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.
So 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 satiric 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 or stone. 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 Wars 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 name from “Simon” to “Simon Peter,” then to “Peter,” and finally to “Cephas” as their narration came closer to the time when the real Simon led 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.
Understanding that Simon’s history was absorbed by Roman Christianity is important, in that it explains Rome’s purported persecution of “Christians”. The Romans did not so much invent a new religion as they simply transformed an existing one. Therefore the traditions stating that Rome tortured “Christians” are correct, but these were “Christians” like the real Simon, not the Roman variety.
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
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 satiric 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.”84
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 Wars of the Jews, the mother who ate her son’s flesh, are part of a satiric 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 Wars 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, American 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 mockingly 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 black comedy themes regarding individuals with the same name is a critical insight that will enable one to learn the real identity of Lazarus in Chapter 6.
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 from 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, who was 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.85
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.86
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.87
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.88 Wars of the Jews contains a clear theme regarding the Jews destroying themselves that I shall go into in more depth elsewhere.
I 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.”
John 21:18-19
CHAPTER 5
The Flavian Signature
I showed above that a number of parallels from different Gospels had been typologically mapped onto Josephus’ history of the Flavians’ Judean campaign. In this chapter I show that a contiguous block of text from Luke was typologically linked to a contiguous section of Josephus’ history. In fact virtually all of the events of Jesus’ Galilean ministry in that Gospel were typological representations of events of the Flavians’ military campaign. The events in the Gospel were mapped to Titus’ campaign in the same sequence that Josephus recorded them. One conclusion that falls out of this analysis is that the Gospels’ character “Jesus Christ” was completely fictional.
I wish to note that there is much more to the typological symbolism in Luke than I present in this short overview. My goal here is only to provide a clear enough understanding of the Luke/Josephus typology so as to leave no doubt that the sequence was created to be the Flavians’ signature of their authorship of the Gospels. The typological sequences were designed as a “bar code” for posterity, showing that the Flavians wrote the Gospels, thereby ending Christianity and beginning the era of their legacy.
The authors deliberately made the entrance to the Jesus/Titus typology difficult to spot. In Luke, the first event of Jesus’ ministry is actually his battle at the brow of a hill near �
��Nazareth” – followed by a puzzle that reveals the real identity of “Mary Magdalene”. However, these parallels will be set aside for now and decoded towards the end of this chapter, after the reader has gotten a better sense of the overall typological pattern.
The Jesus/Titus typological connections I begin with are listed in the table below. Notice that in their “ministries,” Jesus and Titus went to the same places in the same sequence. This is suspicious on its face, but has not caught the attention of New Testament scholarship.
Galilee
1. Fishing for men at the Sea of Galilee
2. Easier to say “get up and walk” than “your sins are .forgiven”
3. Keep holy the Sabbath by restoring the “right hand”
4. Cast out the supporters of the Son of Man
5. John possessed by a demon
6. The legion of demons
7. Demons infect another group
8. The herd ran violently
9. The herd drowned
10. Identification of the son of the living god
11. Binding and loosening
12. He who does not follow with us, but casts out demons
On the road to Jerusalem
13. On to Jerusalem – the messengers are sent ahead
Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition Page 11