Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition
Page 23
Notice that the plural “those” is also used to describe the number of men who go to the tomb. This fact is also essential, since the Mary described at the final encounter sees two angels. Further, the Gospel of Luke points out that those men “did not see” Jesus, which correlates with the fact that the angels Mary sees are inside the tomb, while Mary meets Jesus outside the tomb. The author discloses these facts by including the seemingly irrelevant detail that Mary has to look into the tomb to see the angels.
Therefore, when the four versions of the visits to Jesus’ tomb are combined into one sequence, they create a version that is perfectly logical. As I interpret this combined story, Mary Magdalene, in the “dark” (the actual word in the Gospel of John can also mean “religious ignorance”), does not find Jesus’ tomb but Lazarus’. The “angels” who meet the visitors to the tomb are actually Simon Peter and John in the first three encounters, and are the men described as visitors to the tomb in the Gospel of Luke. Jesus does not rise from the dead; his disciples simply delude themselves into believing that he does.
Notice that this interpretation makes coherent all the strange details of the “race” between “Simon Peter” and the other disciple, as well as their odd behavior while at the tomb. For example, it explains not only why the other disciple does not go into the tomb when he first arrives but also why he looks into the tomb from the outside. These details enable him to be alone outside the tomb when the first group arrives and also to be “aware” that Jesus has risen, so he is then able to pass this news along to the group who encounters him. It also explains why the Mary in the Gospel of John sees the angels on the inside of the tomb and encounters Jesus on the outside. All the seemingly irrelevant details included in the four versions of the visits to the tomb are necessary to construct the perfectly logical sequence of events in the combined story.
This fact—that, of the five versions, only the combined version is logical—is another example of what I see as the “truth” of the New Testament. That is, its authors did not intend the alert reader to take it seriously. Individuals who think logically and have a sense of humor were intended, at least eventually, to understand its comic level.
The meaning of the combined story is clear. For example, what if in our day and age four groups claim to have seen “angels” near a cave on the same day and in the following sequence?
The first group encounters one “angel” outside the cave.
The next group encounters one “angel” inside the cave.
Then the third group encounters two “angels” inside the cave.
Finally, an individual encounters two “angels” inside the cave.
Though few would believe such stories, if it were then discovered that other individuals had been either inside or outside the cave at the same time, and in the same number and sequence, then such stories of seeing “angels” would be universally understood to be products of overwrought imaginations.
To me, the only possible meaning of the combined story is that the disciples mistake one another for “angels” and thus pass Mary Magdalene’s error on to one another until they all believe that Jesus has risen from the dead. Now, the only question is whether the combined story was intentionally created. I believe that the authors of the New Testament left us a way to answer this.
If the combined story was intentionally created, it was the product of a single individual or group. The four Gospels, on the other hand, present themselves as the products of four separate authors. The probability that four authors could accidentally record the statements of fact necessary to create the combined story can actually be computed. The resulting probability demonstrates that the combined story was not the accidental product of four separate authors but was deliberately created.
At first glance, the perfect fit that exists in the combined story may not seem extraordinary. After all, it is made up of only four elements—these being the position of the sun; visitors looking or not looking into the tomb; either zero, one, or two characters being present; and the encounter occurring either inside or outside the tomb. However, when one determines the probability of any particular sequence, the length of the sequence can be more important than the unusualness of the individual events within it.
I believe that the authors of the New Testament were aware of this principle, and use it here as a way of communicating to the educated reader that the combined story is the correct interpretation of the story of Jesus’ resurrection. The truth is communicated using a mathematical rather than a verbal language, so that it could not be seen by the ignorant.
If Titus had designed the New Testament to satirically disclose that he was “Jesus,” he would have wished there to be some way to confirm that its satirical dimension was correct. With their crude system of numbers, the Romans could not do any higher math; however, they were great gamblers and knew odds well. So the authors made sure that the odds of the combined story being accidentally created were both able to be calculated and too small for an astute person to take seriously.
To clarify how the odds on the combined story can be calculated, I have edited the four Gospels’ versions of the first visit to Jesus’ tomb into the irreverently comic combined version, in which all the elements in the four stories fit together without contradiction.
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.”
Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.112
So the author of John has created a moment when there is a single man outside the tomb. In Matthew there is also such a moment, which occurs second in the temporal sequence, when the sun is said to be “dawning.”
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it.
Matt. 28:1-2
The Greek word, seismos, translated in the passage above as “earthquake,” is more commonly used to describe simply a shaking or a commotion.113 Within the satiric interpretation it simply describes the shaking of the ground caused by the running of the disciples.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, “Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
“He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
“And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.”
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
Matt. 28:3-8
The author then states that Simon Peter, not Peter, arrived at the tomb.
Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie.
John 20:6-7
Notice that the “other disciple” does not go into the tomb but that Simon Peter does, creating a period when there is a single visitor, Simon Peter, in the tomb.
And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
John 20:7
Very early in the morning, on the first da
y of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.
Mark 16:2
This group of women encounters a single man (Simon Peter) who tells them that Jesus has arisen.
And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
And he saith unto them, “Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
“But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.”
Mark 16:5–7
Thus, a single individual in the tomb tells the women to “tell his disciples” and, specifically, to tell “Peter,” that Jesus “goeth before you” in Galilee. Notice that this is yet another binary chance. If the “angel” had instructed the women to tell “Simon Peter” and not “Peter” then the logical linkage between the version in John and the other three would be destroyed.
In other words, within the combined version of the story this individual can only be “Simon Peter” and it would be, thus, contradictory for him to instruct the disciples to give a message to himself. However, it is not contradictory for Simon Peter to give a message to “Peter”, if “Simon Peter” and “Peter” are different individuals. The author provides two methods by which a logical reader can learn that “Simon Peter” and “Peter” are separate characters.
One method the author uses to reveal that “Peter” and “Simon Peter” are separate individuals is having the version of the visit to the tomb given in Mark, where the single “young man” asks the group of women to tell “Peter” that Jesus has “risen,” occur later in the day than the version of the visit to the tomb given in John, in which the first person to go into the tomb is “Simon Peter.” These facts create the following logical progression:
In the Gospel of John, which begins earliest, “Simon Peter” is the first person to enter the tomb.
The “young man” in the tomb tells Mary Magdalene to tell “Peter” that Jesus has risen, showing that “Peter” has not been in the tomb yet. Therefore, “Simon Peter” cannot be “Peter.”
The logical reader will identify the single individual, whom the group encounters in the tomb, as the only person who has been described as being in the tomb alone, that is, “Simon Peter.”
Moreover, in the Gospel of Luke, the character named “Peter” does not go into the tomb when he first comes to it but only looks into it, whereas in the Gospel of John, the character named “Simon Peter” enters the tomb when he first comes to it. The reader has a choice: either accept a physical impossibility, that an individual both went in and did not go in the tomb, or recognize that “Peter” and “Simon Peter” are separate characters. As I show below, this is the same method that the author uses to reveal that “Mary Magdalene” is the name of more than one character.
Continuing with the analysis of the combined version, the group that came to anoint Jesus having left, the “other disciple” then enters the tomb. At this point there are two men inside the tomb.
Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulcher, and he saw, and believed.
John 20:8
Another group of women appears and encounters two men inside the tomb, “Simon Peter” and the “other disciple.”
Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.
And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, “Why seek ye the living among the dead?”
Luke 24:1–5
Jesus’ followers, who visit the empty tomb, are thus deluded and then spread to the other disciples the misunderstanding that Jesus has risen from the dead. Notice how the author sets up the idea that the visitors to the tomb are irrational by his descriptions of their emotions and behaviors. They are shown as running wildly, “affrighted,” “weeping,” “perplexed,” “trembling,” and “bow[ing] down their faces to the earth.” Within the Flavian court, these would have been seen as the behaviors and emotions of the messianic Jews, who, from their perspective, were religious madmen who had deluded themselves into believing that the dead could rise.
Having finished greeting the three sets of visitors, Simon Peter and John then return home.
Then the disciples went away again to their homes.
John 20:10
At this point in the combined story the pattern reverses itself. Instead of characters within the other Gospels encountering “angels” from the Gospel of John, a character from the Gospel of John encounters “angels” who are from the Gospel of Luke.
But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb;
and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet.
They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”
Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing …
John 20:11–14
The “angels” (plural) Mary encounters above are “logically” the men (plural), described in Luke, who go to the tomb after being told that Jesus has risen by a group of women who had seen “angels.” Notice below that the men do not see Jesus, matching the fact that the “angels” Mary encounters are inside the tomb and her encounter with Jesus is outside the tomb.
“Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning
“and did not find his body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive.
“Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see.”
Luke 24:22–24
It is thus possible to create a combined story out of the four different versions of the first visit to Jesus’ tomb that has a different meaning than the individual versions and is without contradiction. None of the statements of fact that make up its story line contradict any other within the combined story. The combined story is logical, whereas the different versions are contradictory. The authors’ ingeniousness deserves note. Their puzzle is constructed so that readers who are illogical will believe that the passages indicate that Jesus rose from the dead, while those who are logical will see the passages as a comedy of errors.
Furthermore, the authors have deliberately made it possible to compute the probability that the perfect fit between the sequence of events within the Gospel of John and the other three Gospels has occurred by chance. This can be done by use of what I refer to as the “chain of multiplication,” which the Romans, being avid gamblers, would have known to use in calculating their odds. The chain of multiplication is, in fact, the method used, for example, to ensure that slot machines are profitable for their owners. If a slot machine pays a 1,000-to-one payoff for displaying five cherries in a row, the likelihood of this occurring must be less than 1,000 to one for the machine to be profitable. To create the impression that five sequential cherries is “likely,” such machines will often have the desired symbol occur in individual slots relatively often, say once in every three pulls. However, one slot will display the symbol rarely, say once in 100 pulls. Thus, the chain of multiplication to determine such a machine’s chances of displaying five cherries would be 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 100, which would give the gambler one chance in 9,100 of hitting the 1,000-to-one jackpot.
If four distinct authors have each created different versions of the first visit to the tomb, then each author has accidentally recorded different facts. For example, in the Gosp
el of John the author records that the first visit occurs in the dark. Whereas in Luke the author records that the sun has risen before Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb. However, for the combined story to have its perfect logical and temporal sequence, the author of the Gospel of John can only select the position of the sun that indicates that his version begins earliest, which he has only one chance in four of doing. Likewise, each of the authors of the other three Gospels has only one chance in four of accidentally describing his “first visit” as occurring at the next point within the sequence. Thus, the odds of four distinct authors accidentally describing their versions beginning with John’s, then Matthew’s, followed by Mark’s, and finally Luke’s are 4 X 4 X 4 X 4, or one chance in 256.
Notice that this sequence is not accounted for by the four authors all reflecting a shared tradition, since the sequence is created by the differences among the four versions, not their similarities. A shared tradition would, if anything, make it less likely that the four authors would each give a different time for the first visit. A shared tradition is likewise implausible as an explanation for the logical relationship between any of the elements within the sequence, since the logical fit is created by the different facts that the four Gospels use to describe the first visit. Combining their contradictory statements of fact creates the perfect logical fit between the events in the Gospel of John and the other three Gospels; therefore, their relationship cannot be explained away by suggesting that the four different authors might have shared a common source.