Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition (53 page)

If the Romans were the creators of Christianity and the works of Josephus, why did they portray their fictitious Messiah as the one foreseen by Daniel? Among the Dead Sea Scrolls are many relating to the Book of Daniel. They show that at least some of the Jews of that era were using the dating system within the Book of Daniel to try to determine when the Messiah would appear to lead them in their holy war against Rome.

The Romans understood that the messianic Jewish rebels interpreted passages from Daniel and others of their prophets in a way that justified their own militaristic theology. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls were found numerous examples of this type of interpretation. Roman intellectuals, no doubt, analyzed these works and realized that it was just as possible to interpret the passages in order to create an entirely different, pro-Roman theology. Rome’s solution to these militaristic anti-Roman interpretations of the Book of Daniel was to create a literature that interpreted Daniel’s prophecies in a way acceptable to Rome—the New Testament and
Wars of the Jews.

I will now analyze in depth the link between Jesus’ statement concerning the “abomination of desolation” and Josephus’ passage describing the end of the “daily sacrifice.”

Early Christian scholars were aware of the three-way link between Jesus’ statements in Matthew 24, the Book of Daniel, and
Wars of the Jews.
St. Augustine, for example, understood that Jesus had claimed that Daniel’s prophecies “came to pass” within the first century. In the passage below, notice that Augustine is clear about what period Jesus’ prophecies referred to—the 70 C.E. destruction of Jerusalem.

Luke recalls these words of the Lord in the same context: When you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army, then know that the desolation thereof is at hand. For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown.

Eusebius shared this understanding. In the following passage, notice that he actually points out that the works of Josephus are the basis for his belief
.

—all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,—all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus.
¹⁷⁷

Matthew 24:15 is interesting because it is only there that Jesus explicitly shares a vision of the future with another prophet; it is also the only place in the New Testament where the reader is directly addressed.

“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the Holy Place (whoever reads let him understand)” –
¹⁷⁸

In the passage from the Book of Daniel that Jesus is referring to, the “abomination of desolation” is to begin with the end of the “daily sacrifice.” Notice that the time span Daniel describes is three and a half years.

And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
¹⁷⁹

When Jesus’ statement above is read with the passage from
Wars of the Jews
that describes the end of the daily sacrifice, they provide an example,
par excellence
, of the prophetic linkage between
Wars of the Jews
and the New Testament.

Note that Josephus does not use the same expression from the Book of Daniel that Jesus uses above, the “abomination of desolation,” but rather used Daniel’s other expression, the “daily sacrifice”—leaving it to the reader to “understand” that one must lead to the other. I believe that the use of different but complementary terms from Daniel in the New Testament and the passage from Josephus was intentional—a “sleight of hand” aimed at convincing early Christians that the New Testament and
Wars of the Jews
were written independently of one another.

AND now Titus gave orders to his soldiers that were with him to dig up the foundations of the tower of Antonia, and make him a ready passage for his army to come up;

while he himself had Josephus brought to him, (for he had been informed that on that very day, which was the seventeenth day of Panemus [Tammuz], the sacrifice called “The Daily Sacrifice” had failed, and had not been offered to God, for want of men to offer it …
¹⁸⁰

In the Section from
Jewish Antiquities
below, Josephus again states his understanding that the destruction of Jerusalem was the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies. I have included Josephus’ self-serving argument that fulfilled prophecies prove the existence of God. This argument is interesting historically in that it may reveal the reasoning that Christian “missionaries” would have used with first-century slaves and peasants. In other words, the fulfillment of prophecies, which, of course, the combination of the New Testament and the works of Josephus represented, not only “proved” that God existed but that his providence was with the Romans. It also suggests the era’s obsession with prophecy, showing why it was made such an important part of Jesus’ ministry.

And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel’s vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.

All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel; and may thence discover how the Epicureans are in an error,

who cast Providence out of human life, and do not believe that God takes care of the affairs of the world, nor that the universe is governed and continued in being by that blessed and immortal nature, but say that the world is carried along of its own accord, without a ruler and a curator;

which, were it destitute of a guide to conduct it, as they imagine, it would be like ships without pilots, which we see drowned by the winds, or like chariots without drivers, which are overturned; so would the world be dashed to pieces by its being carried without a Providence, and so perish, and come to naught.

So that, by the aforementioned predictions of Daniel, those men seem to me very much to err from the truth, who determine that God exercises no providence over human affairs; for if that were the case, that the world went on by mechanical necessity, we should not see that all things would come to pass according to his prophecy.
¹⁸¹

Josephus’ argument above, that Daniel’s prophecies give evidence to the idea that
“these men err … who determine that God exercises no providence over human affairs,” is the one that I suspect was used with the original converts of Christianity. In other words, since
Wars of the Jews
reveals that Jesus’ prophecies have “come to pass,” it demonstrates Jesus’ divinity. This “proof” of Jesus’ divinity would have made it impossible to deny the New Testament’s and Josephus’ other claims—that the Jews are wicked, that slaves should obey, etc. Who can argue with what the fulfillment of prophecy has proven to be the “word of God”?

Further, when the New Testament has Jesus predict the “abomination of desolation,” how could the reader “understand” what he was referring to? Nothing in the New Testament enables its readers to know that the complex prophecy sequence that Daniel used to predict the “Abomination of Desolation,” would “come to pass” during the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. Only one book has given the information the reader needs to arrive at this interpretation:
Wars of the Jews
. Therefore, the “reader” that Jesus referred to must also have been aware that Josephus recorded the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies as occurring in the first century. Without Josephus, Christ’s words are meaningless.

Notice that Jesus is providing support for Josephus’ contention that Daniel’s prophecies were coming to pass. The logic runs in reverse. Jesus’ use of Daniel’s vocabulary identified him as Daniel’s Messiah. If Jesus was Daniel’s Messiah, then the destruction of Jerusalem must be the one Daniel envisioned, because it was on the same time line. The New Testament and the works of Josephus are completely entwined and mutually supportive.

Finally, Jesus and Josephus both “recommend” only one prophet to their readers. They each recommend Daniel. Josephus writes:

…
yet if any one be so very desirous of knowing truth, as not to waive such points of curiosity, and cannot curb his inclination for understanding the uncertainties of futurity, and whether they will happen or not, let him be diligent in reading the book of Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings.
¹⁸²

Both the authors of the New Testament and Josephus attempted to have their readers come to the same mistaken conclusion about the prophecies of Daniel, that they came to pass within the first century. This fact suggests that the same person or group produced both works, because two independent authors would not have, by chance, come to such a conclusion.

CHAPTER 14
 
Building Jesus

The authors of the Gospels constructed Jesus from the lives of several prophets in the Jewish canon. Thus, since Elijah and Elisha had raised children from the dead, Jesus would do the same. Whenever possible, Jesus’ miracles would be greater than the ones they were based upon. For example, Elisha satisfied a hundred men with twenty loaves and had bread to spare.
¹⁸³
So Jesus would feed five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes, and have twelve basketfuls to spare. Since Jesus was to be the prophet envisioned by Daniel, Jesus’ life would also include episodes that fulfilled Daniel’s prophecies. However, though many of the extraordinary accomplishments of Jesus’ ministry were taken from the lives of prior prophets, the character he was primarily based upon was Moses. Moses was chosen as the basic prototype for Jesus because he had been the founder of the religion Christianity would replace. The founder of the new religion was to be seen as the new Moses. This is already widely recognized in New Testament scholarship.

The fact that Jesus was based on Moses is easy to demonstrate, because the authors of the Gospels went out of their way to make sure the converts to Christianity understood this. For example, the story of Jesus’ childhood in Matthew is based on the childhood of Moses. The outline is the same in both cases—the birth of a child causes distress to the rulers, followed by a consultation with wise men, a massacre of children, and a miraculous rescue, with Egypt as the land of rescue.

In addition to creating parallels between the lives of the founders of the two religions, the authors of the Gospels also borrowed events from the story of Exodus to create the impression that Christianity, like Judaism, was of divine origin. The best-known of these are the parallels that the Gospels use to set up Jesus as a “Passover lamb,” establishing him as the “deliverer” of the religion that was to replace Judaism.

All four Gospels show, as does Paul, that Passover, and Judaism itself, are obsolete. Jesus’ sacrifice of himself creates a new Passover and a new religion. It is important to recognize how literally early Christianity saw itself as a replacement for Judaism, even to the extent that the early church fathers claimed that the ancient Hebrews were Christians and not Jews. Eusebius wrote:

That the Hebrew nation is not new, but is universally honored on account of its antiquity, is known to all. The books and writings of this people contain accounts of ancient men, rare indeed and few in number, but nevertheless distinguished for piety and righteousness and every other virtue. Of these, some excellent men lived before the flood, others of the sons and descendants of Noah lived after it, among them Abraham, whom the Hebrews celebrate as their own founder and forefather.

If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth.
¹⁸⁴

Jesus introduces the idea that Christianity will replace Judaism by stating that his “living flesh” would be a replacement for the manna the Israelites were given by God during their wandering in the wilderness.

Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

This is the living bread which comes down from heaven. That one may eat of it and not die.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven.