CHAPTER X
The Other Jesus
The study of archeology has been prosecuted with great vigor in recent times, and memorials have been diligently sought to verify the traditions of history, secular as well as sacred. Many striking confirmations of the traditions referred to have been thereby brought to light, and great and many have been the hopes that have sprung up in connection with these explorations. Gamala, the City of Judas the Galilean, a large fortified city located on a high ridge above a crossing of two gorges, is one of the famous cities where Jewish rebels fought bravely against the Romans until their fatal end (see Gamala by David Donnini, 2010.)
Its story of bravery is well detailed in Josephus’ historical accounts. The historian was actually the commander of the Galilee forces who also fortified the city. His story resembles the tragic accounts of Sepphoris and Masada, where the defenders fought the Roman legions until the tragic end. After its total ruin in 67CE, the location of Gamala was a mystery for 1900 years. Since its discovery in a survey of the Golan (1968), subsequent archaeological excavations have reconstructed several parts of the city. The findings closely match Josephus’ accurate accounts and shed light on one of the most tragic events in the history of the land. While this diligent search for truth continues, there is no sign, however, that the story of the Greek writers can expect much auxiliary aid from archaeology. Time would first have to destroy the fabric they have reared before Archeologists can begin the work of reconstruction.
It would be saying too much were we to characterize the generation in which the four Greek writers lived as a more deluded one than our own. The religion these writers introduced was received only by a section, and a very small section, of their contemporaries, while the great intelligent bulk of the populations among whom their teachings took root, all accustomed though they were to the idea of a man-god (Greek and Roman mythology) and the consequent idolatries, rejected the philosophy as a palpable delusion. This exemption from error, however, applies only to the judgment of the present or immediate past, by no mean to the views that are entertained of the earlier history of the world and the writings that record it; for it accepts as true to this day delusions and fanaticisms, by which only the ignorant were misled at the time of their first invention. How does it happen, we may ask, that we are so jealous of imposition to-day, and are so unwilling to confess we have been duped in regard to past deceptions? Yet this is precisely what has been done by the acceptance at the hands of the present generation of what at the introduction of Christianity was rejected by the great majority of the intelligent populations, and found favor with only a few of the ignorant multitude.
That there is a missing link in the history of the Christian traditions, as given in the account of the four Greek writers, has, since the development of a very recent spirit of inquiry, been generally acknowledged. There is a greater desire evinced to find this missing link, ever since historical research has demonstrated the fact that the Gospels were not written till the second century, at the earliest, and the canon fixed at the time of Emperor Constantine (Council of Nicaea, 325CE.) The difficulty to which we refer as still unresolved is this: How such events as those recorded in the Gospels could have happened and escape the observation of the public at the time, and all notice at the hands of the historians of the period? That the Almighty God should have visited the earth, performing godlike actions, both on earth and in the heavens, beyond the power of man to effect, in the sight of a nation — a nation, too, in a peculiar frame of mind, on the tiptoe of expectation for the advent of their Messiah — without its being aware of any of these wonderful occurrences, presents an anomaly which we think has not only not been explained, but has not received the attention it calls for. The fact cannot be too often affirmed and reaffirmed, that the more numerous the miracles are referred to the period of Pontius Pilate's procuratorship, the weaker is the historical ground in support of them. Public wonders cannot be concealed.
Now, if this period saw the most wonderful events happened in the world since the Mosaic age, why was the account of them first published in the second century after their alleged occurrence, when no living witnesses were alive to deny or affirm their reality? Fortunately there is a contemporary history of the time extent to which we can appeal, and which substantively denies these traditional accounts, which must either have lain concealed from the eye of the world till then, or been first concocted at the time of their publication. Whatever grounds there may be and are for the assertions the accounts in question make in regard to the events of a later period, these events did not occur in the age of Pontius Pilate.
It is now time we should refer to that other Jesus of whom Josephus writes as contemporary with himself and the "meek" one, of whose character and fate he gives so touching a description. In calling attention to this second Jesus we would ask our readers to remark how it is the manner of the four Greek writers to blend different characters together and describe them as one; and not characters only, but incidents; in such combination, too, that it is next to impossible to sunder the confusion and fully disentangle the actual facts. The characters and actions they describe are not such as could possibly center in one personality; and this is especially the case with the central personage in their story; the explanation of which is, that they have confounded two notable contemporaries of the same name into one. Certain traditions spoke of the one, some of the other, till at length the two got blended, and the characters, actions, and incidents peculiar to each separately were predicated of one only.
One of these was, as we have seen, a meek personage, who suffered torture for prophesying evil to the nation, and whose idiosyncrasies were of a peculiar, and extraordinary order. The other Jesus, whose life and fortunes are blended with his, was of a totally different character. By way of distinguishing the one from the other, we will describe the poor oppressed one, who proved himself to be a true prophet, as the spiritual Jesus, and the other as the Mosaic Jesus, because we consider him as the prototype of the severe side of the character of the traditional Jesus, as it appears in his zeal for the law of Moses.
The description of this Mosaic Jesus is chiefly given in the Autobiography of Josephus, although it is also slightly referred to in his History of the Wars. This Jesus with his coworkers John and Simon are introduced to us in connection with an insurrection in Galilee against the Roman authority. Josephus himself was at that time governor of the province, and in his wisdom endeavoring, in the interest of Rome, to reconcile his fellow-countrymen to its rule. This policy of his was obviously inconsistent with that of those who had other interests, and a confederacy was formed which sought unscrupulously to damage his government and procure his recall. This then was the situation when a collapse was brought about by the betrayal of Jesus and the incarceration of John and of Simon, the angel of whose release appears to have been none other than the magnanimous governor himself, from whose account of the matter we must now quote.
“Now, as soon as I was come into Galilee, and had learned this state of things by the information of such as told me of them, I wrote to the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem about them, and required their direction what I should do. Their direction was, that I should continue there, and that if my fellow-legates were willing, I should join with them in the care of Galilee. But those my fellow-legates, having gotten great riches from those tithes which as priests were their dues, and were given to them, determined to return to their own country. Yet when I desired them to stay so long, that we might first settle the public affairs, they complied with me. So I removed, together with them, from the city of Sepphoris, and came to a certain village called Bethmaus, four furlongs distant from Tiberias; and thence I sent messengers to the senate of Tiberias, and desired that the principal men of the city would come to me; and when they were come, Justus himself being also with them, I told them that I was sent to them by the people of Jerusalem as a legate, together with these other priests, in order to persuade them to demolish that house which Herod the Tetrarch had built there, and which had the figures of living creatures in it, although our laws have forbidden us to make any such figures ; and I desired that they would give us leave so to do immediately. But for a good while Capellus and the principal men belonging to the city would not give us leave, but were at length entirely overcome by us, and were induced to be of our opinion. So Jesus the son of Sapphias, one of those, whom we have already mentioned as the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people, prevented us, and took with him certain Galileans, and set the entire palace on fire, and thought he should get a great deal of money thereby, because he saw some of the roofs gilt with gold. They also plundered a great deal of the furniture, which was done without our approbation; for, after we had discoursed with Capellus and the principal men of the city, we departed from Bethmaus, and went into Upper Galilee. But Jesus and his party slew all the Greeks that were inhabitants of Tiberias, and as many others as were their enemies before the war began.
“When I understood this state of things, I was greatly provoked, and went down to Tiberias, and took all the care I could of the royal furniture, to recover all that could be recovered from such as had plundered it. They consisted of candlesticks made of Corinthian brass, and of royal tables, and of a great quantity of uncoined silver; and I resolved to preserve whatsoever came to my hand for the king. So I sent for ten of the principal men of the senate, and for Capellus, the son of Antyllus, and committed the furniture to them, with this charge, that they should part with it to nobody else but to myself From thence I and my fellow-legates went to Gischala, to John, as desirous to know his intentions, and soon saw that he was for innovations, and had a mind to the principality, for he desired me to give him authority to carry off that corn which belonged to Caesar and lay in the villages of Upper Galilee; and he pretended that he would expend what it came to in building the walls of his own city. But when I perceived what he endeavored at, and what he had in his mind, I said I would not permit him so to do, for that I thought either to keep it for the Romans or myself, now that I was entrusted with public affairs there by the people of Jerusalem. But, when he was not able to prevail with me, he betook himself to my fellow-legates; for they had no sagacity in providing for futurity, and were very ready to take bribes. So he corrupted them with money to decree, that all that corn which was within his province should be delivered to him; while I, who was but one, was outvoted by two, and held my tongue. Then did John introduce another cunning contrivance of his; for he said that those Jews who inhabited Caesarea Philippi, and were shut up by the order of the king's deputy there, had sent to him to desire him, that, since they had no oil that was pure for their use, he would provide a sufficient quantity of such oil that came from the Greeks, and thereby transgress their own laws. Now this was said by John, not out of his regard to religion, but out of his most flagrant desire of gain, for he knew that two sextaries were sold with them of Caesarea for one drachma; but that at Gischala fourscore sextaries were sold for four sextaries. So he gave order that all the oil which was there should be carried away, as having my permission for so doing; which yet I did not grant him voluntarily, but only out of fear of the multitude; since, if I had forbidden him, I should have been stoned by them. When I had therefore permitted this to be done by John, he gained vast sums of money by this his knavery. But when I had dismissed my fellow-legates, and sent them back to Jerusalem, I took care to have arms provided, and the cities fortified. And when I had sent for the most hardy among the robbers, I saw that it was not in my power to take their arms from them; but I persuaded the multitude to allow them money as pay, and told them it was better for them to give them a little willingly, rather than (be forced to) to overlook them, while they plundered their goods from them. And when I had obliged them to take an oath not to come into that country, unless they were invited to come, or else when they had not their pay given them, I dismissed them, and charged them neither to make an expedition against the Romans, nor against those their neighbors that lay round about them; for my first care was to keep Galilee in peace. So I was willing to have the principal of the Galileans, in all seventy, as hostages for their fidelity, but still under the notion of friendship. Accordingly I made them my friends and companions as I journeyed, and set them to judge causes; and with their approbation it was that I gave my sentences, while I endeavored not to mistake what justice required, and to keep my hands clear of all bribery in those determinations." (Life of Josephus, Sec. 12-14)
While it is desirable and necessary that our readers should consult the pages of history for themselves in order to discover and estimate the exact amount of historical truth at the basis of the traditional narratives, it is still necessary for us, in order to impart connection to our argument, that we should relate the attitude assumed and the action taken by John, Simon, and Jesus in this case against Josephus, while at the same time we transfer to our pages such historical verifications as may tend to the identification of these historical characters with those which have come down to us in the traditions of later ages.
Thus far we have in the above quotations, it appears, a substantial parallel between the character of this Jesus and the incidents of his life and certain marked features given in the traditional narratives. Jesus is the leader of 'poor people and mariners’ (alias fishermen); the people are Galileans, seventy of whom are accepted as semi– hostages for their good behavior, who, nevertheless, are permitted to journey about and give decisions in questions of religion, for the laws of the land were the laws of God, the laying down of which might be described as teaching. These facts are similar to those mentioned in the Gospels, and are no doubt identical with them.
We will not lay much stress upon John's trickery to obtain the corn and the oil, and the coincidence between the mention of them here and the reference to those articles afterwards in certain parallel circumstances in the book of Revelation.
In order to make clearer the conspiracy of John, Jesus, and Simon against the authority of Josephus, we must quote a passage or two more from his autobiography (sections. 21, 22:) — "But now another great number of the Galileans came together again, with their weapons, as knowing the man (John) how wicked and how sadly perjured he was, and desired me to lead them against him, and promised me that they would actually destroy both him and Gischala. Hereupon I professed that I was obliged to them for their readiness to serve me, and that I would more than requite their good-will to me. However I entreated them to restrain themselves, and begged of them to give me leave to do what I intended, which was to put an end to these troubles without bloodshed; and when I had prevailed with the multitude of the Galileans to let me do so, I came to Sepphoris. But the inhabitants of this city, having determined to continue in their allegiance to the Romans, were afraid of my coming to them, and tried by putting me upon another action to divert me, that they might be freed from the terror they were in. Accordingly they sent to Jesus, the captain of those robbers who were in the confines of Ptolemais, and promised to give him a great deal of money, if he would come with those forces he had with him, which were in number eight hundred, and fight with us. Accordingly he complied with what they desired, upon the promises they had made him, and was desirous to fall upon us, when we were unprepared for him, and knew nothing of his coming beforehand. So he sent to me, and desired that I would give him leave to come and salute me. When I had given him that leave, which I did without the least knowledge of his treacherous intentions beforehand, he took his band of robbers, and made haste to come to me. Yet did not this knavery succeed well at last; for as he was already nearly approaching, one of those with him deserted him, and came to me and told me what he had undertaken to do. When I was informed of this, I went into the market-place, and pretended to know nothing of his treacherous purpose. I took with me many Galileans that were armed, as also some of those of Tiberias; and when I had given orders that all the roads should be carefully guarded, I charged the keepers of the gates to give admittance to none but Jesus when he came, with the principal of his men, and to exclude the rest, and in case they aimed to force themselves in, to use stripes (in order to repel them). Accordingly those that had received such a charge did as they were bidden, and Jesus came in with a few others and when I had ordered him to throw down his arms immediately, and told him that if he refused so to do he was a dead man, he, seeing armed men standing all about him, was terrified and complied; and as for those of his followers that were excluded, when they were informed that he was seized they ran away. I then called Jesus to me by himself, and told him that I was not a stranger to that treacherous design he had against me, nor was I ignorant by whom he was sent for; that, however, I would forgive him what he had done already if he would repent of it, and be faithful to me hereafter. And thus, upon his promise to do all that I desired, I let him go, and gave him leave to get those whom he had formerly had with him together again. But I threatened the inhabitants of Sepphoris, that, if they would not leave off their ungrateful treatment of me, I would punish them sufficiently."
Here we have historical confirmation of that Jesus who was the friend of Simon and John, and had as his followers “poor Galileans, mariners who were in his pay," one of whom had betrayed him to Josephus the priest and governor, and all of whom fled when they knew he was seized. These no doubt are the same facts which were by and by incorporated in the traditional accounts, and connected with the history of Jesus of Nazareth.
And let no one reject the derivation we allege as irreverence; the accusation can be brought with equal reason against the Evangelists themselves, one of them deemed the most accurate, and the other reputed the best beloved of his master. In Luke 22: 34-36 we read: — "And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shall thrice deny that thou knowest me. And he said unto them, ‘When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?’ And they said. ‘Nothing.’ ‘Then’ said he unto them. ‘But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one" (KJV)
This is the address of Jesus to his followers just before the arrival of the multitude sent to arrest him at the instance of the chief priest, into whose hands he was betrayed; and it is evidently suggested by the memory of the circumstances in which his prototype found himself when about to be betrayed into the hands of the governor of Galilee. Both the historical and the traditional narratives record two identical facts: that Jesus was betrayed by one of his followers, and that he was abandoned and shamefully deserted by the rest of them. It might have been reasonably concluded that in such a situation he came by his end, though he was in fact permitted by Josephus to return to his followers.
The great point of our inquiry now is the moral character of Jesus; and whether we look to the historical spiritual Jesus, whom we have described as pre-eminently meek, who suffered at the hands of man the direst torture, without one word of denunciation except the denunciation of impending destruction, or whether we look to the meek side of the Jesus whose loving mercy is depicted in the pages of the Greek Evangelists, what we maintain is that it is impossible to accept the characteristics quoted above as the characteristics of either of these, and that therefore the narrative of the four Greek writers describes two persons. No one person, if sane, could by any possibility exhibit such contradictory features. Look, for instance, at the language he uses on the eve of his betrayal. The followers of Jesus were insufficiently armed, and being believed by him to have, some of them money, some a scrip, some a garment to dispose of, they were urged by him, if reduced to the last extremity, to sell their garment and buy a sword. This could not be for ornament; for that purpose garments are generally more useful; it could only be that a sword would, in the circumstances then imminent, be of greater help.
A more ingenious speech could not be conceived to induce a body of men to act in the way desired; for the exhortation reminds them of the speaker's power to provide for them in the future since he had done so in the past, and that they were only asked to dispose of those things they had received in his service. Now it is plain that this procedure on the part of the traditional Jesus is altogether inconsistent and quite irreconcilable with the character ascribed, to the meek, long-suffering Jesus of Josephus. Indeed, it is impossible that he who is described in the Gospels as a tender-hearted, loving teacher, should ever be charged as a malefactor and arraigned as a criminal, had it not been for the tradition concerning his namesake who believed in the sword.
Here is the charge which was brought against him (John 18: 29, 30 :) —"Pilate then went out unto them, and said, ‘What accusation bring ye against this man?’ They answered and said unto him, ‘If he were not a malefactor we would not have delivered him up unto thee.’" (KJV)
Is it conceivable that such a charge as this should be made against the meek Jesus, whose only offence was warning his countrymen of coming evil, and who is uniformly represented in the evangelical tradition as giving life and not destroying it?
On, the other hand, this is the very charge which history records was brought against his contemporary, the friend of John and Simon, and who was just such a man as to earn the title malefactor here given him by John, being he who, according to Luke, urged his followers to sell their garments, and procure swords. These deeds are not historically charged against the meek Jesus, who was more sinned against than sinning; they were the actions of another Jesus, who was in reality an evil-doer. It is the four Greek writers who charge the meek, merciful Jesus with these crimes, and not the historian of the period.
Josephus tells us that there were two men of the same name, both notable and living at the same time, and that a time when portents and prodigies of a striking kind amazed the Judean world; that the one was inspired with the belief that he was a prophet, and was, in fact, instinct with a certain "divine fury;" that he preached a gospel of woe through the length and breadth of the land; and though they tried and again tried to torture him into silence, they could not persuade him to desist. The other Jesus, Josephus tells us, though of kindred pretensions, was a man of a stern, uncompromising spirit, and sought other ends, who was forsaken by all his followers after having been betrayed by one of them. Now it is the characters of these two men as described by Josephus which we think gave rise to the conception of the traditional Jesus, while the capital mistake committed by the Evangelists in their chronology is, we think, due to a further confusion in the Greek mind of this Jesus with the prophet who suffered under Pontius Pilate.
Thus the traditional narratives are at fault in antedating the time of the events and in combining two historical characters into one being, while the theological instinct has at the same time resolved the one back into two by representing the being in question as partaker at once of the divine and the human natures. Thus there are two theoretical barriers to the reception of this Christ; the one moral, due to incompatibility of character, and the other physical, due to incompatibility of nature.
At this point it is for the reader to say whether the man described by Luke as a man of the sword, and arraigned in John as a malefactor, so unlike in these and others respects to the meek martyr of Jerusalem, is, as the Gospels allege, God Almighty Himself, or only a fanatical echo of the physical-force reformer of Galilee.
Is not this last the original side of the character of him who is described as having fishermen for followers, and as betrayed into the hands of the rulers, and his woe- struck contemporary the original of the other side of the same being, who is represented as meek and lowly of heart?
Anyhow, all this inquiry proves that most of the traditional statements have a basis in prior historical relations, and this fact is an evidence of the desire of the writers to compose a narrative of actual occurrences. Josephus supplies further details of the character of this Galilean Jesus, who, we see throughout, is quite innocent of the meekness ascribed to his notable namesake. We cannot, of course, transcribe these details here, and must content ourselves with referring the reader to Josephus himself. One extract more, however, we shall give from his pages bearing on this notable character.
Josephus says in sec. 27 of his Autobiography: - "Now when all Galilee was filled with this rumor, that their country was about to be betrayed by me to the Romans, and when all men were exasperated against me, and ready to bring me to punishment, the inhabitants of Taricheae did also themselves suppose that what the young men said was true, and persuaded my guards and armed men to leave me when I was asleep, and to come presently to the hippodrome, in order there to take counsel against me their commander. And when they had prevailed with them, and they were gotten together, they found there a great company assembled already, who all joined in one clamor, to bring the man who was so wicked to them as to betray them, to his due punishment; and it was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, who principally set them on. He was ruler in Tiberias, a wicked man, and naturally disposed to make disturbances in matters of consequence; a seditious person he was indeed, and an innovator beyond everybody else. He then took the laws of Moses into his hands, and came into the midst of the people, and said, ‘my fellow-citizens, if you are not disposed to hate Josephus on your own account, have regard however to these laws of your country, which your commander-in-chief is going to betray; hate him therefore on both these accounts, and bring the man who hath acted thus insolently to his deserved punishment.”
This language is consistent with what the traditional Jesus says, so much in opposition to his other utterances, as to the imperishability of the law of Moses, and is quite in keeping with the harsh demand he made on one to follow him who pled to be allowed to go first and bury his father. So that we see, however much inconsistencies abound in the traditional reports, there is reason to believe that, if we except the philosophy they were adduced to support, none of the features of these accounts were the work of invention, but had all their basis in some fact or other, recorded or unrecorded, in the history of the period. There was no intention to deceive, only at worst a weak credulity at work in hearts prostrate before the allegation of a preternatural epiphany, itself the product of a wild enthusiasm that sprung up on the eve of a great dissolution.