Caesar's Messiah

CHAPTER 5

Eleazar Lazarus: The Real Christ

SOME NOTES OF CONTEXT: El Azar and Lazarus are Hebrew and Greek translations for the Khemetic ("Egyptian") Osiris, the El/L prefix meaning "Lord". The Khemetic Osiris saga was the origin from which the Greek Dionysus was based. In Greek, Zeus conceived a son who was to later become Dionysus: this son was named Zagreus, and was to rule the world on behalf of Zeus. The "Egyptian" Osiris, in turn, was one of the aspects of a triune deity called Ptah-Seker-Osiris, with Ptah being the creator deity of "Egypt" - which even bears his name in its title. Ptah also lent his name to many fatherly terms, such as Paternal, Patriarch, Paternity, Peter, Patrick, etc. Osiris was the "posthumous" leader - the Holy Ghost aspect of the "Egyptian" trinity, leaving Seker as the final aspect of the "Egyptian" trinity.

The term Seker translates (with the Hebrew suffix "Iah" ascribed unto it as a tutelary reference to God) to Zechariah in Hebrew, albeit used largely in ignorance of its true significance by them. Zagreus - the Son of Zeus - became Dionysus - the Holy Ghost - in pre-Christian Greek tradition after being slaughtered by the Titans. In "Egyptian" tradition, Osiris is referred to as having been the ruler - having been slaughtered by his adversary Seth and his minions... having been. Osiris is always a past-tense title; of course he had a life prior to becoming Osiris, but the scribes nonetheless referred to him as Osiris because by the time they had written of him, he had already become the Osiris - that is, the former ruler. The reason for such is simple: you cannot have a Holy Trinity if there are more than one "Only begotten Sons of God" existing simultaneously.

It is obvious that Zechariah (the Father of John the Baptist) became Lazarus/Eleazar in favor of the next Son of God... this is what provoked the Sanhedrin and Pharises - whom had just prior "murdered" (demoted Zechariah from his tutelary role as Kohen Gadol) to call for Christ's execution. Zechariah went into the tomb as Seker, and came out as Osiris, meaning that a new Seker would either have been chosen, or would need to be chosen.

In "Egyptian", the "Two Marys" aka the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth, were Isis and Nephthys, whom "resurrected" Osiris in order to conceive the next Son of God, whom in later times came to be called Horus, whom interestingly enough, is referred to in Ptolemaic Greek (whom called Seker "Sokar") by the epithet "IUSA KRST, the Ever Manifesting Son of Ptah", IU and ST being Hellenic prefix and suffix meaning "Ever Manifesting (IU)" and "embodiment of (ST)": SA KR - the root of the Ptolemaic epithet for Horus - equated "Son of Ptah".

An eerily similar insight would have been known to Moses. The deity whom Pharaoh prayed to in an attempt to bring Pharaoh's son back to life was "Sokar" in the Exodus saga, who again outside of Ptolemaic influence was known as Seker. This is of no small coincidence because not long after the death of Pharaoh's son, Moses was standing atop Mount Zion speaking with God, whom referred to an aspect of himself as his "Zeker unto all generations", at which time Aaron became the first Kohen Gadol. Fast forward to the time of Christ and you come upon an Aaronic priest named Zechariah, who was the true last Kohen Gadol of Israel.

In many ancient traditions, to change one's name or to excommunicate someone was the same as destroying that person, and a solemn ritual was often performed when someone ascended or descended into or out of a high station. Vespasian's coronation in Rome was one example of this: the General aspect of Vespasian had to "die" in order that the Caesar Vespasian "be born". Likewise, Josephus' former life ended when he became Flavius Josephus: likewise, with John the Baptist's "beheading", Zechariah's title-role came up for grabs when he became Lazarus. This is what alarmed the Pharisees and Sanhedrin so deeply that they called for the death of Jesus.

When I first discovered the parallels between the "ministries" of Titus Flavius and Jesus it was apparent to me that they were designed to create a hidden satire that indicated the true "Son of Man" foreseen by Jesus was Titus. This is especially clear at the ending of the Gospel of John, when Jesus predicts that Simon will suffer a martyr's death and that John will be spared. The only individual in history who can be seen as having fulfilled those prophecies is Titus. 

At that point in my analysis I saw Jesus and Titus as completely separate individuals, their only connection being that Jesus had satirically predicted Titus' "coming." However, 1 was also beginning to suspect that there was nothing inadvertent within the New Testament, that every word of it was somehow part of a comic system. 

This suspicion stemmed from the discovery that many of its seemingly innocuous details were comically related to events described in War of the Jews, for example, the prediction in the New Testament that Mary will have her heart "pierced through." But if the New Testament and the War of the Jews were a unified comic system then it was clear there were some parts I did not understand. Particularly perplexing to me was Jesus telling his disciples that unless they "eat the flesh" of the "Son of Man" they would "have no life in [them]." If Titus was the "Son of Man" Jesus foresaw, why did he also tell his disciples that they would eat the Son of Man's flesh? — obviously not a prediction about the future Roman emperor. 

I therefore began a study to determine if the character the New Testament calls Jesus might be comically related to War of the Jews in a way I did not yet understand. I began analyzing every detail in the two works to determine if there were connections between Jesus'  ministry and Josephus' history that I had not yet noticed. I was guided in this search by the fact that the parallels and puzzles I had  discovered were all designed to reveal a hidden identity. 

The question I was trying to answer was an old one: Who is Jesus? 

The mystery of Jesus' identity begins with his very name. "Jesus Christ," or, as Paul calls him, "Christ Jesus," was certainly not the real name of the founder of Christianity. Christ is the Greek word for "Messiah" and Jesus is a Greek homophone (ee-ay-sooce) for the  Hebrew word Yeshua, which can mean either "God saves" or, as in the case of Jesus, "Savior." 

The proposition that Jesus' name was to be understood as "Savior" cannot be disputed because it is confirmed by no less a source than an "angel of the Lord." 

But while he [Joseph] thought about these things Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying . . . "And she will have a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 

Matt. 1 :20-21 

The word the angel used to indicate that Jesus would save his people was soteria, 90 a derivative of soter, 91 the Greek word for "savior."   

However, the angel who named the child Jesus also began the confusion over the identity of the "Savior Messiah." Immediately  following his instruction to call the child "Jesus," the angel notes that the child that the "virgin will conceive," is to be called by another name. The child who was conceived in the Virgin was John the Baptist, conceived in Virgo.

All of this happened to fulfill the Lord's message through his prophet: 

"Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son, and he will be called Immanuel (meaning, God is with us]." 

Matt. 1 :22-23

The confusion over the identity of Jesus is also apparent during his trial, when the New Testament introduces another "Jesus," Jesus  Barabbas. This Jesus, like many of the messianic aspirants described by Josephus, is said to have started an insurrection. 

But they all cried out together, "Away with this man, and release to us Jesus Barabbas" — a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city, and for murder. Why didn't the crowd like Jesus? What did Jesus do that made the crowd so hostile towards him?

Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus; but they shouted out, "Crucify, crucify him!" 

A third time he said to them, "Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death; I will therefore chastise him and release him." 

Pilate really wanted to crucify Basabbas

Jesus also contributes to the confusion regarding the identity of the "Savior Messiah" by referring to the individual he foresees bringing destruction of Judea not as himself but as the "Son of Man." 

Therefore you also must be ready; for it is at a time when you do not expect Him that the Son of Man will come. 

Matt 24:42-44 

The New Testament describes more than one person as "Jesus," and refers to Jesus by a number of different names. I began to wonder if the New Testament was somehow indicating that there could be more than one Messiah, or "Christ" — in other words, that the New Testament was calling more than one character "Jesus." 

The very name "Jesus" contributes to this idea. That the "savior" of humankind was so named at birth is obviously problematic. Eusebius, for example, suggests that the name Jesus might have been allegorical. In other words, as was the case with Christ, Jesus may have been so named after it became clear that he was, indeed, the Savior. 

Eusebius was only pointing out the obvious. "Savior Messiah" was not merely a name during this era but also a title, one that anyone who saw himself as having been sent by God to "save" Judea might claim. From the perspective of Titus, the true "son of god" of Judea could not have been any of the Jewish messianic aspirants who waged war against Rome. It could only have been himself. 

Josephus records that the struggle over who was the true Savior Messiah of Judea was the real cause of the war between the Romans and the Jews: 

But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle also found in their sacred writings, that "At about that time, one from their country would become ruler of the habitable world." This they took to mean one of their own people, and many of the wise men were misled in their interpretation. This oracle, however, in reality signified the government of Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor while in Judea. 

Josephus could not have stated that the Flavian Caesars saw themselves as the Messiahs, or "Christs," foreseen by the prophecies of Judaism's world ruler any more clearly. But this proposition suggests questions. How could Titus have taken the title of the "Christ" away from the messianic leaders that he struggled with? How could Titus have made the rebellious Jews call him "Christ"? 

I discovered how Titus achieved this during my efforts to determine if Jesus, like his Apostles, had a secret identity. I uncovered a series of puzzles within the New Testament and War of the Jews that reveal that not only was Titus Flavius the "Son of Man" predicted by  Jesus, but that he was, in fact, the "Jesus" who interacted with the disciples in the final passage of the Gospels — in John 21. Put simply, the puzzles reveal that Titus is the "Jesus" Christianity has unknowingly worshiped. 

These puzzles also reveal that the name of the Jewish savior Titus captured on the Mount of Olives and stole the title of "Christ" from was Eleazar, and that he was satirized as the "Lazarus" within the New Testament. The puzzles were also designed to change the story line of the New Testament from the one that has been a comfort to mankind into perhaps the most vicious tale ever written. If this is accurate, it should be noted that, in Khemetic tradition, Osiris' evil brother Seth murdered him in an attempt to steal his tutelary lineage: Seth is the Khemetic root from which the Hebrew Satan is derived. This would mean that Christians erroneously worship a Satan (Titus) as their messiah.

To begin to show how these puzzles accomplish all this, it is first necessary to explain how the New Testament interacts with War of the Jews to disclose the name of the Jewish savior Titus captured on the Mount of Olives and executed. 

This individual's name was Eleazar, which means "whom God aids" in Hebrew and is translated as "Lazarus" in Greek. The fact that the New Testament records that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead makes the notion that Lazarus might have been the name of the "Christ" that Titus executed especially hard to accept. To come to this understanding the reader must both recognize a number of parallels between Jesus and Eleazar and solve a series of puzzles. Only then can the reader learn the Jewish Messiah's real name. Horus (Seker) raised Osiris from the dead to immaculately conceive himself. This is why Pharaoh begged the effigy of Seker to bring his son back from the dead.

I recognize that the parallels may seem disjointed and difficult to comprehend at first, but I ask the reader to bear with this. If the comic connections between the New Testament and War of the Jews were meant to be seen easily they would not have remained hidden for 2,000 years. In this case the satirical connections between Jesus and Eleazar have been hidden by placing the key parallels to Jesus into a number of different characters named Eleazar or Lazarus. The author requires the reader to remember events experienced by a number of different "Eleazars" to understand his point. In other words, as he had with the various "Simons" and the demoniac of Gadara previously, the author is using different characters that he links typologically by a shared name or parallel experiences to create a single satiric theme. The apparent vagueness of the parallels between Jesus and Eleazar will ultimately lead to a connection that is of crystal clarity. 

Once I had begun the study to determine the identity of Jesus, I noticed that there are parallels between him and a number of characters named Eleazar. As I show below, characters named "Lazarus" or "Eleazar" were said to have had the Jesus-like attributes of having been born in Galilee, having the power to expel demons, having been scourged, having been plotted against by high priests, having survived a crucifixion, having a tomb that was very like Jesus', and, of course, having risen from the dead. Why would the Herodian - endorsed and Herodian - mandated "High Priests" plot against Lazarus? Obviously it was because Lazarus was a true High Priest, as opposed to the Herodian "high priests".

Although I saw the parallels as unusual, their meaning, if any, was unclear until I uncovered two puzzles whose solutions disclose the name of an unnamed character as "Eleazar." Knowing that these two unnamed characters were so named revealed that "Eleazar" was  captured on the Mount of Olives, survived a crucifixion, and was a son of Mary whose flesh was eaten as a symbolic Pascal lamb.  Adding these unique attributes of Jesus to those previously mentioned creates a clear picture. The name of the "Christ" who was captured on the Mount of Olives and executed by the Romans was Eleazar. Eleazer was the "brother" husband of Mary (Elizabeth), and their son John the Baptist was by this time likewise an Eleazer (he had just prior to this been decapitated - excommunicated - by Herod). Note that John was murdered around the same exact time that Eleazer was entombed: that is not by coincidence.

The following passage from War of the Jews describes an Eleazar who was a "Galilean." While being a Galilean is hardly an unusual  designation, the reader will note that the Eleazar in the passage has other parallels with Jesus — his self-sacrifice and the strokes upon his naked body. 

And here a certain Jew appeared worthy of our relation and commendation; he was the son of Sameas, and was called Eleazar, and was born at Saab, in Galilee. This man took up a stone of a vast bigness, and threw it down from the wall upon the ram, and this with so great a force, that it broke off the head of the engine. He also leaped down, and took up the head of the ram from the midst of them, and without any concern carried it to the top of the wall, and this while he stood as a fit mark to be pelted by all his enemies. Accordingly, he received the strokes upon his naked body. The stone (Ptah) that slew Aries the Ram. Decapitated the Ram, and carried off the head. Aquarius, Orion (after which Aaron was named) and Aires.

The following passage reveals that "Eleazar," like Jesus, had the power to dispel demons. It is an obviously fictitious tale and it is  therefore interesting that Josephus claims that the exorcism occurred in his presence, and in the presence of Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian. Knowing that Eleazar was Jesus and that the "demoniacs" were the Jewish rebels clarifies the real meaning of this odd tale. It is a spoof on the power of "Jesus" to rid the rebels of their demonic wickedness, that is, their rebelliousness. Notice that it also repeats the idea from the tale of the demoniacs of Gadara, that demons are unable to pass through water. Rome had a vastly superior navy. This Eleazer seems to be pro-Rome.

... for I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a root of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils . . . And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left the man. A way to get a condemned insurrectionist out of his fix? The use of a root sounds similar to the Seker (Khioak) Celebration in ancient Khemet, where a certain onion was used to chase off evil spirits.

The passage above is related to the following passage from War of the Jews regarding another magical root that could dispel demons.  The story takes place in a land called "Baaras" where a "sort of rue" also named "Baaras" grew. Baaras appears to be a play on the word  for son, bar, reminiscent of the manner in which Sicarii was perhaps deliberately misspelled as Iscariot. The New Testament and Josephus often engage in humor regarding the identity of the "Son." The passage also states that this magical "rue" has been around "since the times of Herod, and would probably have lasted much longer had it not been cut down by those Jews." This indicates we are dealing with a single plant. However, what sort of plant is there only one of? In any case, why is Josephus going to lengths to describe a plant that no longer exits? Further, Josephus also defines in the passage what he meant by the word "demons." They are the "spirits of the wicked," thus supporting the idea that the "wicked" Sicarii were possessed by "demons" and were the "unclean spirits' in the "demons of Gadara," as well as the idea that the demons Eleazar is exorcizing in the passage above are Jewish rebels. The "rue" may in fact have been a vine, such as that from which Aaron's Rod was created to, for example, chase off Pharaoh's serpents (demons). The picture of a real Jewish High Priest exorcising demons from Jewish rebels is obviously propaganda aimed at the Judaen masses.

When the elements of the passage below regarding the magical "root" are viewed as a group, a picture emerges. The passage describes a single plant that was called "son," which had been around since the time of Herod and had a magical power to drive out demons. This "son" would have lasted longer except that "those Jews" cut it down. What, other than a satire of Jesus, could this passage be? As the passage contains clear parallels to the one above, describing an "Eleazar" who also dispels demons using a magical rue, it was written to connect "Eleazar" to the other son who exorcized demons — that is, Jesus. Note that Eleazar had possession over the son in question: Jesus' mother Mary was basically adopted by Zechariah: as such, Zechariah would have held great sway over Jesus - especially in contrast to Joseph, who had never been a priest, and had never served in the temple, let alone conversed with an archangel. It would have been Zechariah who no doubt introduced Jesus to Judaism: who gave Jesus access to the Temple, and who would have defined the basis of both Mary's and Jesus' spiritual upbringings. Yet so little is written about Zechariah: why is that? What did Josephus and the Gospel writers fear so much about Zechariah, that they omitted so much background and context regarding to the upbringings and lives of Jesus and Mary by obviously minimizing Zechariah?

Now within this place there grew a sort of rue that deserves our wonder on account of its largeness, for it was no way inferior to any fig tree whatsoever, either in height or in thickness; and the report is, that it had lasted ever since the times of Herod, and would probably have lasted much longer, had it not been cut down by those Jews who took possession of the place afterward. But still in that valley  which encompasses the city on the north side there is a certain place called Baaras, which produces a root of the same name with itself ... it is only valuable on account of one virtue it hath, that if it be only brought to sick persons, it quickly drives away those called demons, which are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men that are alive and kill them, unless they can obtain some help  against them. 

The passage above from War of the Jews describing the magical root "Baaras" is immediately followed by a passage regarding yet  another "Eleazar" from an "eminent" family. This "Eleazar" is a transparent parallel to Jesus, as he survives both a scourging of his naked flesh and a crucifixion. What would make someone's family be referred to as "eminent" to a Romanized Jew who denied his own Jewishness, and whose writings were undoubtedly critiqued and even censored by his masters?

... the Romans when they came upon the others' sallies against their banks, they foresaw their coming, and were upon their guard when they received them; But the conclusion of this siege did not depend upon these bickerings; but a certain surprising accident, relating to what was done in this siege, forced the Jews to surrender the citadel. There was a certain young man among the besieged, of great  boldness, and very active of his hand, his name was Eleazar; he greatly signalized himself in those sallies, and encouraged the Jews to go out in great numbers, in order to hinder the raising of the banks, and did the Romans a vast deal of mischief when they came to fighting; he so managed matters, that those who sallied out made their attacks easily, and returned back without danger, and this by still bringing up the rear himself. Now it happened that, on a certain time, when the fight was over, and both sides were parted, and retired home, he, in way of contempt of the enemy, and thinking that none of them would begin the fight again at that time, staid without the gates, and talked with those that were upon the wall, and his mind was wholly intent upon what they said. Now a certain person belonging  to the Roman camp, whose name was Rufus, by birth an Egyptian, ran upon him suddenly, when nobody expected such a thing, and carried him off, with his armor itself; while, in the mean time, those that saw it from the wall were under such an amazement, that Rufus prevented their assistance, and carried Eleazar to the Roman camp. So the general of the Romans ordered that he should be taken up  naked, set before the city to be seen, and sorely whipped before their eyes. Upon this sad accident that befell the young man, the Jews were terribly confounded, and the city, with one voice, sorely lamented him, and the mourning proved greater than could well be supposed upon the calamity of a single person. A Sicarii (Sekeri) whose name was Eleazar (Osiris)... Rufus was born in Egypt: why is that worth mentioning?

The following part of the passage is notable as it is a satirical description of the rationale that led to the creation of Christianity. The Romans, seeing the love that the Jewish rebels held for their Messiah, decided to use this attachment to their own advantage. That is, they decided to create a Roman Messiah. This passage is directly linked to the New Testament's story of Jesus' capture on the Mount of Olives. 

When Bassus perceived that, he began to think of using a stratagem against the enemy, and was desirous to aggravate their grief, in order to prevail with them to surrender the city for the preservation of that man. Nor did he fail of his hope; for he commanded them to set up a cross, as if he were just going to hang Eleazar upon it immediately; the sight of this occasioned a sore grief among those that were in the citadel, and they groaned vehemently, and cried out that they could not bear to see him thus destroyed. Whereupon Eleazar besought them not to disregard him, now he was going to suffer a most miserable death, and exhorted them to save themselves, by yielding to the Roman power and good fortune, since they now conquered all other people. These men were greatly moved with what he said, there  being also many within the city that interceded for him, because he was of an eminent and very numerous family; so they now yielded to their passion of commiseration, contrary to their usual custom. Accordingly, they sent out immediately certain messengers, and treated with the Romans, in order to arrange a surrender of the citadel to them, and desired that they might be permitted to go away, and take Eleazar along with them. Then did the Romans and their general accept of these terms. This sounds like a religious excommunication.

Another linking of Jesus and Eleazar (Lazarus) occurs in the New Testament. After describing Lazarus' resurrection, the Gospel of John states that the high priests plotted against him. This parallel is transparent as it occurs within the same passage where the high priests plot against Jesus. What so alarmed these "high priests" about Lazarus' survival?

But the High Priests plotted to put Lazarus to death also. 

So War of the Jews and the New Testament describes characters named "Eleazar" who have the Jesus-like attributes of having being born in Galilee, having the power to dispel demons, having been plotted against by the High Priests, having been scourged, having survived a crucifixion, and having risen from the dead. These "Eleazars" are the only individuals within these works with so many of Jesus' attributes. 

However, to learn that "Eleazar" was the real "Savior" the authors of Josephus and the New Testament required the reader to first solve  the following two puzzles. The first puzzle reveals that Eleazar was captured on the Mount of Olives. To solve the puzzle one must first  recognize that the following passage, in which Josephus gives his version of a capture on the Mount of Olives, is parallel to the passage above that described an Eleazar who was scourged and escaped death from crucifixion. 

The following is the complete text of Josephus' Mount of Olives capture: 

Now after one day had been interposed since the Romans ascended the breach, many of the seditious were so pressed by the famine, upon the present failure of their ravages, that they got together, and made an attack on those Roman guards that were upon the Mount of Olives. The Romans were apprised of their coming to attack them beforehand, and, running together from the neighboring camps on the sudden, prevented them from getting over their fortification, and one whose name was Pedanius, belonging to a party of horsemen, when the Jews were already beaten and forced down into the valley together, spurred his horse on their flank with great vehemence, and caught up a certain young man belonging to the enemy by his ankle, as he was running away; the man was, however, of a robust body, and in his armor; so low did Pedanius bend himself downward from his horse, even as he was galloping away, and so great was the strength of his right hand, and of the rest of his body, as also such skill had he in horsemanship. So this man seized upon that his prey, as upon a precious treasure, and carried him as his captive to Caesar; whereupon Titus admired the man that had seized the other for his great strength, and ordered the man that was caught to be punished [with death] for his attempt against the Roman wall. In order for this to be true, the rider's horse would have had to have stood no higher than a dog.

This incident took place on the Mount of Olives, the location the New Testament gives for Jesus' capture. As I had seen that the New Testament and War of the Jews often shared conceptually parallel events at the same locations, I attempted to analyze the two passages to determine if they might also be related. 

I first noticed that there is a parallel between the two Mount of Olive captures in terms of the relative time when they occur. The New Testament's capture takes place immediately before Jesus, the symbolic temple of the New Testament, is destroyed. The Mount of Olives capture in War of the Jews likewise takes place immediately before the destruction of the temple. However, whereas the identity of the man who was captured on the Mount of Olives in the New Testament is well known, in Josephus' version the captured individual is described only as a "certain young man." 

I wondered if it might be possible, as 1 had with the demoniacs of Gadara, to learn the name of this "certain young man." It was during the effort to determine this that the way in which the New Testament and War of the Jews use parallelism to identify their unnamed  characters finally became clear to me.

This use of parallelism came directly from the Hebrew Bible and, in a sense, its use in the New Testament was to be expected. As the authors of the New Testament borrowed concepts such as the Exodus, the Passover lamb, and the Messiah, it was logical for them to copy its use of intertextual parallels as well. 

The Hebrew Bible was structured as an organic whole and can be thought of a "a series of concentric circles with some interlocking rings," as Freedman puts it." For instance, the Torah and the book of Joshua (which together form the Hexateuch) have an overall mirror-image literary structure in which the main themes of books from Genesis up to Exodus 33 are then mirrored in parallel structures in the books from Exodus 34 to Joshua 24. 

The creators of the Hebrew Bible also used structural parallels at a micro level. For instance, in a technique known as pedimental  composition, 100 two passages that contain many parallels are used to provide a literary "frame" by sandwiching a third central passage  between them — for example, Leviticus 18 and 20 provide such a "frame" for the central passage in Leviticus 19. The consequence of these traditional literary techniques is that the Jewish reader does not read a text in what might be thought of as a rational, straightforward, and linear manner. On the contrary, the Jewish reading is intertextual. The use of similar phrasing, formulas, places, clothing, and so on are used to create layers of associative meaning, as contrasts, and to provide continuity and color. In some cases the authors create what Robert Alter has called "type scenes" — so, for example, Abraham's servant meeting a young woman by a well is then later paralleled by Moses meeting a young woman by a well, and the reader is invited to contemplate the similarities, differences, and continuities. 

In Hebrew literature, these typological relationships are a source of open-ended speculation and debate. To the Romans this perhaps  seemed part of the barbarous mysticism that provoked the Jewish Zealots to revolt. So they "improved" the nature of their parallels in the New Testament from the open-ended types found within the Hebrew canon to ones that were very precise in their logical and  chronological relationships, and in the identities that they reveal.

The authors of the Gospels were very aware of the typology in Hebraic literature and were, in effect, showing that they were able to  produce a more perfect, more complex form of it. Moreover, there was a profound irony in the authors' requiring the Gospels and War of the Jews to be read in the manner of Judaic literature in order to learn that they had created a false Judaism. 

The insight that Josephus was using typological parallels occurred when I noticed that Josephus' tale regarding the capture of the unnamed  "certain young man" on the Mount of Olives is parallel to another passage within War of the Jews, the passage above, in which Eleazar is whipped and escapes crucifixion. Josephus identified the two stories as being parallel by having each passage tell the same story, their only differences being in location and that the "certain young man" is unnamed in the Mount of Olives version. 

For clarification, I present the following list of the parallels between the two passages: 

• In each, besieged Jews are encircled by a wall. 
• In each, the Jews attack the siege wall. 
• In each case the Romans foresee the attack. 
• In each, a Jew is literally carried away by a single Roman in a manner that is physically impossible.
• In each, the man who is carried away is in his armor. 

Within the works of Josephus there are thousands of passages. These are the only two that share these parallel characteristics. Josephus thus notified the "intelligent reader," that is, the reader with a good memory, that the two stories are parallel. Further, there is a simple point of logic that the authors require the reader to apprehend, this being that since the passages are parallel, the unnamed "certain young man" who is carried away in one must have the same name as the "certain young man" named Eleazar who has the same experience in the other. 

The passages are also the start of a comic theme that Josephus and the New Testament develop regarding the Messiah who was captured on the Mount of Olives. This theme, which I refer to as the "root and branch," begins with the last sentence in the passage above from War of the Jews. Notice that the translator (William Whiston) places brackets around the words that he uses to describe the punishment of the unnamed "certain young man" captured on the Mount of Olives " (with death)." 

Whiston used this device to notify the reader that he was deliberately mistranslating the Greek words Josephus wrote in order to render what seemed a more coherent reading. The Greek words he is translating as [with death], kolasai keleusas, are translated literally as "commanded to be pruned." "Pruned" is, of course, a word that describes a gardening activity. Thus, Titus did not order the "certain  young man" to be put to "death," as Whiston's translation reads, but to be "pruned," a word used quite logically on the Mount of Olives. "Kolasai" was used by the Greek naturalist Theophratus in the fourth century B.C.E. to describe the pruning necessary to cultivate wild plants. His work on plants was often referenced by individuals from Titus' era such as Pliny and Seneca, and specifically covered the process by which wild olive trees could be transformed into cultivated ones. Theophratus was the scientific ancestor of Pedanius Dioscorides, the Roman scientist and physician who accompanied Vespasian and Titus to Judea and was a key part of the theme of comedy concerning the "root and branch." 

This use of the word "pruned" to describe the fate of the "certain young man" is part of a broad satirical theme within the New  Testament. The leaders of the Jewish rebellion were used as the historical "tree" onto which Christianity was "grafted." Paul's description of Christianity being grafted onto Judaism below is part of this "root and branch" theme. Notice that Paul states that it is an olive tree that is to be grafted onto. The olive tree being, of course, the tree that would be "pruned" on the Mount of Olives. 

For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on  them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural  branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. 

Rom. 11:21-25 

Josephus continued with this vegetive theme by making a joke regarding "pressing." Notice that at the beginning of his description of a capture on the Mount of Olives, Josephus states that the Jews were "pressed" by famine. This use of the word "press" by Josephus  satirically links his passage describing a Mount of Olive capture with the New Testament's version of a Mount of Olives capture. The garden Jesus wanders into while on the Mount of Olives is called Gethsemane, an Aramaic word that is usually translated as "olive press." However, as Klausner points out, the word is "difficult" and may also be related to wine. Beth-Shemanaya is a name used in the Talmud to describe a "hall of wine and oil." 

And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. And they came to a place that was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray. 

They went into the mount: Osiris went into the tomb. From wine to olives.

Mark 14:32 

We have shown that Jesus' calling his flesh "bread" is comically related to the cannibalism that the besieged Jewish rebels engaged in. Likewise, the description of Jesus' passion in the garden of Gethsemane is a lampoon of his "giving of his blood," which he described as "wine."

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Alcoholism?

Luke 22:42-44 

Naming the garden where Jesus' sweat is compared to drops of blood "olive press" is also part of the comic theme. However, the passage in the Gospel of Luke that contains the related comic image, that of the drops of blood that spill from Jesus being like the liquid squeezed from grapes or olives in a press, does not refer to the name of the garden. This must be gleaned from reading versions of the Mount of Olives tale in the other Gospels, in which the name of the garden is Gethsemane. 

The comedy the four Gospels work together, regarding Jesus' passion at Gethsemane, to show that the Gospels are not four separate testimonies of Jesus, but rather a unified piece of literature with nothing inadvertent in it. All of their seemingly irrelevant or contradictory details have a purpose at the comic level. In this instance, the authors have kept the comedy from being too obvious by placing the word for a wine or olive press, Gethsemane, into one Gospel's version of the story and the image of blood dropping from  Jesus in another. Josephus then expands the comic theme in War of the Jews by placing a play on the word "press" in that Mount of Olives story. 

Once again, only readers alert enough to combine elements from different versions of the same story can understand the joke. Notice that this technique is consistent throughout. To understand the joke in Luke regarding Gethsemane the reader must recall another Gospel's version of the same story. Likewise, the parallels between the two tales from War of the Jews above, which described a "certain young man" being carried off, can only be grasped by the reader whose memory is sufficient to recall the first story while reading the second. The authors of the New Testament and Josephus related what might be called history's first intelligence test. The consequence for failing it is belief in a false god. 

I would also note that this vegetative theme regarding a Messiah captured in a garden named olive press or wine press may have been a parody of a Hebrew metaphor, recorded in the Targum, of the Messiah crushing Israel's enemies in a press. Rome's comic Messiah did  not crush his enemies like "grapes in the wine press," but rather was "pressed" himself. 

How lovely is the king Messiah, who is to rise from the house of Judah. He girds his loins and goes out to wage war on those who hate him, killing kings and rulers . . . and reddening the mountains with the blood of their slain. With his garments dipped in blood, he is like one who treads grapes in the wine press. Judah is Leo. The one who who is to rise from the house of Judah (Leo) is Aquarian, just as Jesus the Piscean "rose from" (was conceived in) the House of Virgo (the womb of Mary the Virgin). Leo is the "detriment" to Aquarius, just as Virgo is the "detriment" to Pisces. 

It is remarkable that the "root and branch" theme that the New Testament and Josephus create regarding the Messiah has not been noticed before, since it is quite clear. The "olive tree" that is "pruned" so that Christianity could be "grafted in" just happens to be on the "Mount of Olives" in a garden named "Gethsemane," a word that means "olive press." In this instance, the very names and locations give away the fact that the story is comedy and not history. Actually, the young boy may have been John the Baptist. Zechariah was (to become a) Lazarus, and likewise, so was John the Baptist. John was "pruned" - that is, excommunicated by the Herodian "high priests" from his hereditary role as the next Aaronic Kohen Gadol (he was "cut off as the head" just as his ministry was "cut off at its head"). john embodied the Aaronic priesthood which Herod systematically destroyed by placing political appointees into high positions within it for the sake of "peace": the term "Salome" literally means "peace".

If the Romans did, in fact, capture Eleazar, the messianic "branch" of the Jewish rebels, on the Mount of Olives, it would have been the  specific inspiration for this comic theme. In the following chapter, my analysis of this vegetative theme concludes as Titus — called a "gardener" because he has "pruned" Eleazar — "grafts" himself onto the Jewish Messiah's identity and history and becomes "Jesus." 

I will show in "The New Root and Branch" chapter that this "pruning" of the certain young man, described so off-handedly by Josephus, is the fate of the real Messiah, whom Christianity is based upon. As the eminent Kohen Gadol, John was "beheaded" ("pruned") by Herod's priesthood: his father Zechariah was excommunicated, causing John to rush to his aid, at which time a trap was sprung when the Pharisees and Sanhedrin called for his murder. Note that John was not worried about getting to Lazarus before the third day had expired: why? Because his father was not dead - he was excommunicated, and being himself excommunicated, John saw no reason for expediting his resurrecting of his father from what was in reality but an allegorical death at the hands of a corrupt political faction devoid of any true spiritual significance.

Further, the New Testament story of Jesus' capture is linked to Titus' campaign in yet another way. The New Testament states that Jesus was captured within a garden named Gethsemane. In the version of his capture recounted in the Gospel of Mark there is a character described only as a naked "certain young man" who, unlike Jesus, was able to escape from the attackers. 

I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled. And they all forsook him, and fled. and there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:  And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.  And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes. These were not the true priests and High Priest of Israel: they were Herodian appointees.

Mark 14:49-53 

The description of the naked man has puzzled scholars. Why did the author interrupt his description of something as important as the capture of Jesus to record an event as irrelevant as the escape of an unnamed character? I believe that I am able to answer this question and also to identify this unnamed character. 

The answer comes from the fact that there was another "naked" individual who had a parallel escape from a band of armed men in the same garden. This individual was Titus Flavius. Once again the New Testament and War of the Jews each describe a conceptually  parallel event at the same location — "fishing" for men at Gennesareth, "demons" at Gadara, a son of Mary whose flesh was eaten at Jerusalem, and, in the following passage, a "naked" young man in a garden outside the northeastern corner of Jerusalem who escaped from a band of armed men. 

Now, so long as he rode along the straight road which led to the wall of the city, nobody appeared out of the gates; but when he went out of that road, and declined towards the tower Psephinus, and led the band of horsemen obliquely, an immense number of the Jews leaped out suddenly at the towers called the "Women's Towers," through that gate which was over against the monuments of Queen Helena, and intercepted his horse; and standing directly opposite to those that still ran along the road, hindered them from joining those that had declined out of it. They intercepted Titus also, with a few others. Now it was here impossible for him to go forward, because all the places had trenches dug in them from the wall, to preserve the gardens round about, and were full of gardens obliquely situated, and of many hedges; and to return back to his own men, he saw it was also impossible, by reason of the multitude of the enemies that lay between them; many of whom did not so much as know that the king was in any danger, but supposed him still among them. So he perceived that his preservation must be wholly owing to his own courage, and turned his horse about, and cried out aloud to those that were about him to follow him, and ran with violence into the midst of his enemies, in order to force his way through them to his own men. And hence I may principally learn, that both the success of wars, and the dangers that kings are in, are under the providence of God; for while such a number of darts were thrown at Titus, when he had neither his head-piece on, nor his breastplate (for, as I told you, he went out not to fight, but to view the city), none of them touched his body, but went aside without hurting him; as if all of them missed him on purpose, and only made a noise as they passed by him. This is very similar to the story regarding Lazarus and the Battering Ram, as well as Lazarus who was almost crucified.

Thus, the New Testament and War of the Jews each placed their king in the same garden for his encounter with a band of armed men. In the New Testament, Jesus starts at the Mount of Olives, which is just outside Jerusalem's eastern edge, and walks northward to Gethsemane, from where the New Testament states that he "went a little farther." 105 In other words, to the northeastern corner of the city. Josephus describes Titus as traveling from the tower of Psephinus, which marked the city's northwestern corner, toward the monument of Queen Helena, along Jerusalem's northern border from west to east. 

Notice that in his version of a garden assault, Josephus makes the reader aware that Titus was, figuratively speaking, "naked," that is, he was wearing no armor, to create a satirical parallel to the "naked young man" who escapes from the garden in the New Testament. Why would such a contrast be needed if Jesus was not wearing armor?

As was the case in the puzzle regarding the capture of Eleazar, the unnamed "naked young man" in the New Testament must have the same name as the named individual within the parallel story in War of the Jews. Hence, the "certain young man" who escapes naked  from his pursuers in the garden in the New Testament can be seen as a prototype of Titus, the "naked" young man who escapes from his pursuers in the same garden in War of the Jews. 

Thus, the New Testament and Josephus each describe two assaults that occur in gardens near the Mount of Olives. Notice the conceptual symmetry — each pair of Mount of Olives assaults contains a "naked" individual who escapes and another individual who is captured. The point of these parallel Mount of Olives assaults is to separate the identities of the two "kings," Jesus and Titus — in other words, to separate the "king" who lives from the one who is crucified. This parallel is critically important in that it begins the process by which the New Testament's story of Jesus operates as a forerunner of the stories of both "Sons of God" described in War of the Jews — Eleazar and Titus. 

Titus is actually described by Josephus in the passage as a king when, in fact, at that moment he is only the son of the emperor. 

And hence we may principally learn, that both the success of wars, and the dangers that kings are in, are under the providence of God. And by building such a contrast, he likewise admits that Lazazrus was likewise a king.

This reference to Titus as a king has caught the attention of scholars, who have wondered why Josephus would have made such an obvious error.  Josephus, of course, has not forgotten Titus' title. Rather, he is making a comment as to which "king," attacked in a garden outside Jerusalem, enjoys God's favor — Jesus, the king of the Jews or Titus, the king of the Romans. 

War of the Jews and the New Testament are working together to state that since the king of the Romans escaped from his attackers in the garden and the king of the Jews did not, this demonstrates which king was "under the providence of God." It is strange that Josephus'  phrase in the passage above, "the dangers that kings are in," has not received more attention from scholars, because he is clearly referring to an event that occurs in the same garden where Jesus, the king of the Jews, is captured, and his use of the plural plainly indicates he is talking about more than one king. 

It is, at the least, an extraordinary coincidence that Josephus chose this moment and location to make an editorial comment regarding which king was under the "providence of God." 

Josephus seems to be making a point as to the relative value of faith in the divine and faith in one's self, which was perhaps the same thing to the Flavians, since they saw themselves as gods. This is made clear by the different responses Jesus and Titus have to the same situation. Both are kings who are cut off from their allies and assaulted by armed men in a garden outside Jerusalem's northeastern corner. Jesus, that is, Eleazar, meekly accepts God's will. Titus' reaction, however, was the same as the naked young man in the New  Testament who recognizes that his "preservation must be wholly owing to his own courage" and thus is able to escape his pursuers.  Josephus may be providing a glimpse into the true "religious" belief of the Flavian emperors, which is, rely on one's self and not on the "providence" of gods. 

1 will now analyze the puzzle regarding Eleazar that reveals the most significant characteristic he and Jesus share. It is the puzzle that  reveals that Lazarus was a son of "Mary" whose flesh was eaten as a Passover lamb. To solve this puzzle the reader must first combine  two parallel passages within the New Testament and then combine that "combined story" with its parallel counterpart in Josephus. While this may seem complex, the authors create a clear path to follow. As in the puzzle above regarding the "certain young man" captured on the Mount of Olives, the puzzle is about determining the name of an unnamed character, and again the answer is Eleazar. 

The puzzle begins with a passage from the Gospel of Luke in which Jesus gives advice to Martha when she is troubled that her sister Mary is not helping her to serve the food. If Jesus' words are interpreted symbolically, he appears to be saying that listening to his  teaching is more important than serving or eating food. Though seemingly innocuous, the following passage is the most important in
the entire New Testament. 

Now as they went on their way, he entered a village; and a woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving; and she went to him and said, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me." But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her." Mary (Isis) was the wife of Lazarus (Osiris). Martha (Nephthys) was the wife of Seth. Mary's "good portion" was her marriage to Osiris, whom she was preoccupied regarding while Martha was fixing dinner. 

Luke 10:38-42

Like the New Testament's passage regarding the "certain young man" who was naked on the Mount of Olives, Luke 10:38-42 is strangely disconnected from the narrative both before and after it. Scholars have recognized that the passage seems related to another story regarding the serving of food found in the Gospel of John, which I call the "feast of Lazarus." During this "feast of Lazarus" Martha is described, as she is in the passage above from Luke, as serving food. Martha's sister Mary is also present at this feast, as is their brother, Lazarus, whom Jesus has recently raised from the dead. However, if the passage from the Gospel of Luke is a piece from the story in John, how did it find its way into another Gospel? 

Again, passages within the New Testament and War of the Jews that share parallels are intended to be read as Jewish literature — that is, intertextually. Read that way, from such a perspective these parallel passages create a story with a meaning different from the one that appears on the surface. The passage from the Gospel of Luke shares parallels with the "feast of Lazarus" story in the Gospel of John. In both passages, Lazarus' sisters Mary and Martha are present and Martha is described as serving food. Thus, these passages can be  combined as follows: 

Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him. 

John 12:2-3 

At this point, the piece of the story that occurs in the Gospel of Luke can be seamlessly woven in. 

But Martha was distracted with much serving; and she went to him and said, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me." 

But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her." 

Mary was preoccupied with something Jesus saw as far more important than serving food. And where was Zechariah at this time? Elizabeth? John the Baptist? The crowds of people who came up to mourn Lazarus' "passing away"?

Luke 10:40-42

While the scene created by combining the two passages may seem trivial, the fact that it joins the Lazarus story with Mary's "good  portion" is critical in solving the puzzle of what, exactly, Mary's "good portion" is. Is Jesus speaking metaphorically here or can his  words be taken literally, as I have shown they can in the expression "fishers of men?" I believe that, once again, those who see spiritual  meaning in Jesus' words are being played for a fool. Though a character named Mary who has a "fine portion" that is "not taken away  from her" is quite rare in literature, a character with the same name and attributes is also found in War of the Jews, contained in the passage that describes the Mary who ate her son, which I have analyzed previously. Perhaps the "Mary eating her son" event was an allegory pertaining to a mother who stymies her own son's spiritual growth - perhaps such as one who demands that her son be named John. If her son was the savior, perhaps she was using his divine providence for her own self-seeking ambitions. Perhaps the true cannibalism is to deny the son his true spirituality in favor of keeping him hidden away while everyone else was looking for a sign.

They threatened her that they would cut her throat immediately if she [Mary] did not show them what food she had gotten ready. She replied that she had saved a very fine portion of it for them, and withal uncovered what was left of her son. After which those men went out... and ... left the rest of that meat to the mother. Yet it stated earlier that she hid the "fine portion" away so that they could not find it. So if she had saved the portion for them, then why did she hide it away? Note also the term "uncovered", which means to reveal: an allusion to Revelations?I think that Josephus erred here in mistaking a spiritual allegory as a literal event. Note that what the men saw when she uncovered what remained made them distraught... what they saw was their own sins culminated in the suffering of another whom was created to save them.

Josephus' passage has a conceptual parallel in Luke 10:40. But the reader must make more than a linguistic connection in order to be able to see the parallels between the two passages. 

Note that the two Marys are an example, par excellence, of the fact that the conceptual parallels between the New Testament and War of the Jews cannot be seen through the literal method of analysis that scholars have always applied to the works. The relationship was created not by linguistic or grammatical parallels but by conceptual parallels. The authors uses different words and even different languages to create their typological relationships and require that the reader possess the mental capacity to recognize the parallel  concepts that the different words create. 

The passage above from War of the Jews shares four overt parallels with the New Testament passages regarding Lazarus: a fine portion, the fact that the portion was not taken away, a character named Mary, and a relative named Eleazar (Lazarus). Lazarus = Osiris = Dionysus = Zagreus = Zechariah = Seker = Osiris. Mary (Elizabeth) was to inherit all that was usurped from her husband and her son.

However, these four parallels are not the only ways in which the passages are linked. As noted above, Josephus' passage describing the Mary whose "good portion was not taken away from her" also contains a number of elements that parallel the New Testament's  symbolic Passover lamb. These are

• a mother named Mary who would be "pierced through";
• a house of hyssop;
• a sacrifice;
• one of Moses'  instructions regarding the Passover lamb;
• the eating of a son's flesh who was to become a "byword to the world"; and
• Jerusalem as the location of the incident. 

Adding the "good portion that was not taken away" to the previously mentioned parallels with the New Testament's Passover lamb puts to rest the question of whether Josephus' "son of Mary whose flesh was eaten" passage and the New Testament's Passover lamb are part of a comic system. Lightning may strike twice in the same place, but it does not strike nine times in a passage of less than two pages — a passage written by a member of a family with so many connections to Christianity. 

Though I did not understand the reasons for the numerous parallels between the "son of Mary whose flesh was eaten" in War of the Jews and the Passover lamb of the New Testament when I first encountered them, their point is now clear. Read inter-textually the passages indicate that the "good portion" that was not taken away from Mary in the New Testament was the same "good portion" that was not taken away from the Mary in the passage from Josephus. Therefore, the "good portion" that was being served at the feast of Lazarus was human flesh. But whose flesh? What was the name of the "son of Mary"? It was not human flesh - it was the living word of God, passed on to her from her husband and her son. Her son's tutelary name was Zechariah, the same tutelary name as her husband - both of whom had become Lazaruses by the time of the feast. The only reason why John the Baptist is called such, is because the authors of the New Testament and Josephus were transfixed with minimizing the stations and traditions surrounding the family of Zechariah.

The parallels simply work in reverse to provide the answer. The Lazarus described in the New Testament shares parallel attributes with Mary's unnamed son in War of the Jews. Both have relatives named "Mary" who have a "good portion" that was not taken away. The author thus "informs" the alert reader that, again, since they share parallel attributes, Mary's unnamed son in War of the Jews had the same name as his counterpart in the parallel tale in the New Testament — that is, "Lazarus." The comic point is that the "good portion" Mary and Jesus enjoy is the flesh of Lazarus. Notice the grim wordplay in the passage, "They made him a supper." Mary and Jesus "feed" on Lazarus (they were the beneficiaries of Zechariah and John)

The economy that the author used in creating the puzzle deserves note. The passage within War of the Jews identifies the nature of the "good portion" in its parallel passage within the New Testament, while the same passage in the New Testament identifies Mary's  unnamed son in War of the Jews. The two passages are also an example of a theme regarding prophecy that runs all the way through the New Testament. It is not just Jesus' overt prophesies that come to pass in War of the Jews, but everything that the New Testament states "shall" occur. 

Notice that, like the prophecy regarding Mary being "pierced through" above, the two passages are temporally logical. Jesus "prophesies" that Mary's fine portion shall not be taken away and, indeed, Josephus records that this "prophecy" came to pass. 

Of course, such "miraculous fulfillments" are to be expected. Jesus specifically stated that every letter and grammatical "dot" of the "law"  would be fulfilled. 

Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is fulfilled. 

Matt. 5:17-18 

It is not just his obvious prophecies, such as that the temple would be razed, that came to pass during Titus' campaign — virtually all of Jesus' ministry is a prophetical forerunner of some event from that campaign. Examples of this technique include a son of Mary whose flesh is eaten; Mary being told she will be "pierced through"; Jesus telling his disciples they will become "fishers of men"; the demoniacs of Gadara asking Jesus, "Have you come here to torment us before the time?"; Simon being called the "rock" upon which the new church will be built; Mary's fine portion that shall not be taken away from her; a naked young man who escapes his pursuers in the garden of Gethsemane; the list of signs Jesus states will occur before the temple is razed; as well as a Simon who is condemned and a John who is spared. 

The fact that so many seemingly innocuous but unusual New Testament statements regarding the future "come to pass" within War of the Jews is perhaps the simplest proof that the two works were designed to be read interactively. Josephus' recording of the fulfillment of so many of these "hidden" New Testament prophecies could not have occurred by chance. 

If I were permitted to ask critics of my thesis one question, it would be this: What is the probability that the satirical "fulfillment" of not one but two unique New Testament prophecies — Mary being "pierced through the heart" and her "fine portion not being taken away" — would exist within a passage that also contains an accidental satire of the New Testament's Passover lamb? 

A skillfully designed, interactive relationship between the two works is also shown by the fact that the prophetic statements in the New Testament occur in the same order as their "fulfillment" does in War of the Jews. Clearly, the purpose of this comic theme is to confirm that since his "ministry" has fulfilled every prophecy predicted by the Gospels, Titus is the Son of Man foreseen by Jesus. 

Returning to the analysis of the Eleazar puzzles, the question arises of how the flesh consumed at the feast of Lazarus could have been Lazarus' own, since he is described in the New Testament as having been raised from the dead by Jesus and as having been "with" him during the meal? To answer this question requires a careful reading of the passage in which Jesus "raises" Lazarus, which occurs  immediately before the feast of Lazarus in the Gospel of John. I present the passage below. 

Now a certain man, named Lazarus, of Bethany, was lying ill - Bethany being the village of Mary and her sister Martha. (It was the Mary who poured the perfume over the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.] So the sisters sent to Him to say, "Master, he whom you hold dear is ill." If Jesus holds Lazarus so dear, then why isn't more written about Lazarus? Note that Lazarus was "ill": he was not dead. Bethany is likewise an indicator of something unique: Beth Anu - the House of Anu. Bethany was not just the village, but the House of Mary, Martha and Lazarus.

Jesus received the message and said, "This illness is not to end in death, but is to promote the glory of God, in order that the Son of God may be glorified by it." Jesus immediately saw an angle to push himself to the center of Lazarus' struggle.

Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. Why is Mary not named here?

When, however, He heard that Lazarus was ill, He still remained two days in that same place. In Jesus' mind, Lazarus was not dead: perhaps because as the one who taught Jesus, Jesus realized that Zechariah being fraudulently excommunicated.

Then, after that, He said to the disciples, "Let us return to Judea." "Rabbi," exclaimed the disciples, "the Jews have just been trying to stone you, and do you think of going back there again?" The Jews had lost faith in Jesus: note the stark contrast between this and the fact that many came up to Lazarus' house to mourn his excommunication. Note also the mention of stones.

Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any one walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. There are only twelve hours in the day at the Equinoxes: Autumn (Rosh Hashanna) and Spring (Passover). His mentioning twelve hours of day right before the crucifixion is a reference to the Spring Equinox. In the winter months there are less than 11 hours of daylight per day in Jerusalem: in the summer this number jumps to over 13.5 hours of daylight.

But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him." Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, "Our friend  Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep." The disciples said to him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover." Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. How would the author know what Jesus meant by this? Further, Jesus was clearly wrong: the passage begins by stating that Lazarus was "ill". Still further, since the Son of God supposedly raised Lazarus from the dead, then why isn't Lazarus still with us? Lazarus "falling asleep" may be an allegory pointing to Lazarus losing faith and/or his excommunication.

Then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead; and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him." How would Jesus have known that Lazarus was dead if he did not have something to do with his death? For whose sake? It sounds like it was for Jesus' sake that he was not there.

Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him." Now when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days. If Jesus knew that Lazarus had already died before entering Bethany, then he must have known when he died: so why did he wait so long to go to him? To make certain that his excommunication was finalized.

Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off, and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them concerning their brother. Here again, some of the people whom wanted to stone Jesus were the same as those who went to console Mary and Martha regarding Lazarus. So who in Judaea was loved so fondly by both the population and Jesus and his followers? Lazarus had a following far larger that the one Jesus had, a following including many whom Jesus could by no means claim for himself.

When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary sat in the house. Note that Mary doesn't seem to do much in this passage: it is Martha who meets Jesus - it is Martha who hosts the feast. Mary was not at the tomb: nor did she assist with the feast - nor did she go to meet Jesus. This is perhaps because Mary was in far deeper mourning than Martha. The question to be answered regarding this, is why?

Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. And even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you." Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." What could Jesus have done to prevent Lazarus' excommunication ("death")? Further, note that Jesus does not call Lazarus by name: he mentions him to Martha as "your brother". Note also that Martha went out to Jesus alone.

Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" Jesus said to Martha exactly what he knew she wanted most to hear from him at a very troubling time for her, and then he demanded that she abide by his will and exult him lest it be implied that she was not a faithful believer in what he had just previously stated.

She said to him, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the son of God, he who is coming into the world." Coming into the world? He was already there! Does this imply that as one (Lazarus) waned, Lazarus waxed?

When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying quietly, "The Teacher is here and is calling for you." Why did Martha have to go and hail Mary? And why did Martha refer to Jesus as the teacher?

And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him. It's interesting - and suspect - that, while Martha had expected Jesus' impending visit, and had rushed out to meet him, that Mary would stay seated the entire time awaiting for him to call on her.

Now Jesus had not yet come to the village, but was still in the place where Martha had met him. 

When the Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary rise quickly and go out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there. Obviously Lazarus meant much more to Mary than to Martha - even the crowd that consoled her realized such. Perhaps he was her spouse - or foster father. Note also the mental picture drawn by this: whereas Christianity was based on faith as contrasted by the Empire being based on action, it is the woman who mourns the most and does the least - not the woman who does the most good - who is given the prime share.

Then Mary, when she came where Jesus was and saw him, fell at his feet, saying to him, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." Again, what could Jesus have done to prevent Lazarus' excommunication ("death")? And why didn't he do so? Because he wanted to cause heartache and misery for the sake of making himself look good and to prey on Mary and Martha in the darkest of hours? It's uncanny that the first words of both women - at separate times - were identical, seemingly placing the blame for Lazarus' situation squarely on Jesus. 

When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled; and he said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to him, "Lord, come and see." Jesus wept. So the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" Note that when Mary went to Jesus, a whole congregation of mourners followed her. Jesus prophecized many things: he exorcized demons and performed miracles: he even knew before he arrived anywhere near Bethany that Lazarus was dead - yet he did not know when he had died, and he did not know where he was "laid to rest"? Why would Jesus weep if his faith was so strong that he knew he was going to be able to raise Lazarus?

But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?" 

Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb; it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Here again a stone is featured: previously his disciples spoke of Jesus being "stoned" by the Jews. Apparently Jesus' stoning would have been him being placed within a cave which would then be closed off by a stone.

Jesus said, "Take away the stone." Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, "Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days." Note again that Lazarus is not called by name, but referred to simply as "the dead man". The odor need not be from physical death: anyone who is locked away in a cave for four days would smell quite wretched. Martha was apparently ignorant of what was going on - that Lazarus had been "locked away" yet was very much still alive, and Jesus exploited this on her to coerce her into exclaiming him as the Son of God.

Jesus said to her, "Did I not tell you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?" 

So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, "Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. I knew that thou hearest me always, but I have said this on account of the people standing by, that they may believe that thou didst send me." On account that they may believe that he was sent by God? That sounds very manipulative and condescending. Obviously Jesus had an insecurity complex, much like that of Hitler. "My struggle is your struggle, my heartache is our heartache, but my glory is mine alone"? This was obviously a power play by Jesus - an attempt to manipulate the crowd into believing in him, which he even admits was necessary and thus, likewise proves that he wanted them to believe in him, because even at that time many if not all of them did not.

When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out." 

The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go." 

Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him; but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Again, they came with Mary - not Martha. Mary was the grieving widow - Martha was the compassionate sister. Note that while all of these people came to mourn Lazarus, some of them still refused to align with Jesus.

So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation." This is proven outright false by the fact that Pontius Pilate had no interest whatsoever in punishing Jesus. In fact, he tried several times to talk the crown out of having to punish Jesus. Even after the "Raising of Lazarus", Jesus had no significance whatsoever to Pilate. Also keep in mind that these "chief priests" were not or the lineage of Aaron, but rather where political installments made by the Herodians - the same family that "beheaded" John the Baptist. The fact that the New Testament refers to these political appointees as "chief priests" completely unmasks the New Testament as an outright fraud, for the true followers of a Judaic Jesus figure would never have referred to the Herodian appointees as being anything other than political appointees placed in their stations as an attempt to undermine Judaic culture, scripture, society and independence.

John 11:1-48 

Notice that in the passage Jesus deliberately waits two days before he starts out to visit Lazarus, thereby allowing a total of four days to pass before he comes to the tomb, a point that Martha specifically mentions. This is different, of course, from the timing of Jesus'  resurrection, which occurs three days after his death. The difference between Jesus' and Lazarus' resurrections is significant. During this era, Jews believed that the spirit was irrevocably gone on the fourth day following a person's death. This is why Jesus' resurrection  occurs on the third day after his death and makes the meaning of the parallel "good portion" passages clear. Lazarus' resurrection is a joke. Jesus merely raises Lazarus' body from his tomb. Someone who has been dead for four days cannot be restored to life. This also explains why Lazarus never speaks after he is "raised" from his tomb. The dead cannot speak. Notice also the mention of the stench of Lazarus' flesh, which parallels the stench of human flesh in the passage where Josephus describes Mary's "fine portion." Jesus' prophecy
concerning the flesh of the "Son of Man" has, as always, come to pass and his flesh is literally, not symbolically, eaten. It is significant that the only other person in the New Testament who suddenly "could not speak" after being "shut away" was Zechariah. Zechariah could not speak for approximately nine months after meeting with the Archangel Gabriel - until after Elizabeth "named" John the Baptist. There was no mention of an odor emanating from Lazarus' flesh - only the assumption prior to the cave being unsealed that Lazarus' flesh would stink. Further, that so many people moved about so freely in order to be with Mary to mourn indicates that they were in no dire need of food; the whole cannibalism claim falls apart when one realizes such. I would think that the crowd would have been preoccupied with finding food in the countryside long-prior to deciding to eat the body of someone who had been dead for four days.

The comic point behind creating the Christian tradition of symbolically eating the flesh of the Messiah is clear in the lampoons that  involve "Lazarus" and "Mary." The Romans created this tradition to spoof the "fact" that Eleazar's body had been cannibalized by his  family and followers. Understanding this joke also enables the reader to understand the comic point in the resurrection of Jesus, which I will analyze in the next chapter. That being that the tomb thought to be the Messiah's was empty because the corpse had been eaten. It should be realized once again that the New Testament was written in Greek. For someone to be skilled in the art of Greek writing, one must be at least somewhat proficient in the art of reading Greek mythology (how can you write words and prose that you can't read?). A predominant figure in Greek tradition was Dionysus, of whom the Greeks held feasts for prior to, after, and even during the time of the New Testament Jesus. The Greek festivals of Dionysus included the deity taking on the form of a bull, which was slaughtered and eaten as a fertility sacrifice - or alternately as a sin atonement - in place of the deity. Again, the Greek Dionysus equates to the "Egyptian" Osiris, whom in turn equates to the Hebrew Lazarus.

In Greek tradition, the Greeks raised Dionysus from the dead and then slaughtered a bull (signifying the Age of Aries) in his stead often as a sin atonement for what the Titans had done to Dionysus. The significant part of this, is that they had to raise Dionysus because he was previously slaughtered by the Titans. Prior to his being slaughtered, he was called Zagreus. The "Greek" g, the "Hebrew" ch and the "Egyptian" k are interchangeable in all western and middle eastern dialects and have been for untold millenia. The "us" suffix on Zagreus is a common Greek suffix found on many Greek and Graecized words. That said, the root term in Greek is Zagr: in "Egyptian" it is Seker: and in Hebrew it is Zechar. Just as Dionysus is Osiris is Lazarus/Elaezar, likewise Zagreus is Seker is Zechariah: three different languages, one common epic, and two sets of terms used to define two different aspects of one individual concept: the reigning Son of God (commonly referred to as the Messeh, Moshe or Messiah) and the former Son of God (commonly referred to as The Holy Ghost).

By the time of Jesus, the Bull (signifying the Age of Taurus) had long been replaced by the Passover and Paschal lambs because the age that was expiring in Jesus' day was that of Aries. In Christian times (the Age of Pisces), the Catholic church upheld this by Friday being fish day and by the Pope's miter mimicking a fish when he lies in state. it is important to realize, that the Catholic church - and Christianity in general for that matter - are nothing more than a continuation of the Herodian bastardized form of Judaic tradition.

Even if this interpretation is correct, it is possible that the assertion that his followers ate the Messiah was simply a fiction created by the Romans to denigrate the Jewish messianic movement. I must note, however, that the Talmud records that cannibalism was prevalent during Roman sieges and that both Suetonius and Josephus confirm that it took place during the siege of Jerusalem. The messianic family  and their inner circle, which Josephus describes as the final holdouts, may well have engaged in the practice. If this in fact  occurred and was discovered by the Romans, the event provided the grim inspiration for the creation of a Christian Messiah who offers  his flesh to his followers. In any event, the comic system created by the New Testament and War of the Jews does make it clear that the cannibalism engaged in by the besieged messianic Jews was the basis of the Christian concept of a Messiah who offers up his flesh. Both Seutonius and Josephus were self-loathing Jews who turned their backs on Israel in favor of their western masters.

Knowing that the unnamed "certain young man" who was "pruned" on the Mount of Olive passages was named "Eleazar," as was Mary's unnamed child in War of the Jews, completes a composite picture of "Eleazar." Josephus and the New Testament "state" that Eleazar could expel demons, was a son of Mary, had his flesh eaten as a Passover sacrifice, was captured on the Mount of Olives, was stripped naked and scourged, was plotted against by the high priests, miraculously escaped death by crucifixion, and "rose" from the dead. Further, in the next chapter I will show that Lazarus and Jesus also have parallel tombs. Their tombs occur in the same location, at the same time; both have their stones removed and have the same burial clothes left behind. Because Jesus was Lazarus (= Osiris = Zechariah = Zeker = John the Baptist): Father and Son. When John's father went to become one with the creator, Zechariah would have become the Osiris and John would have become the new Zechariah (only begotten Son). The reason why there were more than one Lazarus in the NT is because the Romanized Jews went about selling them out to the Romans. The first thing that Rome would have done after reconquering the Levant, would have been to go about systemically annihilating anything that would have given the Jews a sense of uniqueness, such as the priesthood. they did this by wiping out the Aaronic priesthood in favor of Herodian "priests" (thereafter referred to as rabbis - "fathers")... something that Jesus warned against calling them, and yet the Catholic church still enacts to this day. 

Eleazar, like Simon and John, had his identity stolen by the Romans. He was the historical "Christ" who had been captured on the Mount of Olives and "rose" from the dead. As he was only human, however, Eleazar could not return to life. This leads me to wonder: if Lazarus was raised from the dead in around 31AD, and the writings by Josephus and the New testament were all written some 50 years later, why is there nothing more written regarding Lazarus after he was raised from the dead? And how could the "priests" and Sanhedrin rationally conspire to kill off someone whom had already died once and was raised from the dead? Obviously the "Raising of Lazarus" was quite different to them, than it was to the followers of Jesus.

Note the impact this analysis has on the historicity of "Jesus Christ." Was the New Testament character of Jesus based on a real  individual?  Since the Apostles Simon and John were based on historical characters, it is therefore possible that Jesus was as well. Of course he was: he was based upon the last Kohens Gadol of the lineage of Aaron.

I am certain, however, that even if the New Testament character of "Jesus" were based on a historical individual, virtually nothing he said and none of the events from his ministry are recorded in the New Testament. The authors of the New Testament created their character's dialogue and ministry in order to create a "true" prophet, one who had "accurately" prophesied events from Titus' triumphant campaign. Jesus did not, for example, envision his disciples becoming "fishers of men" or "eating his flesh." Nor did he see his contemporaries as a "wicked generation" or advocate that they "turn the other cheek." Like his "Apostles" Simon and John, the real "Savior Messiah" would have been completely in accordance with the messianic movement that fought against Rome. He would have been a militaristic Zealot. The Fishers of Men allegory is a reference to moving on from the Age of Aries to the Age of Pisces. And on the topic of military zealots, the term Sicarii comes to mind. Of course Sicarii came to be referred to as the daggers which these zealots carried, the Sicarii is phonetically identical to the pluralized Latin form of the term Zeker. The Sicarii were thus followers of or of the clan or culture of Sicar, just as the Germani were Germans and the Teutoni were Teutons. In Latin, a gathering of people around a culture, ethnicity or person, was afforded the identifier of that person, ethnicity or culture, with an i as the suffix which established a connection to such. To place this into proper context, in Latin the followers or lineage of the Khemetic deity Seker would have been called "Sekeri", and if the Greek term for this deity (Sokar) were Latinized, the followers and lineage would collectively be called "Sokari". If the root of Zechariah (Zechar) was likewise Latinized, the word that would emerge would be Zechari. All of these examples are phonetically akin to the term Sicarii and eerily similar to a title attributed to John the Baptist (Skiri - meaning to Baptize in Gothic) on Page 273 (Chapter 19) of Waddell's The Phoenician Origin of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons:

"...His initiatory rite of Baptism is wholly unknown in Judaism, whereas it is a part of the ancient ritual of the Sumerian and Aryan Vedic and Eddie Gothic Sun-cult, wherein Baptism is called by the Goths Skiri (or "The Scouring") which is radically identical with the name "Sakhar" applied to it by the Sumerians...

...Sargon I. about 2800 B.C., as high-priest who uses the Swastika, describes himself as "water-libator" and devotee Nu-iz-sir (="Nazir") of God--"the Sakhar (or Baptist) Lord" (C.I.W.A., 3, Vol. 4, No. 7). And John-the-Baptist was also a "Nazir" or consecrated devotee (Luke i. 15, and cp. Numbers vi, 2 f.).}...

...And John-the-Baptist is called "Skiri-Jon" by the Christian Goths of Iceland and Scandinavia; {V.D., 550.} and "Purification (by Water) Day" was officially called in Scotland, down to the reign of James VI., "Skiri-Thurisday." {J.S.D., 486.} Moreover, the father of John-the-Baptist was a Fire-priest,..."

At the time the New Testament was being created, the events of 30 C.E. were 50 years past and of little or no importance to its authors. Their focus was solely on Titus' triumph in the recently completed war against the Jews. The "Savior" they created was a Roman fantasy, a literary figure they used to "prophetically" chasten the "wicked generation" and to set up their satire regarding the Messiah that Titus had "pruned" — Eleazar. If there had been a messianic leader named Jesus who ran afoul of the Roman authorities around 30 C.E., all that is visible of him in the New Testament is his name. 

If Eleazar was the Messiah captured on the Mount of Olives, who was the individual who was mistaken for Jesus following his "resurrection"? In the next chapter I will show the method by which the New Testament and War of the Jews reveal the identity of the true "Jesus" of Christianity, the "gardener."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_(High_Priest)

• Chapter 6: The Puzzle of the Empty Tomb