Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition (15 page)

When I had determined that the Apostle Simon was a lampoon of Simon the leader of the Jewish rebels, and that there was a parallel sequence of events in
Wars of the Jews
and the New Testament, I was curious to determine if
Wars of the Jews
contained a parallel to the New Testament story describing Simon’s three denials of Jesus. In fact, just scanning
Wars of the Jews
where Simon’s “denials” would have occurred, that is, immediately following the capture on the Mount of Olives, reveals a passage in which Titus states that three times he has exhorted Simon to “peace” and three times he had been denied.

This bridge it was that lay between the tyrants and Caesar, and parted them;

while the multitude stood on each side; those of the Jewish nation about Simon and John, with great hopes of pardon; and the Romans about Caesar, in great expectation how Titus would receive their supplication.

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.