Josephus, Pilate and Paul: It’s Just a Matter of Time (Part 5)

The Passion of Caesar

The most striking parallels between Jesus and Caesar relate to Caesar’s death. Nicolaus of Damascus gives an account of the
conspiracy that led to his assassination:
The conspirators never met exactly openly, but they assembled a few at a time in each other's homes. There were many discussions
and proposals, as might be expected, while they investigated how and where to execute their design. Some suggested that they should
make the attempt along the Sacred Way, which was one of his favorite walks. Another idea was to do it at the elections, during which
he had to cross a bridge to appoint the magistrates in the Campus Martius. Someone proposed that they draw lots for some to push
him from the bridge and others to run up and kill him. A third plan was to wait for a coming gladiatorial show. The advantage of that
was, because of the show, no suspicion would be aroused if arms were seen. The majority opinion, however, favored killing him while
he sat in the Senate. He would be there by himself, since only Senators were admitted, and the conspirators could hide their daggers
beneath their togas. This plan won the day. ¼
For his friends were alarmed at certain rumors and tried to stop him going to the Senate-house, as did his doctors, for he was suffering
from one of his occasional dizzy spells. His wife, Calpurnia, especially, who was frightened by some visions in her dreams, clung to him
and said that she would not let him go out that day. But [Decimus] Brutus, one of the conspirators who was then thought of as a firm
friend, came up and said, 'What is this, Caesar? Are you a man to pay attention to a woman's dreams and the idle gossip of stupid
men, and to insult the Senate by not going out, although it has honoured you and has been specially summoned by you? But listen to
me, cast aside the forebodings of all these people, and come. The Senate has been in session waiting for you since early this morning.'
This swayed Caesar and he left.[418]
Plutarch’s account of the assassination and the events leading up to it adds more detail:
But destiny, it would seem, is not so much unexpected as it is unavoidable, since they say that amazing signs and apparitions were
seen. Now, as for lights in the heavens, crashing sounds borne all about by night, and birds of omen coming down into the forum, it is
perhaps not worth while to mention these precursors of so great an event; but Strabo the philosopher says that multitudes of men all
on fire were seen rushing up, and a soldier's slave threw from his hand a copious flame and seemed to the spectators to be burning,
but when the flame ceased the man was uninjured; he says, moreover, that when Caesar himself was sacrificing, the heart of the
victim was not to be found, and the prodigy caused fear, since in the course of nature, certainly, an animal without a heart could not
exist. …
Moreover, on the day before, when Marcus Lepidus was entertaining him at supper, Caesar chanced to be signing letters, as his custom
was, while reclining at table, and the discourse turned suddenly upon the question what sort of death was the best; before anyone
could answer Caesar cried out: "That which is unexpected." After this, while he was sleeping as usual by the side of his wife, all the
windows and doors of the chamber flew open at once, and Caesar, confounded by the noise and the light of the moon shining down
upon him, noticed that Calpurnia was in a deep slumber, but was uttering indistinct words and inarticulate groans in her sleep; for she
dreamed, as it proved, that she was holding her murdered husband in her arms and bewailing him.
… At all events, when day came, she begged Caesar, if it was possible, not to go out, but to postpone the meeting of the senate; if,
however, he had no concern at all for her dreams, she besought him to inquire by other modes of divination and by sacrifices
concerning the future. And Caesar also, as it would appear, was in some suspicion and fear. For never before had he perceived in
Calpurnia any womanish superstition, but now he saw that she was in great distress. And when the seers also, after many sacrifices,
told him that the omens were unfavourable, he resolved to send Antony and dismiss the senate.
But at this juncture Decimus Brutus, surnamed Albinus, who was so trusted by Caesar that he was entered in his will as his second heir,
but was partner in the conspiracy of the other Brutus and Cassius, fearing that if Caesar should elude that day, their undertaking would
become known, ridiculed the seers and chided Caesar for laying himself open to malicious charges on the part of the senators, who
would think themselves mocked at; for they had met at his bidding, and were ready and willing to vote as one man that he should be
declared king of the provinces outside of Italy, and might wear a diadem when he went anywhere else by land or sea; but if someone
should tell them at their session to be gone now, but to come back again when Calpurnia should have better dreams, what speeches
would be made by his enemies, or who would listen to his friends when they tried to show that this was not slavery and tyranny? But if
he was fully resolved (Albinus said) to regard the day as inauspicious, it was better that he should go in person and address the senate,
and then postpone its business. While saying these things Brutus took Caesar by the hand and began to lead him along. And he had
gone but a little way from his door when a slave belonging to someone else, eager to get at Caesar, but unable to do so for the press
of numbers about him, forced his way into the house, gave himself into the hands of Calpurnia, and bade her keep him secure until
Caesar came back, since he had important matters to report to him.
Furthermore, Artemidorus, a Cnidian by birth, a teacher of Greek philosophy, and on this account brought into intimacy with some of
the followers of Brutus, so that he also knew most of what they were doing, came bringing to Caesar in a small roll the disclosures
which he was going to make; but seeing that Caesar took all such rolls and handed them to his attendants, he came quite near, and
said: "Read this, Caesar, by thyself, and speedily; for it contains matters of importance and of concern to thee." Accordingly, Caesar
took the roll and would have read it, but was prevented by the multitude of people who engaged his attention, although he set out to
do so many times, and holding in his hand and retaining that roll alone, he passed on into the senate. Some, however, say that another
person gave him this roll, and that Artemidorus did not get to him at all, but was crowded away all along the route.
So far, perhaps, these things may have happened of their own accord; the place, however, which was the scene of that struggle and
murder, and in which the senate was then assembled, since it contained a statue of Pompey and had been dedicated by Pompey as an
additional ornament to his theatre, made it wholly clear that it was the work of some heavenly power which was calling and guiding the
action thither. Indeed, it is also said that Cassius, turning his eyes toward the statue of Pompey before the attack began, invoked it
silently, although he was much addicted to the doctrines of Epicurus; but the crisis, as it would seem, when the dreadful attempt was
now close at hand, replaced his former cool calculations with divinely inspired emotion.
Well, then, Antony, who was a friend of Caesar's and a robust man, was detained outside by Brutus Albinus, who purposely engaged
him in a lengthy conversation; but Caesar went in, and the senate rose in his honour. Some of the partisans of Brutus took their places
round the back of Caesar's chair, while others went to meet him, as though they would support the petition which Tullius Cimber
presented to Caesar in behalf of his exiled brother, and they joined their entreaties to his and accompanied Caesar up to his chair. But
when, after taking his seat, Caesar continued to repulse their petitions, and, as they pressed upon him with greater importunity, began
to show anger towards one and another of them, Tullius seized his toga with both hands and pulled it down from his neck. This was the
signal for the assault. It was Casca who gave him the first blow with his dagger, in the neck, not a mortal wound, nor even a deep one,
for which he was too much confused, as was natural at the beginning of a deed of great daring; so that Caesar turned about, grasped
the knife, and held it fast. At almost the same instant both cried out, the smitten man in Latin: "Accursed Casca, what does thou?" and
the smiter, in Greek, to his brother: "Brother, help!"
So the affair began, and those who were not privy to the plot were filled with consternation and horror at what was going on; they
dared not fly, nor go to Caesar's help, nay, nor even utter a word. But those who had prepared themselves for the murder bared each
of them his dagger, and Caesar, hemmed in on all sides, whichever way he turned confronting blows of weapons aimed at his face and
eyes, driven hither and thither like a wild beast, was entangled in the hands of all; for all had to take part in the sacrifice and taste of
the slaughter. Therefore Brutus also gave him one blow in the groin. And it is said by some writers that although Caesar defended
himself against the rest and darted this way and that and cried aloud, when he saw that Brutus had drawn his dagger, he pulled his
toga down over his head and sank, either by chance or because pushed there by his murderers, against the pedestal on which the
statue of Pompey stood. And the pedestal was drenched with his blood, so that one might have thought that Pompey himself was
presiding over this vengeance upon his enemy, who now lay prostrate at his feet, quivering from a multitude of wounds. For it is said
that he received twenty-three; and many of the conspirators were wounded by one another, as they struggled to plant all those blows
in one body.
Caesar thus done to death, the senators, although Brutus came forward as if to say something about what had been done, would not
wait to hear him, but burst out of doors and fled, thus filling the people with confusion and helpless fear, so that some of them closed
their houses, while others left their counters and places of business and ran, first to the place to see what had happened, then away
from the place when they had seen. Antony and Lepidus, the chief friends of Caesar, stole away and took refuge in the houses of
others. But Brutus and his partisans, just as they were, still warm from the slaughter, displaying their daggers bare, went all in a body
out of the senate-house and marched to the Capitol, not like fugitives, but with glad faces and full of confidence, summoning the
multitude to freedom, and welcoming into their ranks the most distinguished of those who met them. Some also joined their number
and went up with them as though they had shared in the deed, and laid claim to the glory of it, of whom were Caius Octavius and
Lentulus Spinther. These men, then, paid the penalty for their imposture later, when they were put to death by Antony and the young
Caesar [Octavian], without even enjoying the fame for the sake of which they died, owing to the disbelief of their fellow men. For even
those who punished them did not exact a penalty for what they did, but for what they wished they had done.
On the next day Brutus came down and held a discourse, and the people listened to what was said without either expressing
resentment at what had been done or appearing to approve of it; they showed, however, by their deep silence, that while they pitied
Caesar, they respected Brutus. The senate, too, trying to make a general amnesty and reconciliation, voted to give Caesar divine
honours and not to disturb even the most insignificant measure which he had adopted when in power; while to Brutus and his
partisans it distributed provinces and gave suitable honours, so that everybody thought that matters were decided and settled in the
best possible manner.[419]
And so it was, possibly the greatest man this world has ever known was heinously betrayed by those he had forgiven and
whom he loved. They attacked him like frenzied vultures, and when it was over, everyone fled away and Caesar was left alone,
his blood spreading in a pool around his body. It wasn’t until much later in the day that some servants had the nerve to enter
the place of death to collect his body and return him home to his wife. On the events immediately following his death, Appian,
the second-century Greek historian of Rome, wrote:
Caesar's will was now produced and the people ordered that it be read at once. In it, Octavian, his sister's grandson, was adopted by
Caesar. His gardens were given to the people as a place of recreation, and to every Roman living in the city, he gave 75 Attic drachmas
[Arkenberg: about $186 in 1998 dollars]. The people too were stirred to anger when they saw the will of this lover of his country,
whom they had before heard accused of tyranny. Most of all did it seem pitiful to them that Decimus Brutus, one of the murderers,
should have been named by him for adoption in the second degree; for it was usual for the Romans to name alternate heirs in case of
the failure of the first.
When Piso [Caesar’s father-in-law] brought Caesar's body into the Forum a countless multitude ran together with arms to guard it, and
with acclamations and magnificent display placed it on the rostra. Wailing and lamentation were renewed for a long time; the armed
men clashed their shields. Antony, seeing how things were going, did not abandon his purpose, but having been chosen to deliver the
funeral oration, as a consul for a consul, as a friend for a friend, a relative for a relative (he was kin to Caesar on the mother's side),
resumed his artful design, and spoke thus: "It is not fitting, fellow citizens, that the funeral oration of so great a man should be
pronounced by me alone, but rather by his whole country. The decrees which all of us, in equal admiration for his merit, voted to him
while he was alive – Senate and People acting together – I will read, so that I may voice your sentiments rather than merely mine."
Then he began to read with a severe and gloomy countenance; pronouncing each sentence distinctly, and dwelling especially on those
decrees which declared Caesar to be "superhuman, sacred and inviolable," and which named him "The Father of his Country," or "The
Benefactor," or "The Chief without a Peer." With each decree, Antony turned his face and his hand towards Caesar's corpse, illustrating
his discourse by his action, and at each appellation he added some brief remark full of grief and indignation; as, for example, where the
decree spoke of Caesar as "The Father of his Country," he added that this was a testimonial of his clemency; and again, where he was
made "Sacred and Inviolable," and that "everybody was to be held sacred and inviolate who should find refuge in him."
"Nobody," said Antony, "who found refuge in him was harmed, but he, whom you declared sacred and inviolate was killed, although
he did not extort these honors from you as a tyrant, and did not even ask them. Most servile are we if we give such honors to the
unworthy who do not ask for them. But you, faithful citizens, vindicate us from this charge of servility by paying such honors as you
now pay to the dead."
Antony resumed his reading, and recited the oaths by which all were pledged to guard Caesar and Caesar's body with all their strength,
and all were devoted to perdition who should not avenge him in any conspiracy. Here lifting up his voice, and extending his hand
toward the Capitol, he exclaimed, "Jupiter, Guardian of this City, and you other gods, I stand here ready to avenge him as I have sworn
and vowed, but since those that are of equal rank with me have considered the decree of amnesty beneficial, I pray that it may prove
so."
A commotion arose among the Senators in consequence of this exclamation which seemed to have special reference to them. So
Antony quieted them again and recanted, saying, "To me, fellow citizens, this deed seems to be not the work of human beings, but of
some evil spirit. It becomes us to consider the present rather than the past. Let us then conduct this sacred one to the abode of the
blest, chanting our wonted hymn of lamentation for him."
Having thus spoken, he gathered up his garments like a man inspired, girded himself so that he might have free use of his hands, took
his position in front of the bier, as in a play, bending down to it, and rising again, and sang first as to a celestial deity exclaiming, "You
alone have come forth unvanquished from all the battles you have fought! You alone have avenged your country of the outrages put
upon it three hundred years ago [i.e. the invasion of the Gauls], bringing to their knees the savage tribes, the only ones that ever broke
into and burned Rome."
Carried away by extreme passion, he uncovered the body of Caesar, lifted his robe on the top of a spear, and shook it aloft, pierced
with the dagger thrusts, and red with the Dictator's blood. Whereupon the people, like a chorus, mourned with him in a most doleful
manner, and from sorrow became again filled with anger. After more lamentations the people could stand it no longer. It seemed to
them monstrous that all the murderers, who, save Decimus Brutus, had been made prisoners while siding with Pompey, and who,
instead of being punished, had been advanced by Caesar to the magistracies of Rome, and to the command of provinces and
armies, should have conspired against him, and that Decimus should have been deemed by him worthy of adoption as a son.
While they were in this temper, and were already nigh to violence, someone raised above the bier an image of Caesar himself,
wrought of wax. As for the actual body, since it lay on its back upon the couch, it could not be seen. The image was turned around
and around by a mechanical device, showing the twenty-three wounds on all parts of the body and the face – which gave him a
shocking appearance. The people could no longer bear the pitiful sight presented to them. They groaned, and girding themselves, they
burned the Senate chamber, where Caesar had been slain, and ran hither and thither searching for the murderers, who had fled some
time previously. …
The people returned to Caesar's bier, and bore it as something consecrated to the Capitol in order to bury it in the temple and place it
among the gods. Being prevented from so doing by the priests, they placed it again in the Forum, where of old had stood the palace of
the kings of Rome. There they collected together sticks of wood and benches, of which there were many in the Forum, and anything
else that they could find of this sort, for a funeral pile, throwing on it the adornments of the procession, some of which were very
costly. Some of them cast their own crowns upon it and many military gifts. Then they set fire to it, and the entire people remained by
the funeral pile throughout the night.
There an altar was at first erected, but now stands on the spot the Temple of Caesar himself, for he was deemed worthy of divine
honors …[420]
Here it should be mentioned that the wax effigy of Caesar’s body had probably been made from a cast, so it was completely
lifelike. It was probably erected on a tropaeum, the cross-shaped symbol of the Roman Triumph. Several of the coins minted
by Caesar include Caesar’s tropaea, representing his military triumphs. One is reminded of Paul, writing in Col. 2.15: “Having
put off from himself the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it”. The NEB
says he “made a spectacle of the cosmic powers and authorities, and led them as captives in his triumphal procession”.
The account of Suetonius includes some additional details:
When the funeral was announced, a pyre was erected in the Field of Mars near the tomb of Julia. In front of the rostra was placed a
gilded shrine, made after the model of the temple of Venus Genetrix. Within was a bier of ivory with coverlets of purple and gold, and
at its head a pillar hung with the robe in which he was slain. Since it was clear that the day would not be long enough for those who
offered gifts, they were directed to bring them to the Campus by whatsoever streets of the city they wished, regardless of any order of
precedence. At the funeral games, to rouse pity and indignation at his death, these words from the Contest for the arms of Pacuvius
were sung: “Saved I these men that they might murder me?” and words of a like purport from the Electra of Atilius.
Instead of a eulogy the consul Marc Antony caused a herald to recite the decree of the Senate in which it had voted Caesar all divine
and human honors at once, and likewise the oath with which they had all pledged themselves to watch over his personal safety; to
which he added a very few words of his own. The bier on the rostra was carried to the Forum by magistrates and ex-magistrates. While
some were urging that it be burned in the temple of Jupiter of the Capitol, and others in the Hall of Pompey on a sudden two beings
with swords by their sides and brandishing a pair of darts set fire to it with blazing torches, and at once the throng of bystanders
heaped upon it dry branches, the judgment seats with the benches, and whatever else could serve as an offering. Then the musicians
and actors tore off their robes, which they had taken from the equipment of his triumphs and put on for the occasion, rent them to
bits and threw them into the flames, and the veterans of the legions the arms with which they had adorned themselves for the funeral.
Many of the women, too, offered up the jewels which they wore and the amulets and robes of their children. At the height of the
public grief a throng of foreigners went about lamenting each after the fashion of his country, above all the Jews, who even flocked
to the place for several successive nights.
… Afterwards they set up in the Forum a solid column of Numidian marble almost twenty feet high, and inscribed upon it, To the
Father of his Country. At the foot of this they continued for a long time to sacrifice, make vows, and settle some of their disputes by
an oath in the name of Caesar.
Caesar left in the minds of some of his friends the suspicion that he did not wish to live any longer and had taken no precautions,
because of his failing health; and that therefore he neglected the warnings which came to him from portents and from the reports of
his friends.[421]
Virgil wrote in the Georgics that several unusual events took place following Caesar's assassination:
Who dare say the Sun is false? He and no other warns us when dark uprisings threaten, when treachery and hidden wars are gathering
strength. He and no other was moved to pity Rome on the day that Caesar died, when he veiled his radiance in gloom and darkness,
and a godless age feared everlasting night. Yet in this hour Earth also and the plains of Ocean, ill-boding dogs and birds that spell
mischief, sent signs which heralded disaster. How oft before our eyes did Etna deluge the fields of the Cyclopes with a torrent from her
burst furnaces, hurling thereon balls of fire and molten rocks. Germany heard the noise of battle sweep across the sky and, even
without precedent, the Alps rocked with earthquakes. A voice boomed through the silent groves for all to hear, a deafening voice, and
phantoms of unearthly pallor were seen in the falling darkness. Horror beyond words, beasts uttered human speech; rivers stood still,
the earth gaped upon; in the temples ivory images wept for grief, and beads of sweat covered bronze statues. King of waterways, the
Po swept forests along in the swirl of his frenzied current, carrying with him over the plain cattle and stalls alike. Nor in that same hour
did sinister filaments cease to appear in ominous entrails or blood to flow from wells or our hillside towns to echo all night with the
howl of wolves. Never fell more lightning from a cloudless sky; never was comet’s alarming glare so often seen.[422]
Plutarch’s account of the aftermath gives evidence of the myths that rose up around Caesar after his death:
At the time of his death Caesar was fully fifty-six years old, but he had survived Pompey not much more than four years, while of the
power and dominion which he had sought all his life at so great risks, and barely achieved at last, of this he had reaped no fruit but the
name of it only, and a glory which had awakened envy on the part of his fellow citizens. However, the great guardian-genius of the
man, whose help he had enjoyed through life, followed upon him even after death as an avenger of his murder, driving and tracking
down his slayers over every land and sea until not one of them was left, but even those who in any way soever either put hand to the
deed or took part in the plot were punished.
Among events of man's ordering, the most amazing was that which befell Cassius; for after his defeat at Philippi he slew himself with
that very dagger which he had used against Caesar; and among events of divine ordering, there was the great comet, which showed
itself in great splendour for seven nights after Caesar's murder, and then disappeared; also, the obscuration of the sun's rays. For
during all that year its orb rose pale and without radiance, while the heat that came down from it was slight and ineffectual, so that the
air in its circulation was dark and heavy owing to the feebleness of the warmth that penetrated it, and the fruits, imperfect and half
ripe, withered away and shrivelled up on account of the coldness of the atmosphere. But more than anything else the phantom that
appeared to Brutus showed that the murder of Caesar was not pleasing to the gods; and it was on this wise. As he was about to take
his army across from Abydos to the other continent, he was lying down at night, as his custom was, in his tent, not sleeping, but
thinking of the future; for it is said that of all generals Brutus was least given to sleep, and that he naturally remained awake a longer
time than anybody else. And now he thought he heard a noise at the door, and looking towards the light of the lamp, which was
slowly going out, he saw a fearful vision of a man of unnatural size and harsh aspect. At first he was terrified, but when he saw that
the visitor neither did nor said anything, but stood in silence by his couch, he asked him who he was. Then the phantom answered
him: "I am thy evil genius, Brutus, and thou shalt see me at Philippi." At the time, then, Brutus said courageously: "I shall see thee;" and
the heavenly visitor at once went away. Subsequently, however, when arrayed against Antony and Caesar at Philippi, in the first battle
he conquered the enemy in his front, routed and scattered them, and sacked the camp of Caesar; but as he was about to fight the
second battle, the same phantom visited him again at night, and though it said nothing to him, Brutus understood his fate, and plunged
headlong into danger. He did not fall in battle, however, but after the rout retired to a crest of ground, put his naked sword to his
breast (while a certain friend, as they say, helped to drive the blow home), and so died.[423]
When Caesar died, so did the Republic. Matthias Gelzer wrote:
The deed was so frightful that it is not surprising if events did not develop as its authors had expected. Instead of the Senate’s
immediately taking over the government, a numbing terror gripped the whole city and temporarily there was a political vacuum. But
from it there later developed, with an inner necessity, the new civil war of thirteen years’ duration which Caesar had foretold. On April
7 Gaius Matius made a telling comment on the situation. The problems, he said, were insoluble: ‘for if Caesar with all his genius could
not find a way out, who will find one now? ¼[424]
… he had only just started on his task as ruler when the hands of murderers snatched him away. Horrified we see his brilliant figure sink
into the darkness of this catastrophe. What a tragedy lies over the life of the greatest genius produced by Rome – to be snuffed out by
Romans who imagined that they were acting on behalf of their res publica! His demonic genius raised him in every respect above all
his contemporaries – through his spiritual and physical vigour, through the faster tempo of his life, through his free-ranging gaze which
unfettered by traditional concepts, everywhere discovered new possibilities, and through the masterful way in which he overcame
difficulties and realized the most daring plans. Thus, although he was a Roman through and through and intended only to use his rule
in order to raise the imperium populi Romani to the level of perfection required by the circumstances, nevertheless the flights of his
genius lifted him to a lonely eminence where others were unable to follow him.[425]
Some of the parallels between the gospel narratives of “Jesus of Nazareth” and the final years of Julius Caesar are remarkable.
First, there is the overall form of Caesar’s passion. A great man is accused of wanting to be king, betrayed by one of his closest
companions, murdered, displayed on a cross, and raised to the heavens as a god. (His adopted son, Augustus, would later
adopt the name “son of god” for himself.)
Even in the details there are curious correspondences. Caesar traces his descent from kings (the Marcii reges) and divinity
(Venus). In the gospels Jesus descends from King David and God himself. After years in Gaul/Gallia (Galilee/Galilaia?), Caesar
crosses the Rubicon river (the Jordan?) on his way to Rome. One of his first stops is Corfinium, which he liberates
(Capernaum/Kapharnaum, where Jesus first performs miracles?). After his triumphal entry into Rome following the civil war,
he is increasingly slandered as wanting to be king. Despite his popularity among all classes of society, and his unheard-of
policy of clemency, or perhaps because of these things, a relatively small group of reactionary oligarchs conspire to
assassinate him. One of his close associates, Decimus Brutus, conspires with Cassius Longinus and Marcus Brutus (among
others) to assassinate him. Decimus had served with Caesar in Gaul and during the civil war, and Caesar loved him as a son,
including him as an alternate heir in his will.
Caesar eats a last supper with Decimus and others, where they talk of death. There are omens of Caesar’s death. At the
senate meeting, the assassins strike. One of the stabs come from Cassius Longinus. The name of the soldier who pierces Jesus’
side on the cross is given in the Gospel of Nicodemus as Longinus (his feast day in the Roman Catholic Church is March 15, the
day of Caesar’s assassination). Decimus delivers the final blow. Mark Antony displays Caesar’s bloody toga to the crowds, and
a wax effigy is created, displayed on a cross-shaped tropaeum for all to see the wounds inflicted on Caesar’s body. A comet is
seen, interpreted as being Caesar’s soul raised to the heavens. While he had already received divine honors before his death,
the senate makes it official. Julius Caesar is now Divus Iulius, the divine Julius.
It’s unlikely that worship of Caesar disappeared. It probably carried on among Jews, citizens, slaves, soldiers (with whom he
had an exceptional bond), and close associates in the aristocracy, perhaps beginning with Fulvia, who most likely orchestrated
Caesar’s funeral, and her husband Antony. (Fulvia had arranged a similar funeral for her second husband, Clodius, in 52 BC,
displaying his dead body and its wounds.)[426]
One of Antony’s daughters, Antonia (mother of Germanicus), would later be at the center of the Imperial court at Rome,
where Herod Agrippa was brought up. Agrippa would later give his support to Claudius and probably had some influence on
Claudius’ fair treatment of the Jews ca. 41 AD. Antonia married Nero Claudius Drusus, and was mother to Germanicus and
Claudius, and grandmother to Caligula. Curiously, there is an inscription from Rome that includes the names “Drusus”,
“Antonia”, “Faustus” (probably a slave), and the words “Iucundi” (meaning “pleasant”, possibly a slave name) and
“Chrestiani”. While the translation and interpretation of the inscription are difficult, some scholars believe this is a reference
to the same Antonia and Drusus just mentioned. No one really knows how to interpret the reference to “Chrestians”.[427] In
his biography of Caesar, Plutarch calls Caesar “chrestos”. The two other men Plutarch describes with this word are Alexander
and Caecilius Metellus – all three were deified after their deaths. Chrestos was also a common mystery religion appellation,
used to refer to oracles, gods, priests, philosophers and heroes.[428]
Were these individuals – Fulvia, Drusus, Antonia – “Chrestians”? In his letter to the Philippians, Paul sends his greetings from
“all the saints ¼ especially those of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22). Perhaps this wasn’t just a reference to slaves of the
Imperial court spread around the empire. To the Romans he sends greetings from Erastus, the “city treasurer” of Corinth
(Rom. 16:23). Were Flavius Clemens and Domitilla, accused of godlessness for their “Jewish” practices, merely followers of a
cult that had been popular in one form or another since Caesar’s death, but which aristocrats felt the need to keep secret?
Some of the earliest known Christians were Roman women of high rank (Flavia Domitilla under Domitian, and two wives of
governors under Septimius Severus); perhaps 20% were freed slaves.[429] Paul mentions several prominent women in his
churches, including an apostle, Junia (Rom. 16:7), as well as several slaves: Onesimus (Phlm., Col. 4:9), Epaphras and Tychicus,
whom he calls “fellow-slaves” (Col. 1:7, 4:7), and Fortunatus and Achaicus, who have typical slave names (1 Cor. 16:17–8),
among others. He also calls Epaphroditus and Archippus “fellow-soldiers” (Phil. 2:25, Phlm. 2), suggesting the presence of
veterans among his churches. Caesar established many colonies for his veterans, including Corinth (Plut. Caes. 57.8). Paul
spent time in Cilicia (in modern Turkey) during his first mission. After Caesar visited Cilicia’s capital, Tarsus, in 47 BC, they took
the name Iuliopolis (City of Julius), in Caesar’s honor, having sided with him during the civil war (Dio 47.26).
It is possible that many Jews identified Caesar with the Messiah. After all, he had defeated Pompey, the destroyer of
Jerusalem, and had done much for the Jews. When the famous comet of Caesar appeared, it could be said that the prophecies
about the Messiah were being fulfilled, since a star was to be the sign of the Messiah. The Persian king Cyrus the Great had
been recognized as Messiah by Isaiah and Paul was profoundly influenced by the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah.
Paulina and Fulvia
Now it is time to consider the two extraordinary texts placed immediately after the Testimonium Flavianum. Perhaps we will
find an answer in these two tales as to whether or not Josephus knew Paul or knew about him and his activity. Considering the
time Josephus was writing, and the company he kept, it would be surprising if Josephus wasn’t at least aware of him.
The TF is the sore thumb that sticks out, “the dog that didn’t bark”, which absolutely does not fit the context in which it
appears, and this is a red flag that perhaps something else was in that spot in the text and has been effaced and/or covered
up. The tales that follow seem to have been interpolated for the direct purpose of conveying the truth not only about the
correct timeframe for the TF event, but also about the end results of that event. Whatever it was, it appeared to have its
beginnings under Pontius Pilate in 19 AD, and Josephus/pseudo-Josephus is both revealing and blowing smoke around it all at
the same time.
I think the two tales, which are told in the context of the time of Pilate and his probable execution of Judas the Galilean in 19
AD, may have been intended to convey something about the two messianic movements – that of Paul and that of the
rebellious Jews – and to indicate that the two were combined in order to create the Jesus of Nazareth myth spoken of in the
TF, and thus Christianity as we know it. In the first story, the author may have been indicating Pauline messianism, and in the
second, the James Gang version. It may be that the three men defrauding Fulvia in the second story indicate the "arising of
the three pillars of Jerusalem" (Peter, James and John) at that time, touting and tootling their messiah.
The more I think about it the more it seems likely that the text of Tacitus has been involved in some of the redactions of
Josephus. In addition to the resemblance to the legal case in Tacitus, in these two tales we have the references to Egyptian
and Jewish worship together, and 4,000 Jews being sent to exile in Sardinia. Also, while the stories are seemingly typical
Josephus scandal mongering and religious propaganda, the fact that one of them is modeled on a legal case written up by
Tacitus certainly gives one pause. Yes, Josephus could have read about it in the Roman archives to which he may have had
access at one point in the writing of his history of the Jewish War, but the adjacency of the name "Saturninus" in Tacitus, and
its use twice (in both stories), suggest either a coded message, or simply that someone had Tacitus text open before them. Of
course, it could be both: someone working from the text of Tacitus to create a coded message. Or it might be that the text
that originally occupied the space where the TF is now found discussed the death of Judas the Galilean, the death of
Germanicus, and the role of Sentius Saturninus in sending Pilate back to Rome along with Piso. Either Josephus made those
stories up to cover up something or to send a coded message, or someone else, writing later, did so. And since the general
trend of the stories is such as to indicate Pauline Christianity as we understand it coming down through Paul's letters
themselves, it seems quite possible that this was what those stories are talking about: the origins of something that the author
couldn't or didn't want to address directly.
If one takes the two tales set adjacent to each other and thinks about them, a few items stand out. The first tale, modeled on
the 58 AD event recorded by Tacitus, is about a Roman woman taken in by an individual who is pretending to be a god of the
Egyptian cult of Isis. The second tale is about a Roman woman taken in by a "temple cult" of Judaism, so to say.
[NOTE: Below, Price suggests comparing/contrasting your approach w/ Carotta and Atwill]
Notice it is Paulina who is cast as being taken in by the Egyptian worship, while it is Fulvia who is cast as the one taken in by
the Jews. Are these two elements important? Is Josephus telling us that Paul himself was taken in by Egyptian rites/mysteries
and that it was Caesar worship that was taken over by a false sort of Judaism? Because it seems highly likely that it was Fulvia,
the wife of Marc Antony, who was ultimately responsible for the funeral rites of Julius Caesar, which is clearly the model for
the Christian passion. Francesco Carotta has suggested that she may even have penned a little commemorative "passion play"
that later was redacted into the gospel of Mark.[430] We are reminded here of Paul’s impassioned attack on the Galatians:
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to
learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? (Gal. 3:1–2)
Given the elements of mystery religion in Paul’s thought and practice,[431] and the reference to both auditory and visual
elements in the quoted text, I think Paul was putting on mystery plays for his converts.[432]
As for Decius Mundus, the Decians were a famous plebeian family who gained fame for two of their family sacrificing
themselves for their country in war in order to secure victory. Publius Decius Mus sacrificed himself in battle through the ritual
devotio in the 4th century BC. (A later Publius Decius was a colleague of Mark Antony.) Mundus means “world” in Latin: world
sacrifice?
On the subject of the goddess Isis, we learn from the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology:
Her worship in all parts of Greece is amply attested by express statements of ancient writers and numerous inscriptions. …
In the western parts of Europe the worship of Isis became likewise established, and many places in Sicily, Italy, and Gaul, are known to
have been the seats of it. According to Appuleius (Met. xi. p. 262), it was introduced at Rome in the time of Sulla: at a later time her
statue was removed from the capitol by a decree of the senate (Tertull. ad Nation. 1.10, Apolog. 6; Arnob. ad v. Gent. 2.73); but the
populace and the consuls Piso and Gabinius, in BC 58, resisted the decree. A further decree of BC 53 forbade the private worship of
Isis, and ordered the chapels dedicated to her to be destroyed. Subsequently, when the worship was restored, her sanctuaries were to
be found only outside the pomoerium. This interference on the part of the government was thought necessary on account of the
licentious orgies with which the festivals of the goddess were celebrated. In BC 50, the consul, L. Aemilius Paulus himself, was the
first to begin the destruction of her temples, as no one else ventured to do so. (V. Max. 1.3.3.) But these decrees do not appear to
have quite succeeded in destroying the worship of Isis, for in BC 47 a new decree was issued to destroy the temple of Isis and
Serapis. By a mistake, the adjoining temple of Bellona was likewise pulled down, and in it were found pots filled with human flesh …
As it had thus become evident that the people were extremely partial to the worship of those foreign divinities, the triumvirs in BC 43
courted the popular favour by building a new temple of Isis and Serapis in the third region, and sanctioning their worship. (D. C.
47.15.) It would appear that after this attempts were made to erect sanctuaries of Isis in the city itself, for Augustus forbade her
worship in the city, while outside of it there seem to have been several temples, which were subjected to government inspection.
The interference of the government was afterwards repeatedly required (Tac. Ann. 2.85; Suet. Tib. 36; J. AJ 18.3.4; Hegesipp. 2.4); but
from the time of Vespasian the worship of Isis and Serapis became firmly established, and remained in a flourishing condition until the
general introduction of Christianity.[433]
Notice the mention of Aemilius Paulus in 50 BC ... Interesting little play on names by the author of this tale, assuming he was
aware of the actions of Paulus. There was no destruction of the temple of Isis in 19 AD, though there was a suppression of the
worship, as Tacitus reports. Noticing exactly what Tacitus wrote, it is possible that it wasn’t just Jews who were among the
four thousand transported, but worshippers of Isis as well.
Possibly relevant to the story, the early Church Father Irenaeus (ca. 130–202) protested vehemently against the rumor that
Christianity was simply a re-working of the Egyptian rites. He wouldn't have been making this protest if it were not something
that was widely thought. The relationship between early Christianity and Isis worship seems to have been connected to the
activities of the 2nd-century Christian gnostic theologian Valentinus (ca. 100–160), and he was probably the object of
Irenaeus' ire. Now, interestingly, many of the ideas of Valentinian are curiously reminiscent of Paul. (Many early gnostics were
followers of Paul, and Valentinus allegedly claimed to have derived his ideas from a disciple of Paul.)[434] This is especially the
case in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, which many scholars are pleased to exclude from the Pauline canon as non-authentic
[435]
but which Douglas Campbell insists is authentic and perhaps the clearest statement of what Paul taught extant. On that
point, I think Campbell may be right.
According to Clement, “they say that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas, and Theudas, in turn, a disciple of Paul.”[436] The
Valentinians insisted that their unwritten source was the secret teachings of Paul, teachings delivered only in person and
never written down by him. Irenaeus struck out against the Valentinians utilizing the epistles to Timothy and Titus, widely
recognized nowadays as definitely not Pauline. That is to say, someone had to write them to counter the idea that Paul had
secret teachings. There are plenty of strange and mysterious remarks in the Pauline epistles that support the idea that Paul
had a lot more going on than what we have in his preserved writings.
In reference to Paul, the Josephan story about Fulvia would also make sense if it was inspired by events during the reign of
Claudius, then retrojected to 19 AD. In his biography of Claudius, Suetonius refers to an expulsion of Jews:
Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.[437]
Obviously, a lot of ink has been expended on this remark! But, since it is highly unlikely that a hypothetical Christian
interpolator would have called Jesus "Chrestus", placed him in Rome in 49 AD, or called him a "troublemaker", the
overwhelming majority of scholars conclude that the passage is genuine. However, all of those pejorative terms could very
well have applied to the apostle Paul, based on his own record of events in his missionary journeys and in relation to the
Jerusalem James Gang. That is to say, since we have freed Paul from the fake Jesus timeline, it is possible that he could have
been in Rome in 49 AD and some of the events that happened there were later utilized in the fake history of Acts to describe
Jews in Jerusalem rioting against Paul.
Let’s look at Suetonius’ remark more closely. The Latin original of this statement can be understood in one of two ways: either
Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because there was a tumult, or he only expelled those Jews that were causing the
disorder. The expulsion event Suetonius refers to is difficult to date precisely, because he wrote topically, not chronologically.
But, we can say it is after 41 and before 54 AD (the duration of Claudius’ reign). Cassius Dio's reference in his Roman History
says:
As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult
to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold
meetings.[438]
This is dated to the year 41/42 AD. However, Dio does not mention any Chrestus or exiling of Jews. Notably, he mentions no
reason for the action at all! The 5th-century Christian writer Paulus Orosius makes a possible reference to the event, citing
two sources:
Josephus reports, 'In his ninth year the Jews were expelled by Claudius from the city.' But Suetonius, who speaks as follows, influences
me more: 'Claudius expelled from Rome the Jews constantly rioting at the instigation of Christ [Christo, or rather Χρό].' As far as
whether he had commanded that the Jews rioting against Christ [Christum] be restrained and checked or also had wanted the
Christians, as persons of a cognate religion, to be expelled, it is not at all to be discerned.[439]
We recognize the citation from Suetonius, but the quote from Josephus is not present in the extant texts. It is that which gives
the date of 49 AD, the “ninth year of Claudius.” There is a lot of arguing back and forth over this, but we can note that, even if
we have eschewed Acts as a historical source, it dates the expulsion with reference to the proconsul of Achaia, Gallio (Acts
18:12). An inscription found at Delphi preserves a letter from Claudius concerning Gallio, dated during the 26th acclamation of
Claudius, sometime between January 51 and August 52. Acts says that Paul met Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth, who had
“recently” come from Italy, after Claudius ordered all Jews to leave Rome. It isn’t any more specific than that, so the author
could have intended them to have left Rome in 49 AD, then Italy any time after that and before 51 AD.
Of course, this does not suggest that Acts is an accurate history or that the apostle Paul had any dealings with Gallio, whose
character was probably borrowed to give historical verisimilitude to the novelized version of early Christian history. However,
knowing already that the author of Acts was using Josephus as a source, it is possible that the Josephan reference existed,
reported on by Orosius and utilized by the author of Acts.
The differences between the event as reported by Dio and Suetonius lead some scholars to conclude that they are two
separate events of different natures. It seems likely that this is the case. In 41 AD, Rome’s new emperor, Claudius, responded
to an embassy from the Alexandrians in response to the violence there between the Jewish and Greek population. This
violence probably had its origin around 38 AD, in the last years of the reign of Caligula. Claudius’ edict to the Alexandrians (41
AD) happens to have been preserved. In it, we find the following:
Tiberius ¼ to the City of the Alexandrians, greeting.
Tiberius Claudius Barbillus [et al.], having delivered to me the decree, discoursed at length concerning the city, directing my attention
to your goodwill towards us, which, from long ago, you may be sure, had been stored up to your advantage in my memory; for you are
by nature reverent towards the Augusti, as I know from many proofs, and in particular have taken a warm interest in my house,
warmly reciprocated, of which fact (to mention the last instance, passing over the others) the supreme witness is my brother
Germanicus addressing you in words more clearly stamped as his own.
Wherefore, I gladly accepted the honors given to me by you, though I have no weakness for such things. [List of various honors
accepted.] But I deprecate the appointment of a high priest to me and the building of temples, for I do not wish to be offensive to my
contemporaries, and my opinion is that temples and such forms of honor have by all ages been granted as a prerogative to the gods
alone.
Concerning the requests which you have been anxious to obtain from me, I decide as follows. ¼ As for the question, which party was
responsible for the riots and feud (or rather, if the truth be told, the war) with the Jews, although in confrontation with their
opponents your ambassadors, and particularly Dionysios the son of Theon, contended with great zeal, nevertheless I was unwilling to
make a strict inquiry, though guarding within me a store of immutable indignation against whichever party renews the conflict. And I
tell you once and for all that unless you put a stop to this ruinous and obstinate enmity against each other, I shall be driven to show
what a benevolent Prince can be when turned to righteous indignation. Wherefore, once again I conjure you that, on the one hand,
the Alexandrians show themselves forebearing and kindly towards the Jews who for many years have dwelt in the same city, and
dishonor none of the rites observed by them in the worship of their god, but allow them to observe their customs as in the time of
the Deified Augustus, which customs I also, after hearing both sides, have sanctioned; and on the other hand, I explicitly order the
Jews not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, and not in the future to send out a separate embassy as though
they lived in a separate city (a thing unprecedented), and not to force their way into gymnasiarchic or cosmetic games, while enjoying
their own privileges and sharing a great abundance of advantages in a city not their own, and not to bring in or admit Jews who come
down the river from Egypt or from Syria, a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions. Otherwise I will by all
means take vengeance on them as fomenters of which is a general plague infecting the whole world. If, desisting from these courses,
you consent to live with mutual forebearance and kindliness, I on my side will exercise a solicitude of very long standing for the city, as
one which is bound to us by traditional friendship. I bear witness to my friend Barbillus of the solicitude which he has always shown
for you in my presence and of the extreme zeal with which he has now advocated your cause; and likewise to my friend Tiberius
Claudius Archibius.
Farewell.[440]
Claudius’ edict is fairly even-handed, assuring certain rights to the Jews in Alexandria but forbidding them from crossing
certain lines in the future, e.g. in agitating for full citizenship if they choose to remain religious Jews, or recruiting Jews from
other regions to help renew their struggle against the Alexandrians or foment rebellion.
Josephus includes text that purports to reproduce two additional edicts of Claudius, one addressed to the Alexandrians and
the other addressing Jews throughout the Empire, issued at the request of Agrippa and Herod of Chalcis (sons of Aristobulus
IV and grandsons of Herod the Great).[441] While he twists the facts in order to make it appear as if the Jews were full citizens
of Alexandria, the second edict appears to ring true in certain respects when viewed next to the letter just quoted. In it, he
grants the same privileges enjoyed by Alexandria’s Jews to Jewish communities in all towns of Roman right (i.e. colonies and
cities within and without Italy).[442]
Additionally, after the assassination of Caligula in 41 AD, Agrippa was involved in the struggle over the accession between
Claudius, the Praetorian Guard, and the Senate. Cassius Dio simply writes that Agrippa cooperated with Claudius in seeking
rule. Josephus gives us two versions. In Wars, Agrippa is presented as only a messenger to a confident and energetic Claudius,
which is likely the truest version. But in Antiquities, Agrippa plays a central and crucial role, i.e. Josephus is embellishing
wildly, as usual.
In any event, Claudius was thankful to Agrippa for support and gave him Judea and Samaria to rule as king, among other
honors. Agrippa died soon after, in 43/44 AD.[443] The biblical description of Agrippa as a cruel, heartless king who
persecuted the Jerusalem church, having James son of Zebedee killed and imprisoning Peter,[444] stands in contrast with
Josephus' account of a kindly man. I think there has been some conflation here. We have already noted that it was Tiberius
Alexander who executed the sons of Judas the Galilean in 48 AD and that was likely the model for the execution and
imprisoning of James and Peter in Acts.
The result of this short survey indicates that there are strong reasons to reject the idea that Claudius expelled the Jews from
Rome in 41 AD. It just doesn’t make sense in the context of what is said about Claudius, the reality of the edict, and the fact
that he was supported by Herod Agrippa.[445] So, I think we can say that Claudius was actually being conciliatory toward the
Jews in 41 AD, and the expulsion from Rome did not occur until 49 AD. If the riot in Rome was caused by Paul’s appearance
and promulgation of an anti-Judaism gospel, it looks like the author of the Paulina/Fulvia texts following the TF may have
retrojected aspects from the career of Paul back 30 years to the 19 AD context, possibly as a way to connect what happened
then with what happened much later.
Moving on to the second tale, I don’t think that Paul ever made his planned third trip to Jerusalem after being hounded by the
James Gang in Corinth. This may be part of what is being conveyed in the story of Fulvia and the three Jews who defrauded
her. Let’s look at this story with Paul in mind:
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 ¼
This is the slur directed at Paul in Acts. When Paul visits the pillars in Jerusalem, the author has James say to Paul: “They have
been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to
circumcise their children or observe the customs.”[446]
¼ and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man.
In Acts, another accusation slung at Paul was that he was “a pestilence, and a stirrer-up of strife throughout the world.”[447]
(One wonders, of course, where the author of Acts got that? I’d say he spent some time reading Josephus…) I don’t think
Robert Eisenman is correct in concluding that the Dead Sea Scrolls’ “wicked priest” and “spouter of lies” are references to
Paul.[448] Paul wasn’t even on the radar of the James Gang until after the second meeting in Jerusalem when it became
known that Paul was preaching a significantly different messiah: one of peace and unification rather than the avenger who
was going to flay and burn the Romans. This meeting probably happened not long before the arrest and execution of James
and Simon (sons of Judas the Galilean, who I think were two of the Jerusalem ecclesia “pillars”.) Nevertheless, information
could have been transmitted very rapidly in those times, and the Jews in Rome could have been notified of what Paul was up
to as well as having been notified of the execution of the pillars in Jerusalem. That could very well have started a riot similar
to unrest triggered by the death of Judas the Galilean in 19 AD.
He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses.
It wouldn't be the laws of Moses per se if he was accused of transgressing the laws. If Paul made it to Rome after writing
Romans, he would have preached his version of Judaism, as apostle to the Gentiles. And by all appearances, what Paul taught
was not your standard Judaism. It was definitely influenced in important ways by Jewish Scriptures, but it was centered on
Christ and the Cross.
He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners.
On the one hand, this could be a reference to Paul and his fellow helpers (e.g., Timothy, Titus, Tertius, etc.). On the other
hand, it could be a reference to Judas and the three “pillars” (James, Cephas and John). But the presence of 1+3 men is
suggestive: Paul and the three pillars of Jerusalem are arguably the most important early Christian figures, so perhaps the
author is lumping them together? I tend to think that it refers to Paul and three helpers, but I leave it open since it is all
speculation anyway.
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 ¼
The last bit sounds like a variation on the collection gathered for Jerusalem by Paul and his Gentile churches. Plus, later
legends about Paul (such as those recorded in Acts of Paul) depict him as a home-wrecker of sorts, persuading wives to leave
their husbands and follow him. For example, the Iconians “complain that Paul beguiled their wives.”[449] Additionally, the
direct mention of Fulvia could be pointing to the transformation of an Essene ecclesia that honored Julius Caesar with an
annual passion play written by Fulvia, to a cult based on a Jewish rebel leader. Hard to say. But one does have to try to
imagine what was common knowledge to people back then, or even hidden knowledge to specific persons and groups, and
what they might write for the “initiated.”
¼ 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.
Again, this is an accusation made against Paul that he refers to in his letters: that he was defrauding members of his
churches.[450] If Paul did not make that final 3rd trip to Jerusalem, this is exactly what they would have said about him. The
slander had already been going around before writing Romans that Paul had selfish ulterior motives for the collection. Paul
was in a double bind: either go to Jerusalem with the money and risk getting lynched, or continue his mission and have his
character sullied.
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 ¼ Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.[451]
On the face of it, this is about the 19 AD event recorded by Tacitus. So why does it seem to be a combination of the 19 AD
event and the 49 AD event, thirty years apart? And why is it connected to such a bizarre story that seems to be about Paul on
one level, but may have more occult meaning? Could this be telling us, in code, about a possible origin event for Christianity –
the execution of Judas the Galilean – following which there was an expulsion of restive, unhappy Jews, and how it was
connected to the expulsion of Jews during the reign of Claudius, i.e. Paul’s conflict that followed him to Rome, and which is
exposed in his letters? Clement said he had been exiled; well, maybe that was when it happened? Or, perhaps the author was
simply trying to indicate what he thought of Christianity in a way that would pass the censors? Maybe he didn't realize that
the time indicated was 19 AD? Maybe he thought it was the "right time" of the crucifixion according to later authorities and
after other interpolations had already been made to put Pilate in Judea 10 or more years later? It’s all very mysterious and I’m
just speculating; perhaps someone else can get more out of it.
It seems to me that if the Jerusalem ecclesia was associated with the sectarians at Qumran, and those sectarians were
associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls, then that was the ideological inspiration for the rebellion against Rome. Since we have
Josephus’ testimony about his own involvement in that rebellion – embellished though it may be – he would have known
about Paul and his unifying messiah. Based on Josephus’ spirited defense of Judaism, and his own peculiar interpretations of
God’s will working through the Romans in relation to the Jews, his affiliation with Essene-type communities might be
assumed to be rather likely – at least early in the game. That, too, would have put him into contact with circles that knew, or
knew of, Paul. His whole attitude about messianism almost has to be read in reverse, and perhaps this little story, if it is
Josephan, may be either a deliberate coded message, or a fanciful tale in which his subconscious gives him away. Or perhaps
it is an interpolation. I leave it to others to work that out if possible.
Paul: It’s Just a Matter of Time
In his letters, Paul gives a couple points of reference that help us to construct a relative chronology of his ministry. Between
his revelation/call to be an apostle to the Gentiles and his first visit to Jerusalem, there were 2–3 years, during which he
worked in “Arabia” and Damascus. After the first Jerusalem visit (which followed immediately after his flight from Damascus),
Paul then preached for 13–14 years, with missions in Syria and Cilicia, Macedonia and Achaia, Illyricum and Galatia, before the
“Antioch incident” and his second trip to Jerusalem.
After this, constructing the chronology gets tricky. Campbell, using only the internal evidence of the letters, places the two
letters to the Thessalonians in Paul’s 13–14-year window, and the other eight after the second trip to Jerusalem. As noted
earlier, he groups these eight into two clusters. If Campbell’s reconstruction is accurate – and he arguably makes the case very
well – the period of time between the second Jerusalem trip and the composition of Romans (the last letter written in the
second cluster) adds up to just over two years. Because of the uncertainty in Paul’s stated numbers of years, that adds up to a
total of just over 17 years to one of just over 19 years for Paul’s career, from “call” to Romans.
Taking Campbell’s relative chronology as basically accurate, but rejecting his date for Paul’s escape from Damascus and the
first Jerusalem meeting, this is what the chronology looks like:
· 2–3 years: Paul’s “call” to be an apostle, followed by activity in Damascus and Arabia, his escape from Damascus
and his the first Jerusalem trip
· 13–14 years: Activity in Syria, Cilicia, Macedonia, Galatia, and elsewhere, followed by the Antioch incident and his
second trip to Jerusalem
· 2+ years: Travels through Asia, Macedonia, to Corinth – 8 letters (this period of the letters essentially starts at the
beginning of a year, in winter, and ends somewhere early in the year, two years later, when Paul writes Romans,
assuming Romans was last and not Philippians)
Here are Paul’s descriptions of what he was up to during his early career:
Gal. 1:13—2:1: You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to
destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my
ancestors. 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 afterwards I returned to Damascus.
Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle
except James the Lord's brother.
In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and I was still unknown by sight
to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only heard it said, "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the
faith he once tried to destroy."
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
2 Cor. 1:8–9: We do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, of the affliction we experienced in Asia; for we were so utterly,
unbearably crushed that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death so that we would rely
not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead.
2 Cor. 6:4–5: ¼ but as servants of God we have commended ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships,
calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger ¼
2 Cor. 11:22–27: Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. Are they
ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman – I am a better one: with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless
floggings, and often near death.
Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning.
Three times I was shipwrecked; for a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from
bandits, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from
false brothers and sisters; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, hungry and thirsty, often without food, cold and naked.
2 Cor. 11:32–33: In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in
a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.
2 Cor. 12:1–10: It is necessary to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a
person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven – whether in the body or out of the body I do not know;
God knows. And I know that such a person – whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows – was caught up into
Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. … But if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool,
for I will be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think better of me than what is seen in me or heard from me,
even considering the exceptional character of the revelations. Therefore, to keep me from being too elated, a thorn was given me in
the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that
it would leave me, but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness." So, I will boast all the
more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults,
hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.
Notice the claim above: “three times I was beaten with rods”. To be beaten with rods was a Roman punishment that was
almost never inflicted on Roman citizens; thus, we can be fairly sure that the claim in Acts that Paul was a Roman citizen was
false. It was a plot device to get Paul from Jerusalem to Rome. I suspect that Paul never made the third visit to Jerusalem and
the confrontation between the Jews and Paul that is depicted as having occurred in Jerusalem actually occurred in Rome and
resulted in Paul being exiled from the city.
I would suggest that, after the confrontations that took place as described in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul may have been so
hounded that he did not return to Jerusalem with the collection. He and the “pillars” in Jerusalem had presumably come to
some sort of agreement: that Paul was free to continue his ministry to the Gentiles, as long as he collected some funds “for
the poor” of Jerusalem. But as Paul continued his mission, he was continually hounded, his churches infiltrated and co-opted
by individuals sent out by the very people with whom he thought he was in agreement. In this scenario, by the time he wrote
Romans Paul was still considering following through with the trip, even if he feared for his life.[452]
Alternatively, if Philippians is placed after Romans, this suggests a different scenario. Paul wrote Philippians while imprisoned
(presumably in Corinth). Something must have happened between writing Romans and then being imprisoned. If so, could it
have had something to do with the arrival of the people Paul sarcastically calls “super-apostles” bearing letters of authority
from the James Gang? Tellingly, Paul makes no mention of the collection in this letter, perhaps implying he had given up on
his plans at this point. Their arrival, and the conflict that led to his imprisonment, might have been the straw that broke the
camel’s back.
So, if we place Paul in Rome in 49 AD, he could have written Romans early in the year, travelled directly to Rome and raised
hell among the local Jewish population, thus provoking the Urban Prefect to order the expulsion of the anti-Paul agitators and
those causing the agitation, i.e. Paul and his companions. That would give him just under a year in Rome, enough time to
cause the unrest reported by Suetonius. Using this as our anchor, let’s recalclate our chronology and see how it meshes with
other events discussed so far:
· Anywhere from late 29 to early 32: Paul’s call
· Anywhere from late 32 to early 34: flight from Damascus, first Jerusalem trip
· Some time after 38 to 40: 1 & 2 Thessalonians
· Late 46/early 47: Antioch/second Jerusalem trip
· Mid 47: travels through Asia, imprisonment in Apamea, Laodiceans/Colossians/Philemon written, founding visit to
Ephesus
· Spring 48: in Ephesus, 1 Corinthians written, starts trip to Macedonia
· Summer 48: traveling through Macedonia, 2 Corinthians written, arrival in Corinth
· Fall 48 to winter 48/49: Galatians written, imprisonment in Corinth, Philippians written
· Early 49: Romans written
Since the publication of the NT, the lynchpin for Christian chronology has always been “the fifteenth year of Tiberius”, i.e. 29
AD. We now see that it could have been the date of Paul’s revelation and had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth.
Interestingly, it was three years before Paul went to Jerusalem, which is reflected in the implied duration of Jesus’ ministry in
the gospel of John. In the end, it was mainly the Pauline church that became the foundation of the Christian church, not the
messianic/revolutionary church of Jerusalem. And by the time the gospels were written, the fledgling church was battling
“heresies”, including Docetism, one version of which said that there was no fleshly “Jesus the man”, just a spiritual Christ. If
Paul, the founder of the church as they knew it, had his history-changing experience around 29–32 AD, the best place to put a
fleshly Jesus would naturally be very soon before the most important vision of the resurrected Christ, not 10 years earlier. (A
physical resurrection 10 years after the fact would be a messy affair, one would think!)
This naturally telescoped Paul’s persecution of the early church, and led to a conflict with the association between Jesus and
Pilate (thanks to Ignatius), a leftover of the memory of Judas the Galilean, who was expunged from Christian history and
replaced with a more Pauline “Jesus”. It left us with the Acts story – Jesus dies, his followers see him return in the flesh, Paul
has his vision – rather than what the epistles suggest: that all “resurrection appearances” were visionary experiences.
This revised chronology also has the advantage of placing Paul’s flight from Damascus at a time when Syria and the region
were ‘governorless’ and thus being ruled by proxy. If Aretas didn’t rule Damascus his whole life, this is the only plausible
window for him to do so based on the available texts. Around six years later, during the reign of Caligula, there was terrible
unrest and persecution of Jews in Alexandria and Caligula had announced his plans to violate their synagogues with his
images. By 40 AD, the plan to erect a statue of Caligula in the temple in Jerusalem was underway, inspiring the tradition of the
“the man of lawlessness” in Thessalonians.
For the next 15 years, the James Gang became dedicated to making sure they would have revolutionary support. During this
time, Paul was out and about, merrily evangelizing. While he was persecuted during this time, possibly because he was
suspected of being one of the revolutionaries, it wasn’t until shortly before writing the majority of his letters that, all of a
sudden, things started to go south. It seems that all of Paul's letters are combative against one thing or another, and while the
pressures appear to have been from several sources, the main one was the revolutionary gang that passed as the Jerusalem
church.
Then, around 48 AD – perhaps around the time of the conflict in Corinth – James and Simon, the leaders of the James Gang,
were executed. As I noted, in Acts 12:2, the story about James, the brother of John, being executed and Peter (i.e. SimonPeter) seized, may have been inspired by this passage in Josephus. Paul considered that he needed to disconnect himself from
these people and their sicarii-type activities, all of which is well depicted in Josephus. He departed for Rome.
[NOTE: Above, deleted “Peter wasn’t killed off in Acts as happened in real life, because the author needed to take him to
Rome to stake the claim of the Jewish messiah there so as to displace Caesar completely.” Because Acts doesn’t take Peter to
Rome. First person to place Peter there is Dionysius, ca. 170 AD, according to Wells.]
I think that Paul went directly to Rome after all the persecutions he experienced from the James Gang in their drive to gain
supporters and funds for their revolution. He probably was making the collection to bring the wealth of the Gentiles to
Jerusalem so as to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah, but at some point, I think he realized that it was not going to be possible to
fulfill every jot and tittle. Paul was working as hard as he could to reconcile people under the Jewish god via the gentile son of
god, Julius Caesar AKA Jesus Christ; perhaps he was consciously trying to prevent the disaster that he could see coming if the
Jews stood up against Rome and if the Gentiles continued to perceive the Jews as exclusivist and xenophobic.
There are several correspondences between the activities of Paul and the mythical life of Jesus, only a few of which I’ve
mentioned in this work. If it was actually Paul who began his ministry in the “fifteenth year of Tiberius,” 29 AD, we may
conjecture that he was about the same age as ascribed to Jesus. If he was born around the time of the death of Herod (1
BC/AD), he would have been 29 at the time of his “call”. He would have been around fifty by the time he made it to Rome.
Perhaps he was exiled from Rome for a period as Clement suggests in his brief recap of the career of Paul. Perhaps he did go
to Spain. And perhaps he returned to Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem and wrote chapters 9 through 11 of Romans in
his grief and despair that his life’s work aimed at preventing this tragedy had been in vain. I know that 1 Clement talks about
the death of Paul, and Ellegard proposes that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is also possible that it
was written after. Otherwise, chapters 9–11 must be an interpolation, in my opinion.
And perhaps the James Gang, the putative apostles of the mythical Jesus of Nazareth, who were actually the revolutionary
followers of Judas the Galilean, all perished, along with their delusive hopes of messianic salvation, in the fires of Jerusalem.
Sadly, that delusion is one that has survived in Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
[NOTE: Deleted last sentences about Paul continuing to be a persecutor, because they’re out of place here. They worked in
the earlier MS, but they were in a totally different context.]
The Holy City
The world wanted and needed a powerful, conquering and merciful savior, and that is exactly who Julius Caesar was. His life
was glorious from start to finish, and when he chose to go to the senate meeting, despite the portents, it was understood that
he agreed to be sacrificed so that he could stand against the powers and principalities and forces in the air that created and
sustained the evils of mankind. It was understood that he was a divine being who gave up divine powers to come to earth and
be a perfect man in every sense of the word, thereby receiving the holy name of savior: Joshua. Paul only knew the Jewish
god, so in his mind, Caesar was like Cyrus, only much more. Cyrus performed earthly acts; Caesar won all the wars on earth
and went on to win all the wars in heaven on behalf of mankind.
As for Judas the Galilean, he, too, was a badass dude like his successor, John of Gischala, and his followers claimed he had
been resurrected as the “sky man” who would soon bring the wrath of God back with him to crush the Romans and everyone
who wasn’t a perfect Jew. But Paul was working to bring about a very different reality: peace and reconciliation between Jews
and Gentiles, slaves and free, man and woman.
Before Jerusalem, Rome was the original Holy City. It was established as such in the eighth century by a caste of holy priests,
the “fathers”, whose primary duties were to govern according to the will of Jupiter. Every magistrate was an augur of some
sort, and no business was ever conducted, even down to the time of Caesar, without “reading the signs” – taking the
“auspices” – to determine the will of the gods. Jerusalem, on the other hand, only seems to have become a “holy city” as a
consequence of the Maccabean revolt and reforms in 167–60 BC, when Judas Maccabeus and his Judean rebels fought the
Seleucid Empire of Antiochous IV.
According to the most rational biblical scholarship, the Old Testament was produced in the early third century in Alexandria
and modeled largely on Greco-Roman literature, from Herodotus to Plato, even borrowing incidents and concepts from
Roman History. It seems that among the ideas borrowed from the Romans was the conviction that their god was the one true
god, who had endowed them with the character and right to rule over others. For the Romans, it became a reality; for the
Jews, it was, at that point, just a dream. Isaiah prophesied that the Wolf would lie down with the Lamb. The Roman Wolf
certainly did submit to the Christian Lamb thanks to Constantine, and for the past 1700 years, Rome has been, more or less,
“twice holy”, since it was claimed that it became the holy city only after Jerusalem rejected her messiah. But that doesn’t
seem to be true at all. Jerusalem did not reject Judas the Galilean; Rome did. Jerusalem rejected Paul’s messiah, while Rome
eventually embraced both, though it forgot that the messiah was its own native son: Gaius Julius Caesar.
Since its inception, Rome was ruled by a group of patricians who thought they had the right to despoil and rule the world.
They were overthrown more completely by his death than ever could have been possible had he lived. Caesar didn’t want the
destruction of the Republic; he wanted to repair and reform it and leave it better than before. When Brutus and the gang
struck their blow for freedom, they didn’t realize that it was to be the freedom of the grave for both them and their precious
oligarchic republic. Like the Judas character of the gospels, the assassins all suffered ignoble deaths and Dante placed them all
in the ninth circle of Hell together. Somehow he must have sensed – or known – that the story about the betrayal of Jesus was
actually the betrayal of Caesar.
Caesar extended rights of citizenship and legal protection to the provinces. After Caesar’s model, Christianity extended the
rights of citizenship in heaven even to slaves and barbarians. Rome is – and has been since the conquest of Greece in the
second century BC - the mystical Acropolis of the Earth, the supernatural de Civitas Dei. And it was consecrated by the death
and deification of Julius Caesar.
In the years after Caesar’s death, several messianic movements started in the Jewish communities in the Empire. They ranged
from violent revolutionaries in Judea to the milder ecclesia in the diaspora. In 1 BC, after the death of Herod the Great, Simon
of Perea declared himself king. Varus led the operation to put down the revolt, killing Simon and creating further hostility to
Rome in the process.
After Augustus’ death, Tiberius sent Pontius Pilate to govern Judea ca. 15 AD. Pilate insulted the sensibilities of the Jews,
prompting a resurgence of rebel activity on the part of Judas the Galilean, who called on the Jews not to pay their taxes, and
to take up arms against Rome. Pilate executed him. Their leader dead, the rebels went underground. Sometime in the next 10
years, a Jew named Paul challenged this revolutionary movement. But in 29 AD he had an experience that would change his
life, and that of the world. Perhaps Paul witnessed a passion play of the deified Julius Caesar. Whatever it was, it was a
revelation to him, and he realized at once that this was, truly, the Son of God.
At once, his pharisaic mind went into overdrive. He reinterpreted Jewish ideology and texts with the key that put all the
pieces together: the crucified messiah. Pulling together elements of Judaism, Greek and Roman thought, he created a religion
with the potential to unite humanity, not under coercion, but in fidelity to higher principles of mercy, compassion and love. By
dying with and within the Messiah – Divus Julius – we may die to our old selves, and experience new lives in accordance with
those higher principles. This is possible because Caesar, the conqueror, has gone before us to defeat the powers of darkness.
But the revolutionary Jerusalem groups were not pleased. They sent agents across the Empire to coopt Paul’s ecclesia for their
own purposes: a renewed assault on Rome. In response, Paul decided not to make his third trip to Jerusalem. Instead, he
headed for Rome, where further conflict resulted in the riots described by Suetonius. From there he headed to Spain, carrying
the good news to the limits of the empire.
Twenty years later, the rebel messianists got what they wanted: war with Rome. But their god and their martial messiahs did
not descend from the heavens to make them victorious. Instead, the Romans utterly destroyed them.
By the time of Ignatius and Polycarp in the second century, Paul’s spiritual Messiah was not enough to solidify the control of
the burgeoning church. A clear figure was needed, and the first gospel writer, Mark, created a narrative using elements of
Judas the Galilean, Paul, Caesar, and others. The other gospel writers followed suit, each catering to their own theological
agendas.
The rest is history.
Ave Caesar.