The passages that contain this complex lampoon begin with a speech by Titus calling for volunteers to assault the temple. One soldier named “Sabinus” accepts the challenge and, in a manner much like the devotio of Decius Mus (Chapter 11), he volunteers to sacrifice his life in the effort.
Upon this speech of Titus, the rest of the multitude were affrighted at so great a danger. But there was one, whose name was Sabinus, a soldier that served among the cohorts, and a Syrian by birth, who appeared to be of very great fortitude, both in the actions he had done, and the courage of his soul he had shown …
Wars of the Jews, 6, 1, 54
Sabinus was joined by eleven others and the twelve make their assault, which fails when Sabinus trips over a “large stone,” reminiscent of the large stone that entombed Jesus. Notice that Sabinus was possessed by a “divine” fury.
There followed him eleven others, and no more, that resolved to imitate his bravery; but still this was the principal person of them all, and went first, as excited by a divine fury.
… And now one cannot but complain here of fortune, as still envious at virtue, and always hindering the performance of glorious achievements:
this was the case of the man before us, when he had just obtained his purpose; for he then stumbled at a certain large stone, and fell down upon it headlong, with a very great noise. 235
A second assault is made and again Josephus refers to the number twelve, though this time he adds to it.
Now two days afterward twelve of those men that were on the forefront, and kept watch upon the banks, got together, and called to them the standard-bearer of the fifth legion, and two others of a troop of horsemen, and one trumpeter; these went without noise, about the ninth hour of the night, through the ruins, to the tower of Antonia; and when they had cut the throats of the first guards of the place, as they were asleep, they got possession of the wall…236
In my opinion, Josephus is using the temple as a symbol of Judaism and the attempt to force “twelve” into it is a satiric description of the insertion of the Apostles into the new Judaism. The point is that the temple will no longer be Jewish but Christian, once the “twelve” force their way in. In the following segment, notice that getting into the temple would “begin” the Romans’ entire conquest, a phrase reminiscent of “completing the calamities of the Jews” in the Son of Mary chapter.
Then did the seditious of both the bodies of the Jewish army, as well that belonging to John as that belonging to Simon, drive them away; and indeed were no way wanting as to the highest degree of force and alacrity;
for they esteemed themselves entirely ruined if once the Romans got into the temple, as did the Romans look upon the same thing as the beginning of their entire conquest.
So a terrible battle was fought at the entrance of the temple, while the Romans were forcing their way, in order to get possession of that temple …237
Josephus next makes reference to a confusion over the identity of the combatants, which takes place as this battle is fought at the temple door. The wordplay is quite interesting because it is, if this interpretation is correct, a spoof of the planned confusion of identities used by the Romans to usher in Christianity.
Now during this struggle the positions of the men were undistinguished on both sides, and they fought at random, the men being intermixed one with another, and confounded, by reason of the narrowness of the place; while the noise that was made fell on the ear after an indistinct manner, because it was so very loud.
Great slaughter was now made on both sides, and the combatants trod upon the bodies and the armor of those that were dead, and dashed them to pieces.
Accordingly, to which side soever the battle inclined, those that had the advantage exhorted one another to go on, as did those that were beaten make great lamentation. But still there was no room for flight, nor for pursuit, but disorderly revolutions and retreats, while the armies were intermixed one with another;
but those that were in the first ranks were under the necessity of killing or being killed, without any way for escaping; for those on both sides that came behind forced those before them to go on, without leaving any space between the armies. 238
Josephus then lists those Jews who most “signalized” themselves in the battle.
Now those that most signalized themselves, and fought most zealously in this battle of the Jewish side, were one Alexas and Gyphtheus, of John’s party, and of Simon’s party were Malachias, and Judas the son of Merto, and James the son of Sosas, the commander of the Idumeans; and of the zealots, two brethren, Simon and Judas, the sons of Jairus.239
Another assault is made and again neither side can tell one from the other because the armies are intermixed. Confusion reigns, which did less harm to the Romans, who remembered their watchword. I believe that Josephus is again making a satirical point regarding the confusion of identities that enabled the Romans to create Christian Apostles out of Jewish rebels.
… for the great confused noise that was made on both sides hindered them from distinguishing one another’s voices, as did the darkness of the night hinder them from the like distinction by the sight, besides that blindness which arose otherwise also from the passion and the fear they were in at the same time; for which reason it was all one to the soldiers who it was they struck at.
However, this ignorance did less harm to the Romans than to the Jews, because they were joined together under their shields, and made their sallies more regularly than the others did, and each of them remembered their watchword;
while the Jews were perpetually dispersed abroad, and made their attacks and retreats at random, and so did frequently seem to one another to be enemies; for every one of them received those of their own men that came back in the dark as Romans, and made an assault upon them;
so that more of them were wounded by their own men than by the enemy, till, upon the coming on of the day, the nature of the fight was discerned by the eye afterward.
… This fight, which began at the ninth hour of the night, was not over till past the fifth hour of the day; and that, in the same place where the battle began, neither party could say they had made the other to retire; but both the armies left the victory almost in uncertainty between them;
wherein those that signalized themselves on the Roman side were a great many, but on the Jewish side, and of those that were with Simon, Judas the son of Merto, and Simon the son of Josas; of the Idumeans, James and Simon, the latter of whom was the son of Cathlas, and James was the son of Sosas; of those that were with John, Gyphtheus and Alexas; and of the zealots, Simon the son of Jairus.240
My interpretation is that the entire sequence is a satiric way of describing how the authors of the New Testament, acting as agents of Rome by means of their false histories the New Testament and the works of Josephus, transformed Jewish rebels into Christian Apostles. The first point I want to make is that the two confusing passages in which Josephus describes those who “signalized” themselves are a puzzle. The reader who “solves” it will recognize that the lists describe the twelve individuals who were fighting to preserve the temple.
In other words, when the two lists of Jews who “signalized” themselves are combined and the duplications are cancelled out, there are left four Simons, two Judases, John and James, as well as Alexas, Gyphtheus, Malachias, and Sosas. Eight have the names of Apostles and four do not, for a total list of twelve individuals. Readers may go through this confusing process for themselves if they wish.
Take the first list:
Alexas
and Gyphtheus, of John’s party,
and of Simon’s party were Malachias, and Judas the son of Merto,
and James the son of Sosas, the commander of the Idumeans;
and of the zealots, two brethren, Simon and Judas, the sons of Jairus.
And add it to the second:
of those that were with Simon, Judas the son of Merto, and Simon the son of Josas;
of the Idumeans, James and S
imon, the latter of whom was the son of Cathlas, and James was the son of Sosas;
of those that were with John, Gyphtheus and Alexas; and
of the zealots, Simon the son of Jairus.
Removing the duplicates produces the following list of twelve individuals:
Alexas
Gyphtheus
John the tyrant
Simon the tyrant
Malachias
Judas the son of Merto
James the son of Sosas
Sosas the leader of the Idumeans
Simon the son of Jairus
Judas the son of Jairus
Simon the son of Josas
Simon son of Cathlas
Josephus then records that there was another battle, during which the “twelve” again “signalize” themselves. He also mentions the courage of another individual, an Eleazar (Lazarus). As I have shown above, Eleazar was the Jewish Messiah for whom Jesus was switched in the New Testament. Josephus’ “signalizing” of the “twelve” and an Eleazar obviously supports this interpretation. Josephus is spoofing the Christian Messiah and his twelve disciples.
Of the seditious, those that had fought bravely in the former battles did the like now, as besides them did Eleazar, the brother’s son of Simon the tyrant.
But when Titus perceived that his endeavors to spare a foreign temple turned to the damage of his soldiers, he gave order to set the gates on fire.241
In order to “document” the switching of Jewish rebels for Christian Apostles, Josephus records another group of individuals. He presents the list of these individuals between the two lists naming the twelve Jews who “signalized” themselves in battle. This new list names those Jews who deserted to the Romans in the midst of the battle. Notice that we have another “five sons of Matthias.”
… of whom were the high priests Joseph and Jesus, and of the sons of high priests three, whose father was Ishmael, who was beheaded in Cyrene, and four sons of Matthias, as also one son of the other Matthias …242
Joseph, Jesus, and Matthias are, of course, all names associated with Christianity. “Matthias” is not only the name of one of the authors of a Gospel (Matthew) but the name of the disciple who replaced Judas as one of the twelve Apostles. In addition to these three, Josephus’ lists include five sons of Matthias, a Joseph, and a Jesus. The “five sons of Matthias” are meant to be understood as the five sons of the founder of the Maccabean dynasty—that is, Judas, Simon, John, Eleazar (Lazarus), and Jonathan. Of course, as Josephus relates it, these “five sons of Matthias” are quite different from the original “five sons of Matthias” in that they have defected to Caesar. However, the point of the satiric joke Josephus is making here, is that these five sons of Matthias have the same names as the original five sons of Matthias.
Thus, the “five sons of Matthias” who deserted to the Romans and the twelve “signalized” Jewish rebels contain names that overlap. The overlapping names are those of both Apostles and the sons of Matthias Maccabee—Judas, Simon, John, and Eleazar. The list of those who deserted to the Roman side also contain both a Jesus and a Joseph, which are both names from Christianity. The Jewish side also contains a Malachias, a point I shall explore below.
My interpretation of the passage is that during the confusion of battle, the Jews who “signalized” themselves and who had the same names, are transformed into the sons of Matthias who desert to the Romans. Just as Jesus had been transformed into Titus, the leaders of the Jewish rebellion are turned into twelve turncoats. It’s another example of the “name-switching” technique that was used to create the Apostles Simon and John. The complex confusion about identity is a spoof on how the Romans created the Apostles and inserted them into the temple (Judaism) by transforming the history of the Maccabees into the “history” of Christianity.
… for the great confused noise that was made on both sides hindered them from distinguishing one another’s voices, as did the darkness of the night hinder them from the like distinction by the sight …
However, this ignorance did less harm to the Romans than to the Jews, because … each of them remembered their watchword;
while the Jews … did frequently seem to one another to be enemies; for every one of them received those of their own men that came back in the dark as Romans …243
This interpretation is strengthened by Josephus’ inclusion of a Malachias as one of the twelve Jews who “signalized” themselves. The name Malachi is Hebrew for “my messenger” and was a synonym for the prophet Elijah. This meaning comes from the Book of Elijah, in which God states, “Behold, I send my messenger (Malachi) who shall prepare the way before me.” Elijah (Malachi) was believed by the messianic Jews of the first century C.E. to be about to return to earth as a forerunner of the Messiah. 244
The authors of the New Testament created John the Baptist to be Christianity’s Elijah, that is, the messenger who heralded the Messiah’s “coming.”
“Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’”
Jesus answered and said to them, “Indeed, Elijah is coming first …”
Matt. 17:10-11
Like Elijah, John is said to have worn a leather girdle and a “cloak of hair.”245 Like Elijah, John also traveled along the banks of the Jordan near Jericho.246 The last of the Books of the Prophets is the Book of Malachi. As scholars have long recognized, the authors of the Gospels used that book, with its apocalyptic sayings of a messianic forerunner, as the basis for John the Baptist’s descriptions of a Day of Judgment.
In the Book of Malachi it states:
Behold the day cometh, burning like a furnace and all the proud and they that do wickedly are stubble and the day shall cometh that shall set them aflame, saith the Lord of Hosts, and shall not leave them root and branch. 247
The author of the Gospel of Matthew makes John the Baptist paraphrase Malachi:
The axe is already laid to the root of the tree and every tree that bringeth not forth fruit is hewn and cast into the midst of the fire.
… and his fan is in his hand and he shall winnow his threshing-floor and gather wheat into his garner and the chaff he shall burn with unquenchable fire.248
However, John adds his own political perspective to Malachi, warning those who believe they have nothing to fear from the Day of Judgment because they are the “children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”—that is, the Jews—should be aware that their “Jewishness” does not make them safe. John states (with a play on words) “God is able from these stones (abanim) to raise up children (banim) unto Abraham.” John the Baptist thus shares with Jesus a “vision” of a coming apocalypse for the Jews. From my perspective, however, the more important point is that John is saying that “God” can create “Jews” at will, the same idea that Josephus is relating with the story of the battle of the temple, during which “the positions of the men were undistinguished on both sides, and they fought at random, the men being intermixed one with another.” Abanim and banim continues the wordplay regarding “son” and “stone”—that is, ben and eben—that exists in the New Testament and Wars of the Jews.
John the Baptist also paraphrases the Book of Malachi when he states that though he (John) baptizes with water there is one “coming” who is mightier and will baptize with fire.
And who may abide the day of his coming? And who can stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiner’s fire.249
This prophecy, once again, when taken literally, came to pass in a manner that would be scornfully humorous to the residents of the Flavian court. That is, Titus did indeed “baptize” with fire.
They … set fire to the houses whither the Jews had fled and burnt every soul in them …250
Malachias (My Messenger) in Josephus’ list of “signalized” Jews must be understood, like Elijah or John the Baptist, as the forerunner of a Messiah. Since a “Jesus” is also a character in the passage, the identity of the Messiah he is coming before seems obvious. The logic of the lampoon suggests that the “Jes
us” on the Roman list switches himself with his “forerunner” at the same time that his “Apostles” switch themselves with their Jewish namesakes.
My analysis suggests that the Maccabees were inserted into Christianity in the first century C.E. They were also somehow extracted from Judaism at the same time. One needs to look into the Book of the Maccabees to read of its origin.
Since the Romans inserted the Maccabees into Christianity, it is at least logical to wonder if they also removed them from Judaism, which was being reestablished at about the same time. As Eisenman points out in James the Brother of Jesus, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zacchai is described in the Talmud as having worked to reestablish a form of Judaism after the 70 C.E. holocaust. He worked at an academy at Yavneh, established with the authorization of Rome. He is also claimed to have applied the Star prophecy, the Messiah or world-ruler prophecy, to Vespasian exactly as Josephus had done. These facts provide a basis for speculation about the extent to which Rome was also involved in the creation of Rabbinical Judaism.
Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition Page 43