Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition

by Atwill, Joseph

  Once again, only readers alert enough to combine elements from different versions of the same story can understand the sinister joke. Notice that this technique is consistent throughout. To understand the sardonic humor in Luke regarding Gethsemane the reader must recall another Gospel’s version of the same story. Likewise, the parallels between the two tales from Wars 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 created 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 mock 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 104

  The “root and branch” theme that the New Testament and Josephus create, regarding the Messiah, is remarkably 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 contemptuous comedy and not history.

  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 satiric theme. In Chapter 8, 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 Chapter 8 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.

  To continue, 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.

  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 Wars 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.

  War of the Jews, 5, 2, 54-61

  Thus, the New Testament and Wars 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.

  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 Wars 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 Wars 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 Wars of the Jews—Eleazar (son of the Maccabean messianic lineage) 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 d
angers that kings are in, are under the providence of God.

  Wars of the Jews, 5, 2, 60

  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.

  Wars 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.” Josephus’ phrase in the passage above, “the dangers that kings are in,” clearly refers 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 that he is talking about more than one king.

  At the least, it is 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.

  I 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.”

  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 Wars 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.”

  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 Wars of the Jews, contained in the passage that describes the Mary who ate her son, which I have analyzed previously.

  … 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.106

  Josephus’ passage has a conceptual parallel in Luke 10:42. 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 Wars 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 use 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 Wars 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).

  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 dark comedic 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 Wars of the Jews, and the Passover lamb of the New Testament when I first encountered them, their point is now clear. Read intertextually, 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”?