 |
 |
|
Caesar's Messiah CHAPTER 4 The Demons of Gadara When I first came across the passage from War of the Jews describing a son of Mary whose flesh was eaten and recognized its linkage to Christianity, I was perplexed. The more I studied the passage the more I was convinced that it had been deliberately created as a lampoon - but as more than just a lampoon of Jesus. It appeared to be a disclosure of a different origin of Christianity than the one that had been passed down to the modern era. That is, that Christianity had been created to be a "calamity" upon the Jews. 1 began to analyze War of the Jews to determine if it contained other passages that could be seen as satirical disclosures regarding this different version of Christianity's origin. That was when it became clear to me that there were humorous parallels between the story line of Jesus' ministry and Titus' campaign through Judea, and that among them was their similar experience near the town of Gadara. Each of the Synoptic Gospels tells a story of Jesus coming to Gadara where he meets a man who is possessed by demons (in Matthew, Jesus meets two demon-possessed men, a point I shall return to). In the versions of the story found in Mark and Luke, when Jesus asks the demon his name, the demon replies: My name is Legion: for we are many. Mark 5:9 I found it interesting that the demon would choose to describe himself and his cohort as a component of an army. Remembering that the location where Jesus asked his disciples to become "fishers of men" was used to create a comic linkage to an event that occurred at the same location in War of the Jews, I wondered whether the use of the word "legion" by the demon might be satirically related to an event in War of the Jews that occurred near Gadara. The passage in Mark describing the demoniac of Gadara tells of Jesus' encounter with a man possessed by numerous demons. These demons leave the man at Jesus' bidding and then enter into a herd of swine. Once the swine are possessed by the demons, they rush wildly into the sea and drown. The passage does not reveal what happened to the demons after the swine drown. Note that in the New Testament "unclean spirits" are synonymous with devils and demons. And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshiped him, And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea (they were about two thousand), and were choked in the sea. And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done. And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid. And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel. In War of the Jews, there is a short chapter that describes the battle at Gadara. The chapter begins with a description of how "John" rose to power as a leader of the rebellion. By this time John was beginning to tyrannize . .. Now some submitted to him out of their fear of him, and others out of their good-will to him; for he was a shrewd man to entice men to him, both by deluding them and putting cheats upon them. Nay, many there were that thought they should be safer themselves, if the causes of their past insolent actions should now be reduced to one head, and not to a great many. Thus, Josephus described John as a "tyrant" into whose "one head" the "insolent actions" of many had been "reduced." Josephus next describes the Sicarii, the most militant fraction of the Jewish rebellion, who, he states, were able to undertake "greater matters" because of the "sedition and tyranny" that John had created. There was a fortress of very great strength not far from Jerusalem ... called Masada. Those that were called Sicarii had taken possession of it formerly, but at this time they overran the neighboring countries, aiming only to procure to themselves necessaries; for the fear they were then in prevented their further ravages. But when once they were informed that the Roman army lay still, and that the Jews were divided between sedition and tyranny, they boldly undertook greater matters . .. Now as it is in a human body, if the principal part be inflamed, all the members are subject to the same distemper; so, by means of the sedition and disorder that was in the metropolis . . . had the wicked men that were in the country opportunity to ravage the same. Accordingly, when every one of them had plundered their own villages, they then retired into the desert; yet were these men that now got together, and joined in the conspiracy by parties, too small for an army, and too many for a gang of thieves . . . Josephus then describes the beginning of Vespasian's pacification of the Judean countryside. His first assault was on Gadara, a city held by the rebels. These things were told Vespasian by deserters; Accordingly, he marched against Gadara, the metropolis of Perea, which was a place of strength, and entered that city on the fourth day of the month Dystrus [Adarj; for the men of power had sent an embassage to him, without the knowledge of the Josephus then states that after being driven from Gadara the rebels fled to another town, where they conscripted a group of young men into their ranks. This combined group then ran "like the wildest of beasts" attempting to escape. Eventually many were forced to "leap" the river Jordan, where they drowned. So many dying in the river that, it "could not be passed over, by reason of the dead bodies that were in." But as soon as these fugitives saw the horsemen that pursued them just upon their backs, and before they came to a close fight, they ran together to a certain village, which was called Bethennabris, where finding a great multitude of young men, and arming them, partly by their own consent, partly by force, they rashly and suddenly assaulted Placidus and the troops that were with him. These horsemen at the first onset gave way a little, as contriving to entice them further off the wall; and when they had drawn them into a place fit for their purpose, they made their horses encompass them round, and threw their darts at them. So the horsemen cut off the flight of the fugitives, while the foot terribly destroyed those that fought against them; for those Jews did no more than show their courage, and then were destroyed; for as they fell upon the Romans when they were joined close together, and, as it were, walled about with their entire armor, they were not able to find any place where the darts could enter, nor were they any way able to break their ranks, while they were themselves run through by the Roman darts, and, like the wildest of wild beasts, rushed upon the point of others' swords; so some of them were destroyed, as cut with their enemies' swords upon their faces, and others were dispersed by the horsemen. ... As for those that ran out of the village, they stirred up such as were in the country, and exaggerating their own calamities, and telling them that the whole army of the Romans were upon them, they put them into great fear on every side; so they got in great numbers together, and fled to Jericho ... But Placidus . . . slew all that he overtook, as far as Jordan; and when he had driven the whole multitude to the river-side, he put his soldiers in array over against them ... At which fight, hand to hand, fifteen thousand of them were slain, while the number of those that were unwillingly forced to leap into Jordan was prodigious. There were besides two thousand and two hundred taken prisoners. A mighty prey was taken also, consisting of asses, and As I compared Josephus' and the New Testament's Gadara stories I recognized that there were similarities between them. For example, the demoniac in the New Testament's story is described as having a "Legion" of demons inside him. The rebel "tyrant," John, is described as having "the past insolent actions [of the many] reduced to [his] one head." Thus, the demoniac of Gadara can be likened to Josephus' description of John. Further, Josephus indicates that the Sicarii were only able to become a Judea-wide movement because of John's effort to establish himself as a tyrant. Before John's "wickedness" they engaged in limited activities — "at this time they overran the neighboring countries, aiming only to procure to themselves necessaries; for the fear they were then in prevented their further ravages." However, once John had divided the country, "between sedition and tyranny, they boldly undertook greater matters." These "greater matters" being recruitment and expansion of their movement throughout the countryside and Jerusalem, "Nor was there now any part of Judea that was not in a miserable condition, as well as its most eminent city also." So, like the demons that sprang forth out of one man at Gadara, the expansion of the Sicarii can be said to have come about as the result of the wickedness inside of "one head." In another passage in War of the Jews Josephus repeats the concept of John, like the demoniac of Gadara, filling the "entire country with ten thousand instances of wickedness." Yet did John demonstrate by his actions that these Sicarii were more moderate than he was himself, for he not only slew all such as gave him good counsel to do what was right, but treated them worst of all, as the most bitter enemies that he had among all the Citizens; nay, he filled his entire country with ten thousand instances of wickedness. I also noticed that in describing the Sicarii, Josephus stated that their group was "too small for an army, and too many for a gang of thieves." There is a word that describes just such a number of fighting men — a legion. 61 "Legion" being the word that the demons from the New Testament passage above used to describe themselves. In Josephus' story of Gadara this Legion then ran together to a certain village, which was called Bethennabris, where finding a great multitude of young men, [armed] them, partly by their own consent, partly by force . . . Thus, this legion of Sicarii "infected" a great number, paralleling the demons' infection of the swine in the New Testament. The infected group is then confronted by the Romans and runs about "like the wildest of wild beasts," which parallels the herd of swine in the New Testament passage who "ran violently." Both the New Testament and Josephus conclude their Gadara stories with a mass drowning and a description of a group that numbered "about two thousand." In the New Testament, as I have stated, the author does not tell us what happened to the demons that infected the swine. He does, however, tell us the number of swine that drowned, "(about two thousand)." In the Gadara passage in War of the Jews Josephus tells us the number of prisoners taken captive: "There were besides two thousand and two hundred taken prisoners." Josephus also informs us that, "A mighty prey was taken also, consisting of asses, and sheep, and camels, and oxen." Notice that there were no swine taken. I questioned whether the similarities between the two passages were the result of random chance. Many concepts could be seen as parallel — "one head" that contained great evil, a "Legion," this legion infecting another group, the combined group running "wildly," the drowning of the infected group, a group that numbered "about two thousand," the "missing" swine, and, of course, the location of Gadara. However, if the parallels between the two passages had been created intentionally, what was their purpose? As I studied the New Testament passage further I became aware that there were many unanswered questions within it. Why do the demons wish to enter the swine? Why do the swine then rush into the sea? What becomes of the demons? Why do the demons ask Jesus if he is there to torment them "before the time"? Why does the possessed man cut himself with stones? As I believed that Josephus' "Son of Mary whose flesh is eaten" passage was a satire of the New Testament's symbolic Passover lamb, I attempted to determine whether one of the passages concerning Gadara might be a satire of the other. I soon realized that it is possible to read the Gospel stories of the demoniac of Gadara as a satire of Josephus' description of the battle of Gadara, and that the two passages could possibly be interactive. The reason that the New Testament's demoniac of Gadara can be seen as a satire on Josephus' "tyrant" John and the battle at Gadara is simply because the two stories follow the same plot outline. In other words, the characters and events that can be seen as parallel occur in the same sequence. And it all occurs near Gadara. The satirical version in the New Testament tells the same story that Josephus does but, as is often the case with satire, the characters have different names. In the New Testament the characters are the unnamed demoniac, the demons, and the swine that the demons infect. In War of the Jews the characters are the rebel leader John, the Sicarii, and the group that the Sicarii conscripts. If the New Testament's Gadara passage is a satire of Josephus' description of the battle, the demon-possessed man in the New Testament from whom the "legion" sprang would be a satire of John, the rebel leader from whose "one head" The premise that the characters in the two tales concerning Gadara are meant to be understood as the same individuals but with different names also seems to answer my question about whether the two thousand demons drowned with the swine they infected. The demons who infected the swine in the New Testament must be a satirical representation of the 2,200 Sicarii who escaped drowning and were captured alive at Gadara. Josephus appears to complete this comical interaction with the New Testament by pointing out that while many different animals were captured, none were swine: "A mighty prey was taken also, consisting of asses, and sheep, and camels, and oxen." Why were no swine captured? Because in the New Testament's story of Gadara the swine had drowned and therefore could not be captured in the parallel passage in War of the Jews. While the structure of this satire is more complex than the others I have shown, the humor itself is very straightforward. It simply denigrates the Sicarii as demons and unclean spirits, and the people they recruited as swine. No doubt this was the way the Flavian family felt about the rebels. Many of Jesus' prophecies have been long understood to foresee events from the war between the Romans and the Jews. It is therefore strange that the relationship between the two passages has not been noticed before, the Gospels' Gadara story being a "prophecy" of an event from the war that Josephus recorded as having "come to pass." This oversight is particularly odd in light of the fact that the Gospels' Gadara story is, in and of itself, incoherent. Within the context of the New Testament there is no theological or moral principle that can be gleaned from the story of a legion of demons that enter a herd of swine that then run wildly into the river and drown. However, when it is viewed as a satire of Josephus' description of the battle of Gadara, the New Testament passage makes perfect sense. Another seemingly incoherent aspect of Jesus' encounter with the demoniac that this interpretation makes clear occurs in the version of the story found in Matthew. Wherein, upon seeing Jesus, the demon-possessed men cry out, "What have we to do with you, Jesus, you Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?" The question the demons are asking is unanswerable within the literal context of the passage. What "time" are they referring to? However, this question is answered by the interpretation I offer. If the demons are lampoons of the leaders of the Jewish rebellion, the time of their torment is clear. They are prophesying the torment experienced by John and Simon at the end of their war against the Romans. Further, if the New Testament's passage is a satire of the battle of Gadara, notice that it is a specific satire of Josephus' passage and not of some tradition regarding the battle that Josephus might have shared with the authors of the New Testament. For example, the demoniac referring to himself as "Legion" only makes satirical sense as a comic parallel to Josephus' unique description of the rebel band as being "too small for an army, and too many for a gang of thieves." This is an important point in that it indicates that parts of the New Testament and War of the Jews were designed to be read interactively, Josephus' description of the manner in which John had spread his "infection" is similar to Jesus' description of the "unclean spirits" who left one man and infected many others. "Now as it is in a human body, if the principal part be inflamed, all the members are subject to the same distemper." This similarity is especially clear when one considers that in first-century Judea "demons" were considered to be responsible for fevers and other illnesses. The Dead Sea Scrolls actually describe a "fever demon." 63 When Josephus uses "infection" as an analogy for the Sicarii's activity he is practically likening them to demons. I therefore decided to review the New Testament and War of the Jews for examples to support the premise that the New Testament lampoons the Sicarii as "demons." During this analysis it became clear that Jesus and Josephus each referred to the same "wicked generation," the generation that crucified Christ and then rebelled against Rome, as having been infected by "demons." In the following passage, for example, Jesus specifically foresees that "unclean spirits," or demons, would possess this "wicked generation." Notice that Jesus makes the point that one "unclean spirit" can infect many, which parallels Josephus' description of the wickedness passing from "one head" to many. Jesus also states that the unclean spirits pass through "waterless places." Which can be seen as a satirical way of stating that demons cannot pass through water, thereby linking the passage to what puzzled me regarding the fate of the two thousand demons. The idea that demons are unable to pass through water runs through both the New Testament and the works of Josephus. When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest, but he finds none. Then he says, "I will return to my house from which I came." And when he comes he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and brings with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So shall it be also with this evil generation. Jesus' linking of the "evil generation" to demonically possessed men who infected others mirrors my interpretation of the New Testament's Gadara passage, wherein 1 concluded that the "Sicarii" were demons who infected others with their "wickedness." When Jesus referred to a "wicked generation" he appears to have been referring to the Sicarii, who rebelled against Rome. This proposition is especially clear in light of the fact that to Jews of this era a "generation" was forty years, which was the exact time span between Jesus' resurrection and the final destruction of the Sicarii at Masada. The understanding that a "generation" lasted forty years comes from the Pentateuch. And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was consumed. Many Christians currently hold a different position regarding Jesus' doomsday prophecies, believing that they do not refer to the generation of Jews that lived during his lifetime. Instead, they believe that Jesus was speaking about some unspecified time still in the future. I feel that this "futurist" understanding is incorrect and has the effect of obfuscating Jesus' words, thereby making it difficult to understand the meaning they conveyed in the first century. No real understanding of the New Testament is possible without knowing what Jesus meant when he used the word "generation." The Greek word in the New Testament that has been translated as "generation" is genea. Early in the 20th century some Christian scholars began to posit that Jesus' use of this word was meant to indicate not the "generation" of Jews alive during his lifetime, but rather the entire "race" of Jews, which would not pass away "without all these things having first taken place." It is easy to understand their desire for such a definition. If Jesus is referring to those Jews alive during his lifetime then his "Second Coming" must have occurred in 70 A.D. Such an understanding leaves Christianity in an awkward position. This is because if Jesus' "Second Coming" had occurred during the war between the Romans and the Jews, why was it Titus and not Jesus who demolished the temple and destroyed the "wicked generation"? The Christian theologian C. I. Scofield recognized this dilemma and in his Bible reference switched the definition of the word genea to that of genos, an entirely different word meaning "race." However, scholars showed that the New Testament's use of genea could only be referring to the Jews of Jesus' lifetime and not to the entire Jewish race, thereby debunking Scofield's position. The understanding that Jesus was specifically referring to the generation of Jews alive at the time he spoke the words was certainly the understanding held during the Middle Ages. For example, the following notes were found written alongside Matthew 24:34 in a Bible dated 1599. "This age: the word generation or age is here being used for the men of this age." We are on solid ground in understanding that Jesus was referring solely to the generation of Jews who were alive during the 40 years between his ministry and the destruction of Jerusalem. However, if this is correct, then Jesus and Josephus were referring to the same group as the "wicked generation." Notice in the following passages how similar Jesus' and Josephus' understanding was regarding "demons," the "wicked generation," and the Sicarii. From Josephus: . . . had the Romans made any longer delay in coming against these villains, the city would either have been swallowed up by the ground opening upon them, or been overflowed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as the country of Sodom perished by, for it had brought forth a generation of men much more atheistical than were those that suffered such. . . . And truly so it happened, that though the slayers left off at the evening, yet did the fire greatly prevail in the night; and as all was burning, came that eighth day of the month Gorpieus [Elul] upon Jerusalem, a city that had been liable to so many miseries during this siege, that, had it always enjoyed as much happiness from its first foundation, it would certainly have been the envy of the world. Nor did it on any other account so much deserve these sore misfortunes, as by producing such a generation of men as were the occasions of this its overthrow. From the New Testament: "Wicked and faithless generation!" He replied, "They clamor for a sign, but none shall be given to them except the sign of the Prophet Jonah." Matt. 12:39.4 Then he goes and brings back with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they come in and dwell there; and in the end that man's condition becomes worse than it was at first. So will it be also with the present wicked generation. Matt. 12:45.46 "0 unbelieving and perverse generation!" replied Jesus; "How long shall I be with you? How long shall I endure you?" Matt. 17:17.5 I tell you in solemn truth that all these things will come upon the present generation. Matt. 23:36.16 I tell you in solemn truth that the present generation will certainly not pass away without all these things having first taken place. Matt. 24:34 Somehow, the three-way connection between the "wicked generation," Jesus' "demons," and Josephus' "Sicarii" has not attracted much attention from scholars. For example, the Hebrew scholar Joseph Klausner completely missed the connection. He wrote: At that time even educated people and those who had imbibed of the Greek culture such as Josephus, such nerve cases and cases of insanity as cases of "possession" by some devil or evil or unclean spirit, and believed in cures and that certain men could perform miracles. The Demons of Gadara In fact, Josephus did not believe that demons were "nerve cases" and gave a precise definition as to what they were. He stated that demons were the spirits of the wicked. Demons . . . are no other than the spirits of the wicked. This definition indicates that Josephus saw the Sicarii as "demons" in that he constantly describes the rebels as "wicked." Josephus also links the Sicarii with "demons" in another way. He describes the Sicarii as moving "with a demoniacal fury" as they went to kill their families at the end of the siege of Masada. Like Jesus, Josephus makes it clear who the "wicked" are. They are the generation of Jews that rebelled against Rome. That neither did any other city ever suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from the beginning of the world. Thus, Jesus and Josephus share a narrow understanding and express it with the same vocabulary: that the generation of Jews who lived between 33 C.E. and 73 C.E. were "wicked" because they had been "infected" by a demonic spirit. This shared understanding is suspicious. Jesus could only view the "wickedness" of this generation by looking into the future, and yet he not only held the same opinion of the generation as Josephus, he used the same words in describing it. Returning to the version of the story of the demoniac of Gadara found in Matthew, where Jesus meets two demons, in War of the Jews we learn that were two "tyrants" or leaders of the Jewish rebellion, John, described above, and a Simon. Since my analysis suggests that the New Testament is satirizing John in the version that describes a single demon of Gadara, it seemed logical to ask whether the version describing two demoniacs was satirizing both leaders of the Jewish rebellion, John and Simon. Experimenting with this premise I noticed that at the conclusion of the siege of Jerusalem in War of the Jews Simon and John both take refuge in subterranean caverns beneath Jerusalem. Eventually they are forced by starvation to come out of these "tombs" and surrender to the Romans. This event struck me as a parallel to the description of the demon-possessed men "coming out of the tombs" in the New Testament. The passage in War of the Jews that describes these caverns confirms that they are indeed "tombs." The Romans slew some of them, some they carried captives, and others they made a search for under ground, and when they found where they were, they broke up the ground and slew all they met with. There were also found slain there above two thousand persons, partly by their own hands, and partly by one another, but chiefly destroyed by the famine; but then the ill savor of the dead bodies was most offensive to those that lighted upon them, insomuch that some were obliged to get away immediately ... As I have mentioned, the demon-possessed man at Gadara is described as "cutting himself with stones." Cutting oneself with "stones" is, of course, unusual — a stone is not a tool someone would normally use to cut with. What is the author of this passage actually referring to? 1 realized that if the demoniacs of Gadara are intended to satirize the rebel leaders, then there was a comic answer to this question. The phrase in the New Testament where the demoniac is "in the tombs . . . cutting himself with stones" shares a comic relationship with the passage in War of the Jews that describes the "tombs" that John and Simon take refuge in. The joke comes from the unanswered question in Mark 5:5. This question being, what does one call someone who cuts himself with stones? In a passage in War of the Jews relating to the rebel leader's hiding in the "tombs" we learn the absurdly obvious answer. Someone who cuts himself with stones is, of course, called a "stonecutter." This Simon, during the siege of Jerusalem, was in the upper city; but when the Roman army was gotten within the walls, and were laying the city waste, he then took the most faithful of his friends with him, and among them some that were stonecutters, with those iron tools which belonged to their occupation. The version of the Gadara encounter in Matthew does not describe the fate of either of its two demon-possessed men. However, if the demoniacs were spoofs of the leaders of the Jewish rebellion, then the version in Mark, which describes only one possessed man, must tell the fate of John. I reached this conclusion because the passage concludes with the statement "Him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him." If the New Testament was lampooning Simon and John, the leaders of the Jewish rebellion, then the individual who was restored to his "right mind" and who went to Decapolis could only have been John. This is because Josephus records that, after being captured, John was given life imprisonment while Simon was taken to Rome and executed. Following this logic, it could only have been John, then, who "began to publish in Decapolis." So my musings raised the question of whether John the Zealot, leader of the Jewish rebellion, had assisted the Romans in creating Christian literature while he was imprisoned in Decapolis. And further, I wondered exactly what literature this individual could have helped the Romans create? The only known Christian literature from this era is the New Testament itself. There was, of course, someone named "John" who wrote a Gospel. While the premise that the Apostle John was a lampoon of the John who was the leader of the rebellion was based at this point in my analysis as much on imagination as evidence, it was consistent with the style of black humor I felt was in play within the passages analyzed previously. Of course, if the Apostle John is a lampoon of the rebel John, then it would follow that the Apostle Simon is also a lampoon of the other rebel leader, Simon. Since my analysis of the New Testament's Gadara passages suggest that the Sicarii were lampooned as demons in the New Testament, I first attempted to determine if there were other New Testament passages concerning demons that might support the proposition regarding the relationship between rebel leaders John and Simon and the two Apostles. During this search I noticed the following passage from the Gospel of John, which states that the Apostle Judas was the "son of Simon the Iscariot." "Did not I choose you — the Twelve?" said Jesus, "and even of you one is a devil." He alluded to Judas, the son of Simon the Iscariot. For he it was who, though one of the Twelve, was afterwards to betray Him. John 6:70-71 Scholars have commented on the possibility that "Iscariot," the last name of Judas, is somehow related to "Sicarii," the word Josephus uses to describe the messianic rebels. As Robert Eisenman notes, the only difference between the two Greek words the switching of the iota, or "I," with the sigma, or "s." I concur, and will show below that it is simply one of the many puns that the author(s) of Josephus and the New Testament use in challenging the reader to discover that the two works describe the same characters. I determined that the following passage from the Gospel of Matthew could be read as a satire on John, the leader of the rebellion, as well as on the "wicked generation." Notice that "John" is accused if having a demon because he is not eating and drinking, which certainly can be likened to the rebel John's situation in the subterranean caverns. John is shown as a mirror opposite of the "Son of Man," who is eating and drinking and is "the friend of tax gatherers," and who will "upbraid towns" "because they had not repented" — this description of Jesus having a clear parallel in Titus' activities in Judea. Therefore, if the passage has the satirical meaning I suspected, then the "John" described within the passage is meant to be understood as John, the leader of the rebellion, and Jesus' prophecy is actually envisioning Titus' campaign through Judea. But to what shall I compare the present generation? It is like children sitting in the open places, who call to their playmates. "We have played the flute to you," they say, "and you have not danced: we have sung dirges, and you have not beaten your breasts." For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, "He has a demon." The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they exclaim, "See this man! — given to gluttony and tippling, and a friend of tax-gatherers and notorious sinners!" And yet Wisdom is vindicated by her actions. Then began He to upbraid the towns where most of His mighty works had been done — because they had not repented. Matt. 11:16-20 My analysis of the New Testament story of the demons of Gadara suggests that the "subterranean caverns" the Jewish rebels fled into at the end of the siege of Jerusalem were satirized as "tombs" within the New Testament. The following passage from the Gospel of John appeared to me to be using this theme. However, notice that if this interpretation is correct, then in the passage Jesus is actually comparing himself to Titus, in that Titus is the individual sent by "god," that is, his father Vespasian, to hand out "life," or "judgment," to the Jews hidden in "tombs," that is, the caverns beneath Jerusalem. I shall return to this point below. This interpretation also indicates a different origin for the Christian concept of "resurrection" than that traditionally held. It is not based only on the Pharisaic belief that God will return the dead to life, but rather is a satire on the raising of the dead, that is, those Jews found buried within the tombs under Jerusalem at the end of the siege. If this is correct, it is another example of the theme of Jesus seemingly speaking symbolically but Josephus' history showing a comicly literal meaning to his words. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. John 5;26-30 While these interpretations of the passages above are logical, they do not, in and of themselves, provide direct support for the contention that the Apostles John and Simon were satires of the leaders of the Jewish rebellion. Further analysis of the New Testament produced more examples of this kind but nothing that provided the clarity 1 sought. Finally, I realized what had been staring me in the face the entire time. There is a passage within the New The Gospel of John concludes with a discussion between Simon (Peter) and Jesus. Jesus foresees that Simon will be bound and carried "where you do not wish to go." Jesus also tells Simon that he will have a martyr's death, "to glorify God." In the midst of this discussion, "the disciple that Jesus loved," clearly meaning the Apostle John, appears. Simon asks Jesus what the fate of John is to be. Jesus replies, "It is my will that he remain." The passage then points out that John "is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things" referring to the Gospel of John itself. Below is the entire passage. Notice how the author goes to great lengths to avoid calling the Apostles by their real names, Simon and John. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, "Follow me." Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?' When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?' Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. John 21:18-24 This passage, which is the conclusion to Jesus' ministry, is exactly parallel to Titus' judgments concerning the rebel leaders Simon and John at the conclusion of his campaign through Judea. Thus, at the conclusion of the Gospel above, Jesus tells Simon "when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." Jesus tells Simon to "follow me" and that his death will "glorify God." However, Jesus also states that it is his will that John is to "remain." At the conclusion of his campaign through Judea, Titus, after capturing "Simon," girds him in "bonds" and sends him "where you do not wish to go," this being Rome. During the parade of conquest at Rome, Simon follows, that is, is "led" to a "death, to glorify God," the god "glorified" being Titus' father, the diuus Vespasian. However, it is Titus' will to spare the other leader of the rebellion, John. Notice that in the following passage Josephus records Simon's fate before John's, just as it occurs in John 21. A seemingly innocuous detail but one that I will show has great significance. Simon . . . was forced to surrender himself, as we shall relate hereafter; so he was reserved for the triumph, and to be then slain; as was John condemned to perpetual imprisonment. Josephus also records that Jesus' vision of Simon "following" also comes to pass for the rebel leader Simon. Simon ... had then been led in this triumph among the captives; a rope had also been put upon his head, and he had been drawn into a proper place in the forum. In the passage from the Gospel of John above, notice that the author does not call the Apostle John by his name but rather as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and as the individual who had said at the Last Supper, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" Later in the chapter the author identifies this disciple with yet another epithet when he states, "This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things" — even here not referring to John by name but requiring the reader to determine it by knowing the name of the author of the Gospel. The author's use of epithets here, instead of simply referring to the disciple as "John," seems clearly an attempt to keep the parallel conclusion of Jesus' and Titus' "ministries" from being too easily seen. 80 The author also has Jesus call Simon by his nickname, "Peter," for the same reason. The same technique is used throughout the New Testament and War of the Jews. To learn the name of an unnamed character, the reader must be able to recall details from another, related passage. In effect, the New Testament is designed as a sort of an intelligence test whose true meaning can be understood only by those possessing sufficient memory, logic, and humor. For clarification, I present the following table showing the parallels between the ends of Jesus' ministry and Titus' campaign: 1) Characters are named Simon and John 2) Both sets of characters are judged 3) Both sides of the parallel occur at the conclusion of a "campaign" 4) In each, Simon goes to a martyr's death after being placed in bonds and taken someplace he does not wish to go 5) In each, John is spared 6) In each, Simon "follows" Further, the two events continue the theme of a prophecy made in one work being fulfilled in the other. In other words, what Jesus predicts, Josephus records as having "come to pass." This group of parallels seems too complex to have occurred by chance and provides direct support for my premise that the Apostles Simon and John were lampoons of the leaders of the Jewish rebellion, as well as my suspicion that the "Son of Man," whose coming the New Testament predicts will bring destruction to Jerusalem, is Titus. I then realized the larger implications of what I had discovered. The reader will recall the parallel beginnings to the "ministries" of Titus and Jesus; that is, both were "followed" by "fishers of men." The conclusions of Titus' and Jesus' stints in Judea are also conceptually parallel. When I looked at the relative placements of the Gadara and the "son of Mary whose flesh was eaten" parallels, I found that those too occurred in the same sequence. Thus, the New Testament satires of events from War of the Jews were not haphazardly sequenced, as I had originally assumed, but were put in the same sequence as the events they satirized. In other words, the entire outline of Jesus' ministry, as recorded within the New Testament, was designed to prophecy Titus' campaign through Judea. For clarification, I present the following table of parallels in sequence shown thus far: TABLE OF PARALLELS IN SEQUENCE JESUS' MINISTRY TITUS' CAMPAIGN Jesus begins ministry at Gennesareth and says "Follow me" and become fishers of men Titus begins campaign at Gennesareth where his soldiers "follow" him and fish for men At Gadara, encounters a legion inside of one man that infects a group that in turn infects another group Describes "one head" whose "wickedness" unleashes a legion of "demons" that infects another group that runs wildly "Swine" run wildly and 2,000 drown At Gadara, 2,000 of the "demons" do not drown At Jerusalem, the "Son of Mary" offers his flesh to be eaten At Jerusalem, describes a son of Mary whose flesh is eaten Jesus foresees a martyr's death for Simon at Rome but spares John at conclusion of ministry Titus sends Simon to a martyr's death at Rome but spares John at conclusion of campaign The New Testament passages concerning "fishing for men," a "legion" of demons coming out of one man to infect many, a human Passover lamb, and a conclusion where Simon is condemned and John spared can be seen as satirizing very few works of literature. It is, therefore, quite implausible that the New Testament describes, by chance, so many episodes that can be seen as satirizing the events in a single book. Moreover, while it is possible to argue that each New Testament episode that appears to satirize an event in War of the Jews does so accidentally, if that were the case then these accidents would occur in a random sequence and at random locations. It was not required that Jesus use the expression "fishers of men" while standing on the beach at Gennesareth, any more than it was required that he meet the demoniac at Gadara. Nor was it necessary for him to offer his flesh at Jerusalem, or to condemn Simon but spare John at the conclusion of his ministry. The fact that these four events occur in the New Testament in the same sequence and at the same location as their parallel events in War of the Jews strongly supports the contention that one work was created with the other in mind. Two four-sided dice, for example, will each land with the same side up four times in a row only once in two hundred and fifty-six throws. Therefore, the parallel sequences, concepts, and locations make the authors' intent clear. In the same way that they show the first savior of Israel, Moses, to have been the "type" of Jesus, the second savior of Israel, through their parallel infancy experiences, they also "prove" that Titus is the last and greatest "savior" because Jesus' ministry is the "type" of Titus' campaign through Judea. Finally, the parallel sequences of Jesus' and Titus' "ministries" must be considered in the context of their historical overlaps. As I noted above, Jesus predicted that a "Son of God" would come to Judea before the generation that crucified him had passed away, then encircle Jerusalem with a wall and destroy the temple. Titus is the only individual in history who can be seen as having fulfilled these prophecies. Such a combination of historical singularities could not occur by chance. This is self-evident. Therefore, the only plausible explanation for the similar story lines is that these parts of Jesus' ministry were deliberately created to parallel Titus' campaign through Judea. History has shown, of course, that the comic aspect of the parallels between the two "Sons of God" are not easy to see. Within the Flavian court, however, where "foreign cults in Rome" were carefully scrutinized and knowledge of Titus' exploits was common, those responsible for overseeing the Empire's religions would have recognized the satirical parallels between Jesus and Titus and seen them as humorous. The purpose of these parallels, moreover, was not merely to create an amusing satire for patricians. I will show in the following chapter that the authors of the New Testament use parallelism to create a story entirely different from the one that appears on its surface — a story that reveals the hidden identity of the "Jesus" who interacts with the disciples at the conclusion of the Gospels. Moreover, understanding that Jesus' ministry shares a parallel story line and characters with Titus' campaign creates a way to understand a lot about the New Testament. Simply moving the events of Jesus' ministry forward forty years in time and comparing them to the events of Titus' campaign reveals their satirical meaning. For example, whoever put Jesus' prophecy about the fate of Simon and John at the conclusion of the Gospel of John did so solely to have the conclusion of the Gospels comically mirror the end of Titus' campaign. The discussion between Jesus and Simon could have occurred at any time during Jesus' ministry or been recorded in any of the other Gospels, or not been included at all, since it contains no important theological ideas. This method also reveals the satirical basis for Simon's nick-name, Peter, which in Greek is Petros, meaning "rock" or "stone." It is a joke relating to Josephus' description of the circumstance of the real Simon's capture. As stated above, in trying to escape Roman-occupied Jerusalem, Simon fled into a subterranean cavern with a group of stone cutters and attempted to dig an escape passage. Unable to carve through rock and out of food, he was forced to surrender. He did so in an extraordinary fashion. Josephus writes: Simon, thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock, and buttoned upon him a purple cloak, and appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been. The humor is subtle. In the comic logic of the New Testament's Simon's epithet, "stone" satirizes Josephus' depiction of Simon being captured with a group of stone cutters, who, of course, cut "stone." As he came "out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been" he was, therefore, the first "stone" upon which the new "temple," Christianity, was to be built. Once again, though Jesus appears to have spoken metaphorically when he tells Simon that he is the "stone" upon which he will build a new church that will replace Judaism, Josephus records an event showing another, comic, meaning to Jesus' words. And I declare to you that you are Peter, and that upon this Stone I will build my Church . . . Matt. 16:18.14 The depiction of Simon coming out of a cavern that is a "tomb" and contains a group of stone cutters also provides satirical confirmation of the premise that Simon the Apostle and the demoniac of Gadara were both lampoons of Simon the leader of the Jewish rebellion. This is because the humor regarding "stone cutters" creates a parallel between the demoniac of Gadara and the rebel leader Simon. And since the passages are parallel, the unnamed character in one would have the same name as his named "type" in the other; in this case "Simon" is the name of one of the demoniacs of Gadara. Understanding this simple point of logic enables a reader to learn the names of many the unnamed characters in the New Testament and War of the Jews, and the real identity of Jesus. I will also show that far from being unusual, the use of intertextual parallels to exchange information between passages was commonplace in the Judaic literature of this era. The New Testament's comic theme regarding "rock" and "stone" appears to be satire on a well-known metaphorical theme found throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls, that of the "foundation of rock." In the following example from the Thanksgiving Hymn, notice that the author sees himself, like the rebel leader Simon, as entering a "fortified city" and "seeks refuge behind a high wall." But I shall be as one who enters a fortified city, As one who seeks refuge behind a high wall Until deliverance [comes]; I will (lean on) Thy truth; O my God. For Thou wilt set the foundation on rock And the frameworks by the measuring cord of justice; And the tried stones {Thou will lay} The comic logic that links the New Testament to War of the Jews also makes clear the basis for the epithet of the Apostle John, which is "the disciple whom Jesus loved." John was the "loved disciple" because he was the captive leader whom Titus spared. Further, the real meaning of Jesus' criticism of his disciples — for example, his describing the Apostles "Simon" and "John" as having demons — is now also apparent. Having maliciously satirized the leaders of the messianic movement as Jesus' Apostles, the Roman authors of the New Testament then "record" Jesus lecturing his Apostles on their wickedness. In the Gospel of Luke there is a passage that warns Simon of his being possessed by "Satan" and reiterates the concept that Simon is going to prison and to death "with" Jesus. It also repeats the theme of the demoniac of Gadara (Simon), who returns to his true self after Satan has been repelled. It is another example of Jesus making statements that seem metaphoric but have literal and comic meaning when read in conjunction with War of the Jews. "Simon" did indeed go with his "master" to prison and death, his "master" being Titus. Though in the past the following passage has mystified scholars, its meaning is now clear. "Simon, Simon, I tell you that Satan has obtained permission to have all of you to sift as wheat is sifted. "But I have prayed for 'you' that your faith may not fail, and you, when at last you have come back to your true self, must strengthen your brethren." "Master," replied Peter, "with you I am ready to go both to prison and to death." Luke 22:33 Continuing this comic theme in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus actually calls the Apostle Simon "Satan." His strange remark about the founder of his church is rendered coherent when one understands that Jesus is referring, in the Roman context, to the rebel Simon. The reader will note that the mysteriousness of many of Jesus' sayings disappears when they are understood within the context 1 suggest. In the passage, Jesus repeats the command to Simon that he gives at the conclusion of the Gospel of John above. That is, to "follow me" with a cross to your doom. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you." But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up my cross and follow me. "For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Matt. 16:21-25 In the passage above, from Matthew, notice that Jesus tells his disciples to "take up his cross" and follow. In the passage below, from Luke, we learn that, in fact, "Simon," called a "Cyrenaean," did indeed "take up his cross" and "follow" Jesus. Notice how deliberately the author conveys the idea that a "Simon" "followed" Jesus with a cross. As soon as they led Him away, they laid hold on one Simon, a Cyrenaean, who was coming in from the country, and on his shoulders they put the cross, for him to carry it behind Jesus. Luke 23:26 The structure of the comedy involved in Simon's "following with a cross" is familiar. If one interprets Jesus' words metaphorically they can be seen to have a spiritual meaning, but if interpreted literally they are black comedy. The Apostle Paul is also engaged in the lampooning of Simon's execution. But when Cephas [Simon] came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. Gal 2:11 The strange tale of Simon's three denials of Jesus is also part of the sequence of events shared by the New Testament and War of the Jews. The tale is one of the most famous stories in the New Testament and is found in all four Gospels. The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not." Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not." One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" Peter again denied it; and at once the cock crowed. John 18:25-27 When I had determined that the Apostle Simon was a lampoon of Simon the leader of the Jewish rebels, and that there was a parallel sequence of events in War of the Jews and the New Testament, I was curious to determine if War of the Jews contained a parallel to the New Testament story describing Simon's three denials of Jesus. In fact, just scanning War of the Jews where Simon's "denials" would have occurred, that is, immediately following the capture on the Mount of Olives, reveals a passage in which Titus states that three times he has exhorted Simon to "peace" and three times he had been denied. This bridge it was that lay between the tyrants and Caesar, and parted them; while the multitude stood on each side; those of the Jewish nation about Simon and John, with great hopes of pardon; and the Romans about Caesar, in great expectation how Titus would receive their supplication . . . Titus said . . . "I exhorted you to leave off these proceedings before I began this war. . . "After every victory I persuaded you to peace . . . "I will not imitate your madness. If you throw down your arms, and deliver up your bodies to me, I grant you your lives; and I will act like a mild master of a family; what cannot be healed shall be punished, and the rest I will preserve for my own use." To this offer of Titus they made this reply — That they could not accept of it. 83 In the New Testament Simon denies three times that he is a "follower" of Jesus. He then returns to his "right mind" and feels remorse. This is a comic depiction of the true Simon's three refusals to surrender and then his being, as Josephus records, "made sensible" once he has been captured by the Romans. In the Christian tradition, "Simon the Apostle" suffers a martyr's death at Rome. In fact his execution, in the manner and approximate year that the Christian tradition maintains, is described by Josephus. Simon is not, however, a Christian martyr but a Jewish one. In retrospect, it seems hard to understand why, with the exception of Robert Eisenman, scholars have not commented on the parallels between the Christian Simon and his Jewish counterpart, because they are obvious. Both Simons were leaders of a Judean messianic movement engaged in missionary activity who suffered a martyr's death at Rome in approximately the same year. How many such individuals could there have been? The traditional time span given as likely for the Christian Simon's death is between July 64 C.E. (the purported date of the outbreak of the Neronian persecution) and 68 C.E. The rebel Simon was martyred in 70 or 71 C.E. And, as shown above, both can be seen as the "cornerstone" of the church that replaces one that is destroyed. Further, both Simons are recorded as having a relationship with the Flavian family. St. Jerome and Tertullian both refer to the tradition that "Simon" ordained Clement, the purported Flavian pope. This tradition that the early church scholars refer to is significant in that it not only links the Flavian family to the origin of Christianity but, if correct, creates a conundrum for the religion. If Simon did ordain Clement it would suggest that he was not martyred by Nero, but later, by the Flavians. However, it is hard to imagine that Simon would have handed over control of his movement to a member of the family that was about to execute him. My explanation resolves this paradox. If the rebel Simon and the Christian Simon were the same individual, then his being martyred by the Flavians and also handing control of the religion over to them becomes understandable. The tradition that Simon ordained a Flavian as pope and then was executed by that family simply reflects the truth. The Flavians executed Simon and then passed control over his messianic cult (now "Christianity") to family members. Later Christian scholars attempting to organize the history of the religion recognized that such a direct connection to the Flavian family was problematic. Therefore, they simply inserted popes between Simon and Clement. This led to the two lists of popes, the one that the Church officially claims, and the one that Tertullian and Jerome knew of, which had the succession go directly from Simon to a member of the Flavian family. Scholars have puzzled over why Paul always refers to Simon as "Cephas," the Aramaic equivalent of Peter. My explanation is that the authors of the New Testament determined that to refer to the Apostle as "Simon" during the period when the real Simon's life is covered in War of the Jews might make the ruse too obvious. Even hoi polloi might notice that the two Simons were suspiciously similar. The authors of the New Testament therefore changed the Apostle's from "Simon" to "Simon Peter," then to "Peter," and finally to "Cephas" as their narration comes closer to the time when the real Simon leads the rebellion. The creators of the Roman church had literally used the Sicarii leader as the "rock" upon which they "built" the church that would worship their pacifistic, tax-paying Messiah. By appropriating the real Simon's name and position of authority, they were able to "graft" the Apostle Simon onto the history of Christianity. The New Testament has numerous Simons: 1) Simon the Apostle 2) Simon called Zelotes or the Kanaites 3) Simon, the father of Judas, who betrayed Jesus 88 Caesar's Messiah 4) Simon Magus, the Samaritan wizard 5) Simon the tanner, Acts 10 6) Simon the Pharisee, Luke 7:40-44 7) Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross of Christ 8) Simon, the brother of Jesus, the son of Cleophas 9) Simon the leper 10) Simon Peter The idea that the New Testament obfuscates the similarities between the Apostle Simon and Simon, the leader of the Jewish rebellion, by constantly changing the Apostle's name suggested to me that all the "Simons" in the New Testament might be lampoons of the Jewish leader. Supporting this conjecture was the fact that while Jesus gave instructions to "Simon the Apostle" to "follow him" with a cross, it was "Simon the Cyrene" who carried out the prophecy, indicating that these two "Simons" were lampoons of the same individual. Further, it seemed clear that the Simon who was the father of Judas the "Iscariot," was also a lampoon of the rebel Simon who was likely to have been a Sicarii. Simon the "Zealot" also seems a likely epithet for Simon the leader of the Jewish "Zealots" in the war against Rome. The idea that the "Simons" within the New Testament were created as a unified comic theme sheds light on a parallel phenomenon within the New Testament, that of the many "Marys." "Mary," like "Simon," is the name of numerous characters within the New Testament. In fact, it is the name of every female character central to Jesus' ministry: 1) Mary, the mother of Jesus 2) Mary Magdalene 3) Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha of Bethany 4) Mary of Cleophas, the mother of James the less 5) Mary, the mother of John Mark, a sister of Barnabas 6) Martha, the sister of Lazarus and Mary of Bethany Martha, Lazarus' sister, is on this list because Martha is the Aramaic approximation of the Hebrew name Mary. The names both stem from the word for rebellion. Martha is Aramaic for "she was rebellious" and Mary is Hebrew for "their rebellion." There is no known Hebrew tradition of giving sisters the same name. The fact that the New Testament records that a family so central to Christianity's origin had chosen to do so suggests to me that all the characters named Mary in the Gospels might, as I suspect of all the Simons, be lampoons. A passage in the Gospel of John that states that Mary the mother of Jesus also had a sister named Mary supports this premise. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister Mary, the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. John 19:25 It is quite improbable that the two families most central to Jesus' ministry would have each had, by chance, two sisters named Mary. Many scholars have commented on the dubiousness of Mary's sister being named Mary. For example Eisenman wrote, Mary did not have a sister Mary. This confusion was based on either separate and conflicting descriptions of Mary before the redaction of these traditions or simply a grammatical error in the Greek. Eisenman is correct in stating that Mary did not have a sister with the same name, but there is a better explanation for the many Marys than "grammatical error." All the Marys in the New Testament, together with the sole Mary in War of the Jews, the mother who ate her son's flesh, are part of a comic theme like that created by the various Simons. Given that the name Mary stems from the word "rebellion," I believe that these lampoons were not based on a historical individual but on an archetype. In other words, all the female members of the militant messianic movement the Sicarii would have been known as Marys to the Romans, because they were all "rebellious." This insight is important in understanding Mary Magdalene's key role in the New Testament's satire on the resurrection of Jesus. That the sole Mary in War of the Jews would have such a connection to the New Testament, a work in which all of the central females are also named Mary, is unlikely to have been circumstantial. I would conjecture that during the war "Mary" became a Roman nickname for female rebels in much the same manner that enemy soldiers have been referred to by a single name during the modern era. For example, Americans soldiers called their enemy "Charley" during the Vietnam War and "Kraut" during World War II. One can imagine a Roman centurion ordering all the "Marys" to be separated from the men following the capture of a group of Jewish rebels. This theme may have then been continued by the authors of the New Testament to comically make the point that all the female followers of the Messiah were rebellious. In any event, it is clear that to a reader within the Flavian court the New Testament's naming of all of the female followers of the Messiah Mary — that is, "rebellious female" — would have been seen as another comic stroke. Imagine such an individual reading of a savior who told his followers to "follow me" and become "fishers for men" on the beach at Gennesareth, and who described his flesh as "living bread" at Jerusalem, having both his mother and every other female member of his entourage named Mary. To cognoscenti of the Flavian court, the Gospels were burlesque. Understanding that the authors of the New Testament created comic themes regarding individuals with the same name is a critical insight that will enable one to learn the real identity of Lazarus in the following chapter. Further, knowing that the rebel leaders were transformed into the Christian Apostles clarifies the intent the Romans had for their religion. The Romans wished to not merely destroy the militant brand of messianic Judaism that spawned the rebellion but to rewrite its history in such a way as to make both its Messiah and its leaders become the "founders" of Christianity. In this manner, the Romans intended to make the history of the Sicarii movement disappear by having its beliefs and key figures become the "history" of their new religion. We are also able to understand the plight of John, the leader who was imprisoned by the Romans and was satirized as the Apostle John and the demoniac of Gadara. Both Josephus and the authors of the New Testament often made reference to the fact that they wrote the truth. I believe that they were sincere in this claim but required the reader to understand the code that they wrote the truth in. Therefore, I believe that John, after coming out of the "tombs," and coming to his "right mind," did cooperate with the Romans and "publish" Christian literature at Decapolis. The ending of the Gospel of John specifically identifies the "John" whom Jesus spared as its author. Understanding that the Apostle "John" and the demoniac of Gadara were both lampoons of John, along with Simon a leader of the Jewish rebellion, enabled me to see the real meaning of the following statement concerning the demoniac of Gadara: And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel. The passage indicates that John, a leader of the rebellion, was taken to Decapolis, where he provided the Romans with details of the messianic movement that were used in creating the New Testament. John was used by the Romans to help create the literature that poisoned the future of his own people. The Romans then "recorded" their use of John, anticipating that those in the future who would learn the truth regarding Christianity's origin would appreciate such irony. This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. This "conversion" by the rebel leader John to Christianity, also explains the two Simons' different surnames. The Simon who is condemned at the end of the New Testament is called "Simon bar Jonas," while the Simon who is condemned at the conclusion of Titus' campaign is named "Simon bar Gioras." Jonas is simply the Hebrew for John — once again the name-switching technique — indicating that Simon was the son of John. Gioras, means "the convert" in Hebrew, thus, the rebel Simon's full name was "Simon the son of the convert," a satirical synonym for "Simon, the son of John" because John had become a "convert" to the new religion. The fact that John was Simon's father also fulfills another "innocuous" prophecy found within the New Testament: From now on, five in one household will be divided: three against two, and two against three. They will be divided, father against son, son against father. Josephus records that at the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem Simon and John waged a violent struggle for control of the city, both against one another and against the leader of yet another faction, named Eleazar. War of the Jews contains a clear theme regarding the Jews destroying themselves that I shall go into more depth elsewhere. 1 conclude this chapter by pointing out that throughout Christianity's history, Jesus' words have been interpreted as the very essence of love. My analysis indicates that this is, at times, a complete misunderstanding, albeit one that was deliberately brought about. The "Jesus" who is speaking to Simon in John 21 did not have love in his heart. What was in his heart can be known by rereading the passage with the understanding that Jesus was describing what Titus would do to Simon, the captured leader of the Jewish rebellion. When these words are read as an address to a man who would be taken to Rome and tortured to death, what was in Jesus' heart is truly revealed. As John the Baptist states, Jesus did not come to baptize with water but with fire. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go. (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, "Follow me."
|