"SAINT PETER" IS JUST FICTION. : Utah IMC

there never was a "saint peter".

i discovered the historical simon peterS.
follow me down.

There is no hard historical evidence that the christian character known as "saint peter" ever even existed at all.
certainly the one depicted in the new testament book acts of the apostles,an anti-jewish jew who prefers to hang out with gentiles even to the the point of fraternizing with roman centurion cornelius who belonged to a legion of jew-butcherers in roman palestine of the first century AD,could hardly have survived in the radical zealot antiroman milieu that was palestine at the time,let alone have founded a succesful coommunity or church there and led it.

having said this,foundational myth-making such as is the case with regime religions never invents stories from scratch - if the mythmakers fabricated everything,nobody would relate to their stories or believe them.
so the constant pattern that the new testament forgers show us is taking bits and pieces of underlying historical truth out of their original context and refit evrything together in a new mix with a good dose of overdubbed lies.
this is the case for the historical jesuses:
http://portland.indymedia,org/en/2005/09/325351.shtml
and that was the case for saint peter too.
the forgers took a very real historical figure,Simon bar Ya'ir,a revolutionary zealot who fought rome to the bitter end in the 66-73 war,and transmogrified him into a pious antisemitic preacher who would become the first pope and founder of the church.
the forgers then proceeded to add to the inverted simon a bit of another simon,simon bar cleopas,probably a brother and successor of the real jesus,they shook both up in the shaker added a bit of mythology and came up with saint peter.
here's how.

the contemporary source we have to turn to for simon bar ya'ir is a turncoat jewish historian named flavius joseph,an asskisser and traitor who first fought the romans at the outbreak of the 66-73 AD jewish war and then betrayed his people and switched sides,in the process sucking up so much and so well to soon-to-become emperors vespasian and titus that they adopted him into their flavia family and gave him a mansion and a lifetime check in rome.

the only reason i've read such a fuckin' asshole's book Jewish War or Bellum Judaicum is because historians agree that his human faults notwithstanding he more or less told the basic facts in a reliable way.

so flavius joseph in his book jewish war IV.9.3.503 says that a Simon bar Ya'ir,also transliterated from the aramaic as bar ghiora,which strangely becomes bar ghiona elsewhere in the same book leaving us wondering as to just what precisely his last name had been,was a revolutionary militant of the sort joseph dubs "brigands" or "thieves",lestaì in greek which is the language the book was handed down in to us although the original version was in aramaic that is the hebrew-like language spoken in palestine in the first century AD.

today a neocon like joseph would call a simon "terrorist" if you know what i mean.

anyway this simon bar ya'ir which means son of Jair or Jairus soon became one of the chief leaders of the antiroman jewish army.

joseph says simon was not the smartest guy,but quite strong of body and audacious.

now doesn't it already sound familiar from the new testament presentation of simon peter?
gospels and acts have it that simon was the son of a jona or john,which is the same as our variant form simon bar ghiona in flavius joseph.

but i incline towards the form simon bar ya'ir or Jairus because it's more frequent in flavius' book and because,oh coincidence,every time gospel simon peter pops up in the first part of the narrative that is in the galilean scenario he is closely associated with a Jairus chief of the Capernaum synagogue and whose 12-year old daughter Jesus resurrects form the dead.
And when Jesus performs this gospel miracle,he takes only 3 disciples with him into jair's house - and one of them is simon.
possibly because simon was jair's son?
elsewhere in the gospels jesus heals simon's mother-in-law,always at Capernaum city on the lake of Tiberias also called sea of galilee or lake gennezareth at the time.
and this episode comes in close proximity with the jair-daughter episode.

so again although the gospels don't say so explicitly,gospel simon is always associated to a jair in capernaum where both live.

so maybe the reason why the gospels call simon peter son of john instead of son of jair is because it was dangerous to admit that simon was jair's son.

that's because elsewhere in the jewish war book flavius joseph tells us that simon bar ya'ir in the course of the first phases of the 66-73 antiroman war ends up in the fortress masada on the dead sea,at the time already occupied by another group of zealot-like militants led by a...Lazarus,or Eleazar...bar Jair!
with whom flavius' simon soon familiarizes especially since lazarus probably was his brother although flavius does not say so.
whatever and however this may be,eleazar or lazarus bar jair of masada fame was,says flavius,a descendant of the illustrious judas the galilean,founder of the zealot movement around the time of the census of cyrenius or quirinus roman official who had the task to identify all taxation-liable jews.
this was the time of the alleged birth of jesus in luke's gospel.
the year being 6 or 7 AD.
now who the hell were these zealots?
the best presentation i'm aware of is in robert eisenman's book
james the brother of jesus
vol 1
penguin 1997.
the zealots says joseph were a group of hardened antiroman antiromantaxation proindependence fighters who wouldn't call any man lord because they already had one and an only lord that is god.
so judas the galilean and his men rebelled against the romans and got duly massacred in the process.
not all of them though if some 60 years later at the outbreak of the roman/jewish war of 66-73,one of judas the galilean's sons Menachem was leader of resistance in jerusalem and a relative of his our Lazarus or Eleazar bar Jair was leader at Masada.
Zealot comes from the greek word zeal which means passion,zeal,ardor for something - in this case for the Law,the torah or mosaic law not the roman one.the aramaic for zealot is qanna'im that is cananean and guess what in one of the gospel apostle lists there crops up a simon...the cananean!!! in obvious dissimulation with an alleged provenance from the city of cana...

so simon bar ya'ir dwells in masada for a while with lazarus bar ya'ir.

and by now you will have thought i'm sure of gospel lazarus whom jesus also resurrects.
there are connections here too with flavius' lazarus because he before committing suicide in masada in 73 at the close of the war gives a last speech reported or invented by flavius in which he speaks of the immortality of the soul which is not exactly the resurrection of the dead but akin to it.

anyway there's more to that,and it takes us back to our simon-lazarus connection.
in john's gospel - the only one to recount the resurrection of lazarus - the miracle happens in bethania not far from the mount of olives near jerusalem.

guess what in flavius' jewish war another (the same?) lazarus dies near bethany that is at herodion a fortress just south of jerusalem.
this eleazar who dies at herodion doesn't have a last name,and he does not rise from the dead,but he is "one of simon bar jair's trusted men" just like gospel's lazarus is a guy whom "jesus" loved a lot.

anyway in flavius this cannot be the same lazarus as masada'a because the herodion episode happens before the masada suicide,but it's interesting to have two "lazarus" deaths in flavius one of which happens close to john's gospel's location of bethany for lazarus' resurrection.

and again i remind the reader that the general modus operandi of the new testament fabricators is to take bits and pieces of history out of context (they did the same with bible quotes) and remix them together in inverted meaning.

so they may have remixed the 2 flavius'-lazarus episodes after arbitrarily meshing them together.

interestingly,although john is the sole gospel to feature the lazarus-resurrection miracle,matthew also features jesus in john's bethany,at the home of...SIMON the leper!

so again you see the mixed salad of flavius' simon and lazarus bar jair becoming gospel lore - not about antiroman jihadists though anymore but about proroman miracle wizard "jesus" who'll tell you to give caesar's what's caesar's - just to stay in the salad metaphor.

anyway by now maybe you will be a bit confused so let's recap on evrything thus far.

flavius joseph's jewish war's simon son of jair is suspiciously similar to new testament simon peter that is "saint peter":

1.simon=simon
2.simon bar jair is not the smartest guy in the world and neither is simon peter who's always messin'things up in the NT drowning sinking falling asleep at the wrong time you name it.
3.simon bar jair though is a tough strongman and audacious and so is NT simon peter,who goes around armed with a sword with which he chops off the high priest's servant' ear the night of the arrest of jesus.
he also scolds ananias and his wife sapphira so violently in the acts of the apostles for not duly bringing him all of their money but only half that the pair dies on the spot.
it is true that for dissimulation's sake gospel peter is also at times pictured as the very opposite,a creep who denies jesus 3 times in a row and is afraid of sinking etc.
4.we shall see more paralles below of simon bar jair's and simon peter's violent behavior.
5.both flavius' and gospel simon are closely associated to a jairus and to a lazarus son of jairus.
6.both simons are married,and travel around with women - probably meaning wife,12-year old sister and mother-in-law of gospel lore.
paul in one of his letters even whines about Kephas that is peter having the right to have women with him so why can't he?
7.flavius' simon bar ya'ir according to flavius' jewish war II.22.2.652 "not only looted the houses of the rich,but mishandled them physically too" - see NT peter again chopping off ears and shouting the rich ananias and sapphira into a heart attack for not delivering to him all their wealth.
8.one of the apostles in gospel apostle lists is called simon the zealot! and another is called simon the cananean that is zealot in aramaic wheras zealot is greek for the same thing that is ardent for the law - the torah not the roman law.
if you still don't think saint peter is the same as our simon bar ya'ir...i have 2 twin towers to sell you.

Eisenman avers that simon the zealot is simon bar cleopas about whom see further below that is the brother of jesus but i disagree,i think jesus' family was bar sabba or saffa not bar ya'ir although the 2 clans may well have had strong ties especially during the war see my jesus essay also at:
http://rogueimc.org/en/2005/09/5341.shtml

Yes Flavius says that simon bar ya'ir was from jerash in the decapolis so what the hell would he have been doing in capernaum,galilee in the gospels?
but author luigi cascioli in his funniest and most instructive book
la favola di cristo
2nd ed 2005
obtainable from http://www.luigicascioli.it
avers - without supporting documentation though - that jerash didn't exist at the time.more dissimulation?was simon bar ya'ir originally from his probable ancestor judas the galilean's hometown of gamala on lake tiberias in the golan? see my jerash/gamala essay at:
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/18605/index.php
well maybe he moved in the course of his life like most of us do.if he was a descendant of zealot-founder judas the galilee,who was from gamala near the same lake of tiberias,then maybe his family had moved from gamala to jerash to escape the romans or something.
or the NT may be lying/dissimulating about jairus and simon peter in capernaum just like the NT forgers have been proven to have lied about nazareth as the hometown of jesus,see my jesus essay quoted above.

anyway,whether or not simon son of jairus was a brother of lazarus son of jairus at masada or not,he bears too much resemblance to NT simon peter for it to just be random coincidence.

and we've only just started,so be patient folks and bear with me.
have a cigarette break,cuppa tea or coffee,wine a beer or whatever.
refreshed?
let's move on,come on.

haven't i told you that there wasn't just one real peter just like there wasn't just one real jesus?
in my jesus essay i showed how gospel jesus' betrayal and resurrection stories are modeled after simon bar jair's attempted betrayal during the siege of jerusalem on the part of - of all people - a...Jude!!!
with 10 co-conspirators at that,matching the apostle number in the gospels almost exactly!
and flavius' simon bar ya'ir again demonstrates all the violence he's capable of and known for by not only slaying jude and his ten coplotters after finding out about the plot just like gospel "jesus" finds out about judas' betrayal in advance - no,simon bar ya'ir also mutilates the bodies just like in gospel lore peter chops off the high priest servant's ear - and then bar jair proceeds to cast the body parts down the walls of jerusalem for the romans to see and deterrance of future traitors/deserters.
pretty tough - well deserving of the surname peter which in greek and latin means rock and translates the aramaic kephas.
author luigi cascioli avers that simon was called rock because of his muscular complexion,which is possible in the context.
cascioli also avers that the gospels' last name for peter - bar jona,son of jona or john,-although cascioli says the name jona doesn't even exist as such in aramaic - is just a dissimulating pun for the aramaic barjona,one word,meaning fugitive,which our flavius' simon was indeed for a short while at the end of the roman siege of jerusalem,when he took refuge in an underground gallery carved in the rock under the temple.
acts of the apostles peter was also a fugitive for a short while after the jewish priestly establishment had arrested him again in jerusalem but an angel had freed him from his bonds and miraculously led him out of the prison.

anyway after 3 days more or less flavius' simon bar jair comes out of the tunnel and back...to earth,donning his messiah-style white priestly tunics and kingly purple cloak in the traditon of maccabean priestly kingship,and delivers himself to the romans.
which sounds supiciously like the resurrection of "jesus" from the jerusalem newly-carved rocky tomb.

again you cannot fail but notice how New Testament jesus and peter are the result of the conflation into one of bits and pieces of underlying truth,but in a skewed distorted inverted and mythologized manner.
such is the constant collage-like modus operandi of the NT forgers.

anyway,ready to go to rome?

act 2 - simon bar jair in rome.
just like saint peter who according to extrabiblical christian lore came to rome with paul founded the roman curch and in the process was crucified upside down.

except flavius' simon comes to rome in chains after delivering himself up to the romans and being transferred to the palestinian town of caesarea maritima first,where titus was waiting to sail home with the plunder and 700 muscular prisoners to be paraded in the triumphal party - among whom our poor jihadist patriot simon bar jair.
incidentally,acts portrays peter in caesarea too albeit in a totally different context as usual.

so,ever been to rome yourself?
well christian lore has it that saint peter was kept prisoner alongside paul,47 other martyrs and the 2 prison guards he'd converted to christianity in the so called tullianum,an unsavory dungeon in the forum at the foot of capitol hill - the roman capitol not its DC successor.
the tullianum is still visible today.
it's a heck of a scary undergound cave which the romans used not so much as a prison but as a death row jail and death chamber at the same time.
upon entering the site and before descending the steps to the tullianum,in the space called carcer mamertinum turn right and read the inscription mentioning all the famous death-row prisoners who got executed in the underlying tullianum,famous enemy chiefs vanquished by rome such as Jugurtha Vercingetorix...and our unfortunate simon bar ghiora in 70 AD - other authors say 71.
now go down the steps and enter the tullianum.
there's a well,which according to christian lore is a miraculous spring produced by peter for the purpose of baptizing his 2 prison guards,but for modern archeology it's a natural spring that had been there from time immemorial.
fountain and jail.remember:fountain and jail.
now the inscription on the plaque on the wall upstairs says that simon bar ghiora was beheaded.
but we know from christian tradition that peter was crucified upside down - for which there is not the slightest historical evidence as usual of course,but then again haven't i told you and showed you how foundational myth-making wouldn't have a chance of credibility if it didn't build on stories people may somehow relate to,albeit by skewing distorting twisting and ultimately turning the truth into lie?
it is not historically probable that a non-roman citizen would be beheaded,because beheading was the quick way out rome reserved to its citizens as a...special privilege.
non-citizens were first tortured and then strangled in there - we know this for sure from sources for king Jugurtha for instance.
anyway what is the underlying truth beneath the peter-crucifiction story?
now get out of the mamertinum-tullianum horror den and turn right - after a few feet turn right again and you'll see a stairway to hell.
well actually it leads up to the top of the capitol hill.the ancient romans called it scalae gemoniae,gemoniae stairs.
and according to ancient sources the corpses of the executed in the tullianum were...hanged in public along the scalae gemoniae both for deterrence and because the romans loved live gore as you may have heard re the sort of entertainment offered in the colosseum.
i wouldn't be surprised if the bodies were hanged or even crucified upside down - and that's how simon bar ghiora aka saint peter ended up in all likelihood.
another inspiration for the peter-upside-down story of christian lore certainly also comes again from our flavius joseph book Jewish War where he says that during the siege of jerusalem the romans must have gotten pretty bored so they took to crucifying prisoners..."IN VARIOUS POSITIONS"!...

oh but i already hear the rome buffs among you object "no,saint peter was crucified upside down at san pietro in montorio on the janiculum hill!".

sorry folks - he wasn't.
san pietro in montorio is a pretty church on the janiculum hill in rome.in its closter there's the so-called tempietto del bramante,a renaissance microchurch built on top on what is believed to be the very location of saint peter's martyrdom.

except i haven't been able so far to find not even one attestation/documentation of that story before the year 1500 when the tempietto was dedicated.of course the lore must have been around for some time before 1500 if popes decided to have a tempietto built there by top renaissance architect bramante.but precisely when the san pietro in montorio localization for saint' peter's crucifiction story started i do not know.Certainly it's a late myth - certainly later than the year 800 AD,when the itinerarium einsiedlense was composed according to experts.
no don't get desperate.it's easy! bear with me just a little longer.

what i have indeed found is a document dating from 700 years earlier than the tempietto inscription,the so-called itinerarium einsiedlense,a guidebook of rome for pilgrims whose original is kept in the swiss monastery of einsiedeln whence the name.
and re the locale of san pietro in montorio,church that didn't exist yet in the year 800 AD,- though a first church on the site would be built soon sfter in the IX century,but i do not know if it related to the crucifiction story or the other saint peter connection i'm about to cite -the itinerarium says:
"fountain of saint peter,where his jail was".

remember? the fountain.the jail.all over again.
what the hell is going on here?
1.the notice in the itinerarium einsiedlense completely gainsays the crucifiction legend for san pietro in montorio,instead attesting to the memory of peter's jail cum fountain there.
2.the tullianum was a death chamber not a normal jail,so it would have made no sense to bring saint peter to the tullianum and then crucify him elsewhere.
3.it makes instead complete sense that the real "saint peter",that is our simon bar jair upon arriving in rome with his fellow 700 "martyrs" which would never have fit into the small tullianum anyway would have been brought first to a safe isolated prison on the edge of town then,awaiting the parade whose final stage was the execution of the enemy chief in the tullianum.
4.the san pietro in montorio location is perfect for a maximum-security prison facility of the time,because it was on the edge of rome in 71 AD,and on top of a steep hill surrounded by deep crevices on 3 sides as you will easily still see when you visit - there are marvellous views of rome from up there.
i am not aware that archeologists have ever dug under san pietro in montorio,but they definitely should.
it's absolutely impossible rome wouldn't have powerful watchtowers and garrisons at such a strategic spot then and now.
as for the fountain,nearby there still is the marvellous fontana paola,built by the popes but originally a roman aqueduct called aqua alsietina that is from the bracciano lake north of town.
no wonder there were fountains in the area.

And from san pietro in montorio it's not far down to the beginning of the triumphalis pompa of 71 - the triumphal parade commemorated in the arch of titus in the forum,which according to flavius joseph started in the campus martius near the tiber,near today's campo dei fiori square,and then proceeded winding its macabre way thru the circus maximus to reach the via sacra in the forum and finally the capitol,where vespasian the massmurderer and his 2 bloodthirsty sons titus the destroyer of jerusalem and domitian waited for the news of simon bar jair's tullianum execution,upon which they sacrificed to juppiter and called it a day.
Before reaching the tullianum,simon, says joseph, had been dragged like an animal with a rope around his neck and beaten - and probably spat at - by the gleeful savage and barbaric roman public -: sounds familiar from the story of gospel jesus mishandled after his trial?

The crucifiction story for saint peter also may have been boosted by the real crucifiction,documented in ancient sources mentioned by eisenman,of another simon,simon bar clopas or cleopas or cleophas,who according to eisenman was jesus' brother and successor as head of the jerusalem church.
but this other piece of the new testament collage was crucified reportedly in palestine under trajan at the age of 120,not in rome.
the old age,exaggeration or not,of simon bar clopas when he died accounts for peter always being pictured as old on the cross in the history of painting.whereas flavius' simon bar jair is a young man...in his thirties just like the "jesus" of christian lore.

so again you see what a lying mosaic the new testament really is - but the single pieces of the puzzle were real.only again taken out of the original context and given a completely inverted,proroman meek antijewish pacifist meaning.

makes me think of that classic george harrison song -
"i don't know how
you were perverted
someone inverted you":

But now i have alerted you to the diversion folks.
And if you still keep blind-believing in jesus and saint peter after all this,i'll sell you another little foundational myth about 19 alleged kamikazes who never hijacked any bloody alleged boeing at all on 911...but that's another story.

Some interesting insights into biblical history, however, it would help maintain the credibility of the article if the author refrained from Message Board type of slang, using swear words and avoided uneccessarily slagging other writers.

Maybe you would recieve more credibility from your readers if you learned to use capital letters, and backed off on the hostile, vulgar, profane use of the human language. God, and his own, personally chosen earthly mouthpiece, St. Peter, really don't like that! : )

Peace and prayers!

Maybe you would recieve more credibility from your readers if you learned to use capital letters....

You do realize that you're asking for far too much from the Self Anointed intellectual class, don't you?

"the contemporary source we have to turn to for simon bar ya'ir is a turncoat jewish historian named flavius joseph,an asskisser and traitor who first fought the romans at the outbreak of the 66-73 AD jewish war and then betrayed his people and switched sides,in the process sucking up so much and so well to soon-to-become emperors vespasian and titus that they adopted him into their flavia family and gave him a mansion and a lifetime check in rome."
If you say we can trust the "Eyewitness" account of this so called historian as you have just described him: then who am I to say that he's not to be believed?
After all, I am sure that we do have all the government records of all the people who lived in the region of Israel during those years,( as well as their complete family geneology, date of birth, educational backgrounds, ect, ect...) which makes myths and inacuracies easy to debunk. RIght?
So with all the plethora of historical documentation of all the individuals mentioned in the bible, why did it take so long for someone like yourself to figure all this out?
Could it be that you are perhaps the single most intelligent man to ever live on this planet?

Let's get something straight - the only King Shit around here is me. You got that? It's all about me me me me me!

My name is nessie, but that doesn't mean it's not true, and if you don't believe me, then you're too stupid to know what I'm saying anyway.

no St. Peter? hmm....well what do you know? you're a mormon..

Enjoyed your work! There is supposition, and then there is fact. From what few real facts that might have existed you seem to have captured most of them!

If you really want to challenge the accepted view of history and religion see;

http://www.revisedhistory.org/

Regards,

Ron

I have written two books which tell a new tale concerning Jesus of Nazareth. The first book, "Judas the Galilean", explores the similarities between Jesus and another first-century rabbi, Judas the Galilean. Both men cleansed the Temple in Jerusalem, were involved in a Barabbas-style prisoner release, were proclaimed Messiah in Galilee, and both founded new philosophies. The Jewish historian, Josephus, wrote extensively about the life of Judas the Galilean but did not mention the cause or date of Judas' death. On the other hand, Josephus did not describe one action of Jesus but did tell of Jesus' crucifixion at the hands of Pilate. Many scholars doubt the reliability of the "Jesus" passage in Josephus. I believe this "Jesus" passage was a substitution for the death of Judas the Galilean. Judas the Galilean founded the fourth philosophy (later known as the Zealots), and was always on the mind of Josephus. Josephus recorded the crucifixions of two of Judas' sons (45-47 AD), the stoning of another son, Menahem, who marched on Jerusalem ala Jesus in 66 AD, and the suicide of a grandson, Eleazar, at Masada in 73 AD. It is incomprehensible that Josephus would have forgotten to tell of Judas the Galilean's death. It is my contention that Jesus was simply a title for Judas the Galilean, and that the early church tried to distance Jesus from his true past.

The second book, "New Testament Lies", covers much of the same material as "Judas the Galilean", with one exception: "New Testament Lies" incorporates the Slavonic Josephus. Scholars have ignored the Slavonic Josephus for two reasons. First, a comprehensive comparison of the Slavonic version of the "War" with the Greek version was not published until 2003. Second, many items within the Slavonic "War" are not consistent with Traditional Christianity. The Slavonic Josephus includes "the star of Bethlehem" infant narrative but dates the story at 25 BC, a full generation before the date as calculated in Matthew. There are three passages about John the Baptist which go against the conventional Gospel accounts. First, John came baptizing at the river Jordan in 6 AD, immediately before the tax revolt against Rome, led by Judas the Galilean. (Note that Jesus was crucified for his refusal to pay taxes to Rome.) This John also preached the same philosophy as practiced by Judas. In short, according to the Slavonic Josephus, John the Baptist was a disciple of Judas the Galilean. The two other passages concerning John place John's death at 36 AD, several years after the Gospel death of Jesus. This is confirmed by Josephus' "Antiquities". Obviously, the Gospel timeline of John the Baptist was shifted in order to hide John's connection with Judas the Galilean. The Slavonic Josephus also disproves the stories of Judas Iscariot and Barabbas. According to this source, the High Priests paid Pilate 30 talents to arrest Jesus, and it was Jesus who was released to the crowd, not Barabbas (Judas the Galilean was released to the Jewish crowd in 4 BC by the son of Herod the Great, Archelaus.)

This is a very complicated subject, in that all of Christianity is turned upside down. With this earlier timeline for Jesus, it is now possible to compare the early church to the writings of Josephus. The result is unsettling. The hero of Traditional Christianity, Paul, becomes the traitor as depicted by Josephus and other early writings. The introduction of Judas Iscariot by the Gospel writers was just an attempt to shift blame from Paul to a Jewish Apostle. This whole cover-up is detailed in both books. What is at stake? The future of Christianity is at stake.

The following material should be noted:

1. The birth narrative of Matthew concerning the star of Bethlehem and Herod is corroborated by the Slavonic Josephus. However, the Slavonic Josephus places the event in the early years of Herod, around 25 BC. This earlier date would be consistent with the birth of Judas the Galilean and would be in line with the birth date of James, the brother of Jesus.

2. In 4 BC, Judas and his co-teacher, Matthias, cleansed the Temple, tearing down Herod's symbol of fealty to Rome, the Golden Eagle. This was at the beginning of Judas' career. In the book of John, Jesus cleansed the Temple at the start of his ministry. In the other three Gospels, Jesus cleansed the Temple after entering Jerusalem as Messiah, at the end of his career. Although Josephus does not tell of Judas' death, he does relate the story of Judas' son, Menahem, who entered Jerusalem as Messiah and cleansed the Temple as a Messianic act. This no doubt was copied from the acts of his father, Judas.

3. Judas was captured by Herod after the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing. There he languished in prison until Herod died. To win support from the Jewish crowd, Herod's son, Archelaus, agreed to lower taxes and to release prisoners. The release of Judas was the inspiration for the Barabbas story. Barabbas and Judas were both revolutionaries who had created an uprising in Jerusalem. The Barabbas release could not have happened in the time of Pilate, as the Romans did not release revolutionaries; they crucified them. In addition, the Slavonic Josephus states that Jesus was released, not Barabbas.

4. Judas was crowned Messiah in Galilee (4-2 BC), just as the Gospels portray the ministry of Jesus. This ministry of Jesus was telescoped into 1-3 years by the Gospel writers. The ministry of Judas lasted from 4 BC to 19 AD or 22 years. This same telescoping of careers also applies to John the Baptist. The Gospels give John a ministry of 1-3 years while the Slavonic Josephus dates John from 6-36 AD, or 30 years.

5. According to the Slavonic Josephus, in 6 AD, a wild preacher came baptizing in the River Jordan. In description, this was none other than John the Baptist. This earlier version of John preached the philosophy of Judas (a nationalism based upon the rule of God), and also promised the coming of a great leader. Immediately after this, Josephus wrote about the tax revolt of Judas the Galilean. This tax revolt was the launching pad for Judas' nationwide campaign against Rome. The Gospel of Luke places John's ministry at 29 AD, before the public ministry of Jesus. (It should be noted that refusal to pay taxes to Rome was the main charge against Jesus.)

6. Judas the Galilean founded a new philosophy, termed the Fourth Philosophy by Josephus. (The other three philosophies were the Sadducees, the Pharisees and the Essenes.) Jesus was credited with the founding of Christianity. However, the Christianity of today was a product of Paul's teachings and not the Jewish preacher, Jesus.

7. Although it cannot be proved with certainty, Judas the Galilean was probably crucified by the Roman authorities. His political career would have earned him this punishment. Judas' two sons, James and Simon, were crucified by the Romans a generation later. When Jesus was crucified, he was placed between two robbers, a term used by Josephus to describe members of Judas the Galilean's Fourth Philosophy. In reality, Jesus was simply crucified along with two or more of his captured followers.

8. The history of the early church can be compared to the movement of Judas from 19-67 AD. One example will suffice. According to Josephus, a Simon was preaching exclusion of all non-Jews from the Temple. He was escorted to Caesarea by Roman guards to answer to Agrippa in 43 AD. The writer of Acts took this historical event and placed it into Chapter 10. Simon Peter was escorted to Caesarea to meet Cornelius, a Roman Centurion. There, Simon Peter decided that Cornelius, a Gentile, should be included into the Christian fold. The author of Acts turned an exclusionary teaching into an act of inclusion.

This list can be expanded, but the above should show that the relationship between Judas the Galilean and his movement was incredibly similar to Jesus and the early church. This relationship has never been adequately explored before. It would be very interesting to hear Christian church leaders and leading scholars answer the above "coincidences." If nothing else, this could spur more research into these many similarities.

If you have any questions concerning this hypothesis, please do not hesitate to e-mail me. Thank you for your time.

Daniel T. Unterbrink
unterbrink2@aol.com