of my
interpretation.[408]
Along this line, Mommsen wrote that Caesar’s “aim was the highest which a man is allowed to propose himself – the political,
military, intellectual, and moral regeneration of his own deeply decayed nation”:
… The hard school of thirty years' experience changed his views as to the means by which this aim was to be reached; his aim itself
remained the same in the times of his hopeless humiliation and of his unlimited plenitude of power, in the times when as demagogue
and conspirator he stole towards it by paths of darkness, and in those when, as joint possessor of the supreme power and then as
monarch, he worked at his task in the full light of day before the eyes of the world. ... According to his original plan he had purposed to
reach his object ... without force of arms, and throughout eighteen years he had as leader of the people's party moved exclusively amid
political plans and intrigues – until, reluctantly convinced of the necessity for a military support, he, when already forty years of age,
put himself at the head of an army.[409]
Later historians dispute Mommsen’s views, but what they cannot deny is that Caesar's measures protected the ordinary
people against the selfish policies of the nobles.
Caesar’s way of feeling and acting toward his contemporaries – his being – was so remarkably different that his
contemporaries could not comprehend it. His character was unique, not just because of his genius – he was certainly that –
but also because, in a historical period that was driven by endless wars, vengeance, vendettas, maneuvers for power, glory
and dominance, Julius Caesar was preeminently a man of forgiveness; he was famed for his clemency, his mercy. These
qualities are what stand out again and again in Caesar’s own writings, the Gallic Wars and the Civil Wars. He pardoned his
enemies with the hope that they would make peace with him and each other. His books are a record of his experiments with
mercy.
And what was the essence of Paul’s Christ? Mercy and forgiveness.
Can we really say that this was something new and unheard of? Indeed, there were traces of such behavior through ancient
times, but it was rare. The Romans did tend to pardon their enemies if they abased themselves sufficiently and promised to
provide troops and tribute, but in general, when an enemy was defeated, it was usual to make an example of them by
gratuitous death and cruelty. Instincts ruled, and they demanded immediate elimination of an enemy. The thinking was: if you
pardon an enemy because he promises not to attack you again, to be your friend, he will secretly plot your undoing and you
will have to fight him again. That’s how people were brought up to think then; it was pretty much part of the cultural
landscape, and it was the mindset of Cicero and his “friends”.
Cicero wrote to his friend Atticus in December of 50 BC – one month before Caesar crossed the Rubicon and began the civil
war – that Caesar “will not be more merciful than Cinna in the massacre of the nobility, nor less rapacious than Sulla in
confiscating the property of the rich."[410] Two months later, the Italian city of Corfinium surrendered to Caesar, after a week
under siege. Caesar let all the citizens and magistrates go free, and incorporated their troops into his own. One week later, in
March 49 AD, Caesar wrote to his colleagues in Rome, Oppius and Balbus:
I am very glad that your letter expresses such strong approval of what happened at Corfinium. I shall be glad to follow your advice, and
all the more so, that I had spontaneously resolved to display the greatest clemency and to do my best to reconcile Pompey. Let us try
in this way if we can recover the affections of all parties, and enjoy a lasting victory; for others, owing to their cruelty, have been
unable to avoid rousing hatred, or to maintain their victory for any length of time, with the one exception of Lucius Sulla, whom I have
no intention of imitating. Let this be our new method of conquering – to fortify ourselves by mercy and generosity. As to how that may
be secured, certain ideas suggest themselves to my mind, and many more may be hit upon. I beg you to take these matters into
consideration.[411]
Cicero’s prediction about Caesar’s behavior was wrong; he was repeatedly wrong about him, both in predicting his actions and
inferring his motivations. But Cicero had been conditioned by growing up amidst the horrors of the 90s and 80s, witnessing
Sulla’s proscriptions: endless extra-judicial killings and seizure of property. Such experiences only served to make Cicero like
those he feared: inconstant, duplicitous and cruel. And that is why it is so extraordinary that Caesar – who grew up under the
same conditions and worse, since he had to flee for his life when he was not yet 20 and live in hiding until his name was
removed from the list of the proscribed – desired to make mercy a standard operating procedure. Historian Velleius
Paterculus expressed what was probably a common Roman reaction at the time: “Caesar, victorious over all his enemies,
returned to the city, and pardoned all who had borne arms against him, an act of generosity almost passing belief.”[412]
Cicero reveals himself in a remark he once made on Caesar’s mercy:
¼ grants made by Caesar himself as absolute master are again within his power to revoke. He has pardoned even Sallustius: he is said
to refuse absolutely no one. This in itself suggests the suspicion that judicial investigation is held over for another time.[413]
Cicero could not imagine that Caesar was authentically merciful – he must have had an ulterior motive, planning retaliation for
later on – probably because Cicero was guilty of the very things of which he accused Caesar. Cicero was a two-faced fraud,
saying one thing in public, and another in private.
Even those who insulted Caesar viciously were treated with gentleness. Suetonius writes:
On the other hand he never formed such bitter enmities that he was not glad to lay them aside when opportunity offered. Although
Gaius Memmius had made highly caustic speeches against him, to which he had replied with equal bitterness, he went so far as to
support Memmius afterwards in his suit for the consulship.
When Gaius Calvus, after some scurrilous epigrams, took steps through his friends towards a reconciliation, Caesar wrote to him first
and of his own free will.
Valerius Catullus, as Caesar himself did not hesitate to say, inflicted a lasting stain on his name by the verses about Mamurra; yet when
he apologised, Caesar invited the poet to dinner that very same day.[414]
Caesar describes in his writings how his soldiers sometimes resisted or criticized him for his mercy; they thought he was
foolish. Yes, he did have to fight many of those he pardoned a second time. Some he even had to fight a third time. And in the
end, some of his pardoned enemies plotted his undoing and assassinated him, including Brutus and Cassius, whom Caesar had
saved from death and showered with benefits.
Was he was wrong to be merciful? His successors did not practice his clemency. Anthony and Octavian proscribed and
eliminated their enemies – and a few more besides, including Cicero, whom Caesar had forgiven again and again. Cicero wrote
to Atticus after Caesar's death that clemency was his undoing: “if he had not shown it, nothing of the sort would have befallen
him."[415]Caesar's mercy made its way into Paul's thought and thus into Christianity and changed the world though it
certainly did not do away with evil types of varying pathologies. Still, I think our world is a better place for Caesar's sacrifice:
"Greater love hath no man than that he should give up his life for his friends."
Cicero mentions that Caesar “even pardoned Sallustius”. This must refer to Gaius Sallustius Crispus AKA Sallust, charged with
oppression and extortion while governor of Africa. He retired from public life (perhaps on the advice of Caesar) and devoted
himself to his gardens and historical research.[416] According to one source, he later married Cicero’s ex-wife, who divorced
the latter probably because she – and the rest of his family – supported Caesar. Cicero, in contrast, stubbornly lusted after his
oligarchic model, which he had put into practice during his consulship, when he rose to ultimate power and his 15 minutes of
fame and bloodshed, claiming to “save the country” from what amounted to a false-flag set-up: the Catilinarian conspiracy. In
any event, in a book about this tempest in a teapot turned into a hurricane by Cicero, Sallust wrote a famous comparison of
Caesar and Cato:
In birth then, in years and in eloquence, they were about equal; in greatness of soul they were evenly matched, and likewise in renown,
although the renown of each was different. Caesar was held great because of his benefactions and lavish generosity, Cato for the
uprightness of his life. The former became famous for his gentleness and compassion, the austerity of the latter had brought him
prestige. Caesar gained glory by giving, helping, and forgiving; Cato by never stooping to bribery. One was a refuge for the unfortunate,
the other a scourge for the wicked. The good nature of the one was applauded, the steadfastness of the other. Finally, Caesar had
schooled himself to work hard and sleep little, to devote himself to the welfare of his friends and neglect his own, to refuse nothing
which was worth the giving. He longed for great power, an army, a new war to give scope for his brilliant merit. Cato, on the contrary,
cultivated self-control, propriety, but above all austerity. He did not vie with the rich in riches nor in intrigue with the intriguer, but
with the active in good works, with the self-restrained in moderation, with the blameless in integrity. He preferred to be, rather than to
seem, virtuous; hence the less he sought fame, the more it pursued him.[417]
I don’t agree with Sallust’s take on Cato. Cato’s behavior better fits a personality disorder of some sort; the way he killed
himself suggests serious mental issues – disemboweling himself, twice! The difference between the two Romans mirrors the
difference between the old view of the harsh and inexorable Jewish god and Paul’s new view epitomized by his merciful Christ
Crucified who gave his life to redeem humanity.
Caesar was kind toward those who were downtrodden. He was known to advance people of humble origins based on merit
and he had a soft spot for the Jews at a time when all other writers had nothing but scorn for them. Thus, the Jews of the
Roman Empire had good reason to mourn his death. Not only was Caesar tolerant of the Diaspora, he was in every other way
undoubtedly the most remarkable man who ever lived. He spent years trying to solve Rome’s problems via a political solution,
and even when it came down to a choice of civil war, he extended the option of compromise right to the very end. Once he
was master of Rome, he made many reforms that speak eloquently of his true character: he redistributed land, taking from
the rich and giving to the poor; he increased food rations to the poor; he fixed the Roman calendar; he extended Roman
citizenship; he began beneficial engineering projects, planned libraries, theaters; provided support for artists and scholars, and
more. Caesar was famous for qualities that can only be described as righteous and just and merciful.
I haven’t spent much time on Caesar’s other attributes, his absolute genius in so many areas, but I hope I have conveyed to
some small extent the extraordinary nature of Caesar’s character, his mercy, and how strange, how incomprehensible, how
divine, it must have seemed to the people of the time. Caesar’s brief rule between the proscriptions of Cinna, Sulla and Sulla’s
successors in the Senate, and the 20 years of civil war and proscriptions that followed with Octavian, must have seemed like a
period in which a god had actually come to Earth. Caesar had as little time to do his work as his mythical counterpart, Jesus of
Nazareth – about three years.