Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition (26 page)

… 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 …
⁹³

The passage above is related to the following passage from
Wars 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 exists?

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.

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.

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.
⁹⁴

The passage above from
Wars 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.

… 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.
⁹⁵

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 …
⁹⁶

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.

But the High Priests plotted to put Lazarus to death also.
⁹⁷

So
Wars of the Jews
and the New Testament both describe 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 Christ, 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.
⁹⁸

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
Wars 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
Wars 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 I 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
Wars 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 as “a series of concentric circles with some interlocking rings,” as Freedman puts it.
⁹⁹
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”
¹⁰¹
—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.