HOME PAGE | PROEMIUM TO THE STUDY | PROFILE AND CONTACTS |
Languages |
 |
 |
A grave famine convinced Yeshùa to proclaim himself King of the Jews
Preamble
Acts of the Apostles:
"And one of the Prophets whose name was Àgabus, seized by the Spirit, stood up and predicted that a severe and universal famine was going to happen. This in fact happened while Claudius was Emperor" (Acts 11,28).
As of the fourth century, period in which the "Acts of the Apostles" were drawn up in their respective biblical codexes (which still exist today, like the "Codex Sinaiticus" and the "Codex Vaticanus"), the historians of the Christians who had come to power, having read the first century scrolls containing the works of Josephus and preserved in the imperial library, were aware of the serious famine which had hit Judea between 34 and 36 A.D., during the Prinicipate of Tiberius not under Claudius. The gravity of this misfortune exasperated the Jews so much that in 35 A.D., during the "Feast of Tabernacles" (late summer early autumn), the people of Jerusalem, led by the Zealots, rose up against the Roman Prefect "Pontius Pilate" (who in this moment was in Caesarea Maritima) and the Sanhedrin of the Holy City.The latter was a religious institution made up of seventy-three people, and which for the Jews was the most authoritative in interpreting the Mosaic Law; its members came mainly from the wealthy pro-Roman priestly class and was presided over by a High Priest of the Temple.
The rebellion took place at the same time as the war declared against Rome in 34 A.D. by the supreme King of the Parthians Artabanus III*, who belonged to the Arcaside Dynasty. The destruction of the Roman military garrison stationed in Jerusalem, allowed the Zealots to place a descendant of the Hasmoneans on the throne which had belonged to David: "John, son of Judas the Galilean", who was acclaimed by the people as "Yeshùa" (Saviour) and King of the Jews".
This change in political power, which John and the powerful King of the Parthians had already agreed upon, entailed the investiture as King and "High Priest" of the Temple through the ancestral rite of anointing. Just like his ancestor Antigonus II, son of Aristobulus who, in 40 B.C., after allying himself with the King of the Parthians, Barzaphranes, also managed to become "King of the Jews" and High Priest. This is how, during the 35 A.D. "Feast of Tabernacles" in Jerusalem, an absolute monarch, a Doctor of the Law (Rabbi), ascended the throne and whose name was "John".
* In modern times historians have identified the King of the Parties in "Artabano II", however, having to deal with previous studies of other authors, by convention we will continue to quote it as "Artabano III".
In the eleventh century, the scribes of "Codex Ambrosianus F 128", when copying the text of "Jewish Antiquities", modified the chronicles of the Israelite people described in the third book of this work where the Jewish historian, Josephus, a thousand years earlier, had reported the events of his era. The aim of the scribes was to mislead researchers as to the precise dating of the grave famine which afflicted the Jews and brought about a popular revolt resulting in the acclamation of John as "King of the Jews" and "Saviour" (Yeshùa); until the Romans, after after defeating Artabanus, crucified him at Easter in 36 A.D. This event was idealized over a century later by the Jewish sect of the Essenic Jews through the creation of a new myth: the "Messiah, Universal Saviour and Son of God", with power to raise the dead and give them eternal life. A Messiah, "Son of God," which the Essenes, over a century before, had prophesied as "Universal Dominator" in the Dead Sea Scrolls, "fragment 4Q 246":
"He will be called the Son of God: they will call him the Son of the Most High. His kingdom will be an eternal dominion ... God's people will rise up and will all stand with the sword".
A Messiah whose traces still remain in the Gospels. So Luca:
"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David ... so what will be born will be called the holy Son of God" (Lk 1,32-35).
So Matthew: "I did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword" (Mt 10.34).
This is how the falsifiers dealt with the historical reference, drawn on by Josephus as an example of the Jewish priests' total respect of fasting (provided for in the Mosaic Law), even in cases of extreme difficulty.
"Jewish Antiquities", Book III 320: "This legislation arriving from God ensured that this hero (Moses) be raised to a level higher than that of his nature; in addition, but just before our current war, under Roman Emperor Claudius, and our High Priest Ismael,* was our region was undergoing a famine of such a gravity that an assaron was worth four drachmas, and when for the the feast of the Azymes no fewer than seventy cori of flour were transported, the equivalent of thirty-one Sicilian medimni and forty-one attics, none of the priests dared to eat even a loaf, despite the great famine devastating the earth, for they feared the law and the wrath with which God always punishes crimes, even if hidden. We therefore should not be surprised by what took place at the time, having verified that to this day the writings left by Moses are so authoritative that even our enemies recognize that our constitution was promulgated by God through him and his merits".
* Here are the oversights carried out by the exegetes of God whwn they modified the passage we have just read.
1° - This "Ismael" lacks the patronymic "son of (bar) Fabi": an omission which Josephus never committed when, in first citation, the historian mentioned each High Priest of the Temple. Now let's verify the specific passages contained in "Antiquities" (XX 179 and foll.), which attests the investiture, decided by King Agrippa II, of the young "Ismael son of Fabi" as High Priest - under Nero, not under Claudius - from 56 to 61 A.D., date in which he was replaced by the High Priest "Joseph called Kabi" son of Simon. During Ismael's five years as High Priest it has been verified that no famine took place.
2° - On the contray, during the feast mentioned in "Acts of the Apostles" and which took place under Claudius in 47 A.D. (cfr. Tacitus, Annales XI 4) in the faraway province of Judea, the High Priest of the Temple was not "Ismael" but "Joseph son of Kamei". The latter was appointed by "Herod brother of Agrippa" to replace "Simon called Kanthera, son of Boethus" (Ant. XX 16).
The following year, under the newly-elected Procurator "Ventidius Cumanus" (in office as of 48 A.D.), a new High Priest was appointed and his name was "Ananias son of Nebedee" who in 52 A.D. was arrested by the Legate of Syria "Ummidius Durmius Quadratus" and never re-elected by the Romans.
It is important to remember that the scribes of God made a blunder when they had Saint Paul argue with "Ananias" in 59 A.D. (see second study), describing it as unacceptable "Chief of the Jewish People" and High Priest of the Temple.
The chronotaxis of the High Priests of the Temple is completed by the accounts of their detailed actions, accurately described by the Jewish historian Josephus who was also an eyewitness and scribe of the Sanhedrin of "Ismael son of Fabi" in Jerusalem.
Being it impossible for Josephus to have described in two contrasting events the same High Priest "Ismael" who presided over the Sanhedrin to which they both belonged, it is evident that the quotation highlighted above in yellowis a spurious interpolation inserted, for the first time, in "Jewish Antiquites" by the editors of "Codex Ambrosianus F 128" so as to as to make the dating of the famine questionable. In this passage, in addition to making the High Priest "Ismael" a contemporary of Emperor Claudius, something which is impossible, the eleventh century Christian calligraphers also make the mistake (allowing us to discover the blunder) of quoting the same phrase from "Acts of the Apostles": "the grave famine which devasted the earth". We will soon understand why the copyists forced the tragic famine to spread throughout the world in additon to Judea.
At this point it is sufficient to eliminate the extemporaneous interpolation highlighted in yellow in order to verify that the abstinence from food, contained in the Mosaic Law, was respected (as documented by Josephus) by all the priests even during the lethal famine which hit the Jewish people, reaching its peak in 35 and 36 A.D., then under the principality of Emperor Tiberius.
Having said this, now let's analyze the famine in-depth so as to demonstrate the cause which drove Christian historians to falsify the dating during the fifth and sixth centuries, first in "Acts of the Apostles", then in "Jewish Antiquities" and, inevitably, in "Historia Ecclesiastica" by Eusebius of Caesarea.
Part one: The famine
Through a reading of the "Acts of the Apostles" we have also proven the inexistence of Saint Paul and the other evangelical protagonists, all of whom possessed supernatural powers given to them by the "Holy Spirit"; the description of these powers is so puerile and silly that the learned ecclesiastical exegetes, starting from the Pope himself, are ashamed to report these details to believers in order to prevent these "actor saints" ... and they themselves, from being ridiculed.
Nonetheless, one must admit that it would have been fascinating to meet men in the street with long beards looking up towards the sky, with a priestly appearance and "tongues of fire [which] came to rest on the head of each of them ... They were all filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2,3/4) which accompanied them in their solemn advance ...
We are about to discover another of these extraordinary characters invented by Luke: the Prophet Àgabus. He, thanks to the prophecy revealed by the Holy Spirit, convinced Saul Paul to go to Judea to help the "brothers" who are starving due to the famine.
A serious famine was underway and the starving people "oppressed by the taxes owed to Rome" - incited by the Zealot prophets' vehement preaching in favour of the re-establishment of the Law of Yahweh - rebelled against the Roman garrison stationed in the Holy City and massacred its soldiers "... and shattered all that was left of the political systems" (Bellum VII chap. 8). This mention made by the historian refers to a distant memorial family of the subversive feats of the Zealot John, which brought about the suppression of the "political systems" founded by the Roman government and by the opportunistic priests of the Jewish Sanhedrin in collusion with imperial power.
The influential Jewish Rabbi of Gàmala John (called the Nazirean)* - eldest son of the Doctor of Law Judas the Galilean (who according to the historian was "of great power") and descendant of the Hasmonean royal line on his mother's side - a few days prior to the the Feast of the Tabernacles in 35 A.D (early autumn), became leader of the revolt and managed to have himself proclaimed King of the Jews and High Priest of the Temple, thereby re-establishing the practice of his monarchic Hasmonean ancestors who held both sacred positions; and as a result he wore the "Sacred Garment" and upon his head placed a royal diadem.
* As explained in more detail in the previous study, we can identify him through the analysis of a distant memory of relatives mentioned by Josephus at the end of the "Jewish War", Book VII chap. 8.
For the Jews of that time John was the "Jeshùa" (Saviour) of the Holy Land, and after being consecrated as "Messiah" (Christ) throught the ritual of the anointment described by the Ancestral Law, he founded a new Kingdom without slaves in which "only God was Owner", therby fulfilling the precepts of the "fourth philosophy, a novelty unknown until this time in line with all the opinions of the Phariseans apart from the fact that they (the Zealots) have a burning love for freedom" (Ant. XVIII 23), philosophy whose precepts were created by his father Judas of Gamala, called the Galilean.
But the "Saviour" did not last long. At the late autumn of 35 A.D., Vitellius managed to undermine Artabanus and forced him to flee. After subjugating Armenia once again to Roman rule, the General Commander pushed forward and crossed the Euphrates River, where "he had arrived thanks to the strength of his Roman legions and his allies", and invaded the Kingdom of the Parthians; he "considered it sufficient to have made a show of Roman force to the Great Parthian Dignitaries, and returned to Antioch in Syria with his legions" (Tacitus, Ann. VI 37).
When the Roman leader arrived at the garrison (between the end of 35 and the beginning of 36 A.D.), he was informed of the events which had taken place in Judea, and after having given a rest to his army in the winter quarters, led his legions on a march to retake Jerusalem and execute the monarch who had illegitimately proclaimed himself King of the Jews.
In the meantime he had already sent Prefect Marcellus to Caesarea Maritima to remove Pontius Pilate from officea and prepare all the military logistics for the Roman army prior to its arrival.
The imperial Legate considered Prefect Pontius Pilate, who was of equestrian order, responible for not being able to prevent the revolt and for losing Jerusalem. Pilate should have strengthened the Roman military reserve contingent before all Jewish feasts, in compliance with precise written military orders.
A few days before Easter in 36 A.D., Lucius Vitellius - after laying seige and sending an ultimatum to the Holy City, unable to put forth further resistance without supplies of food (the help given by Helen could not last long and feed an entire population) - obtained the surrender of Jerusalem and was handed over the illegitimate King.
The Sanhedrin, which was convened by the High Priest of the Temple John in a moment of dramatic crisis, decreed the end of the King's brief reign. This is how Caifa, at the meeting of the elders, explained Vitellius's order for the surrender of Jerusalem:
"You fail to see that it is to your advantage that one man should die for the people, rather than that the whole nation should perish" (Jh 11,50).
This testimony, which has survived the ecclesiastical censorships which the "Gospel of John" has undergone, is alone enough to demonstrate that the danger for the entire Jewish nation was not constituted by simple military reserves recluted by a Prefect identified in the Gospels as Pontius Pilate. Only a Consul "Legatus Augusti pro Praetore" like Lucius Vitellius - Roman Chief of Staff stationed in Antioch (Syria) and assigned by Tiberius full powers over the military contingent in the Eastern theatre - could have destroyed a possible revolt of the Jews united in a "Holy Alliance".
For John, the "Saviour" King of the Jews, there was no way out and he accepted his destiny: the crucifixion. He was arrested and brought to Fortress Antonia in chains and kept watch on. The Holy Gown was brought to the Temple and put under the protection of High Priest Jonathan, who had just been chosen by Vitellius and son of the conservative Sadducean High Priest Ananus ("Anne" of the Gospels); while the Tribune (Commander of the Roman garrison) reacquired guardianship over the Diadema (Sacred Crown), which remained in the fortress until being placed on the head of the King of the Jews Herod Agrippa the Great by order of Claudius Caesar.
The following day, after a long, useless interrogation carried out under torture to make him confess the names of his accomplices and the details regarding the revolutionary organization, John the Nazirean son of Judas was crucified in public as a warning to the Jews and to highlight their subjugation to the Roman Empire.
John was the head of the Pharisean Zealots sect, founded by his father and the most popular among Jews for its philosophical principles and goals. And the Zealots, just like the Essenes, were devoted to martyrdom in order to "save" the land promised by God to the people of Israel. Being Zealot leaders, the execution of the sons of Judas the Galilean had to be public as a warning to the Jews. Nine years after John, in 45 A.D., his brother Judas - called "Uriel", the mythological avenging angel (in Greek "Theudas": Light of God) - was also executed.
Even if the latter was executed in public by Cuspius Fadus far from Jerusalem, his head was brought to the Holy City and shown in public: another significant warning. James and Simon's turn came in 47 A.D.; they were crucified in public after being captured and put on trial by Procurator Tiberius Julius Alexander.
The fifth and youngest son of Judas the Galilean met a different death. In 66 A.D. Joseph, called Menahem*, head of the Zealots, after destroying the Roman garrison in Jerusalem, was killed by the Guardians of the Temple who answered to the priestly aristocracy which he had overthrown.
*The identification of Menahem as Joseph, the fourth brother of John "Yeshùa, will be as simple as Columbus's egg.
Zealots, Essenes, Pharisees, Sadduceans and all the people, kept behind a cordon guarded by Roman militiamen, powerlessly and in silence witnessed the death of John, "who was tortured to death" through a long agony (Bellum VII chap. 8,272); they were well-aware of the meaning of such a death ... while Roman legions were camped outside Jerusalem. According to Roman Law, the person's name and the motivation for capital punishment had to be written on a sign which was then hung around the victim's neck.
Second part
For ideological reasons the future Christian iconography represented the suffering of its God stuck up on a cross, stylized and yet unreal due to the complex carpentry characterized by elaborate "crux" joints and footrests; the presence of the latter demonstrates that to this day we continue to not know how the Romans pierced the feet of the crucified ... if they truly pierced them. A torture ritualized in an unreal manner, which to this day continues to depict the condemned Jesus along an imaginary "via crucis", despite there being no evidence of this in classical literature.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca (3 B.C. - 65 A.D.) - a famous philosopher and contemporary of Jesus - in "De Consolatione Ad Marciam" (XX 3) states that crosses (or gallows) for the torturing of the condemned were made in different ways. Like Seneca, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Maccius Plautus and Plinius the Elder also mention the crucifixions, yet they make no reference to the "via crucis": a ridiculous complication which would have forced security to move the cordon of militiamen surrounding the condemned and follow them. A macabre scene of copious bloodshed symbolizing the universal Eucharistic sacrifice had to be paraded ... but the letters "I N R I" could not hide the "Sacred Heart of Jesus", so the upper part of the "crux" was deliberately extended as if it were a "playbill" in order to accommodate the most famous manifesto of indoctrinated humanity.
Yahweh had abandoned John to his destiny and for the Jews this meant that he was not the Messiah chosen by Him. According to the Jewish prophets, the intervention of Yahweh would have lined up the heavenly powers and His wrath and would have annihilated the supremacy of the "Kittim" pagan invaders through a great massacre; this would have allowed the Chosen people to set up a "Kingdom which would have lasted for eternity" (Scrolls of Qumran: fragment 4Q 246).
The true Messiah would have been a "Dominator of the World"; His advent was known for certain by the Prophets, thus driving the Jews towards a war against Rome, as explained by Josephus in "The Jewish War" (Bellum VI 317).
But the Jewish historian could not forsee that after his death that a new Messianic doctrine would have been founded, a doctrine deriving from the "fourth philosophy, a novelty unknown until this time" and which would have transformed the Jewish "Messiah" ("Christos" in Greek) from the "Dominator of the World" into a "Saviour of the World": Jesus (Yeshùa).
In the previous study we have demonstrated that "John" was on the cross and not under the cross, as instead is reported in the Gospel, where he is surrounded by three "Marys", mothers of sons who had Jewish names which were the same as those of the brothers of Christ; these "Marys" were invented to cause confusion and prevent believers from understanding the connection between the sons of the only true Mary and the sons of Judas the Galilean through the matching of the identical appellatives. But, so as to render debatable the correlation between mothers and sons and the same names of the brothers of Christ, the evangelical scribes added another "Mary" without children under the cross: Mary Magdalene. However this naive artifice was proven wrong in the eighth study, in which "Mary without children", according to the Gospels, is said to live in Bethania, where the evangelist makes a series of blunders involving "Mary Magdalene" which turn her into a fairy-tale just like the resurrection of her brother "Lazarus".
In reality, before and during the crucifixion, no one was allowed to go near the condemned, especially not the relatives. Eschatological exigencies forced the Christian scribes responsible for this Evangelical representation to create a scene which was incompatible with historical reality:
"Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother (Mary) and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas (sic! two sisters with the same name), and Mary of Magdala. Seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near her, Jesus said to his mother, «Woman, this is your son»" (Jh 19,25-26).
The poorly specified "disciple who Jesus loved" (who the Catholic Church identifies as "John son of Mary, mother of Christ") would have also been crucified if he had dared go near someone condemned to death, publicly and atrociously tortured as an exemplary warning to the Jews to discourage them from imitating his deeds. According to Roman Law John the Nazirean could only be nailed on the cross: the armed militiamen made sure that everyone else kept their distance.
"Then all the disciples deserted him (Jesus) and ran away" (Mt 26,56).
In the Gospel according to Matthew the Law of Rome is respected (at least with regard to this detail). The brothers of Jesus and the most well-known Zealots knew that they could have been identified and reported by informers of the conservative party, which was against the social changes that had abolished the privileges it had acquired before the brief reign of "Jeshùa". Social advantages and wealth fought against by the ideology of the "fourth philosophy, a novelty unknown until this time", created by the father of Johannes bar Yehudas in 6 A.D.
John was the name of one of the sons of Mary ("mother of Jesus"); he was listed along with his brothers, as mentioned in many handwritten codexes of the Gospel of Matthew listed in the first study "The Apostles did not exist".
There was no trial whatsoever to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused person, there was no need to do so: he had been caught in the act. John, a subject of the Empire, took advantage of the war against the Parthians to sit himself through the use of force on the throne of a territory belonging to Tiberius: a rebel without Roman citizenship who became an enemy of Rome and, as such, was eliminated. This is why.
Having considered it necessary to define the wartime context culminating in the accords signed by Vitellius and Artabanus on the Euphrates, the source of Josephus informs us that, in the summer of 36, Aretas IV defeated the army of Herod Antipas. A war won by Aretas and made possible thanks to the momentary comeback of Artabanus (already mentioned above) which occurred in the exact same year (Ann. VI 44), and as a result:
“Herod sent a report of these events to Tiberius, who, offended by the arrogance of Aretas, ordered Vitellius to march on him, send him back to him in chains, if captured alive, and, if dead, send him back his head. These were the instructions that Tiberius sent to the Governor of Syria” (Ant. XVIII 115).
Meanwhile Viltellius, who had just returned with his legions from the first mission aimed at resubjugating a Jerusalem that had risen up against the Empire (over six hundred kilometers south of Antioch), decided to have his troops rest in the winter quarters. It was only in early February of 37 A.D. that he once again began to march the three hundred km necessary to reach the point he had already got to know in 35. It was in this same locality on the Euphrates that, around the end of February of 37 A.D., a peace treaty was signed between Vitellius, Lieutenant of Tiberius, and Artabanus III.
As a preliminary act, the protocol saw the Great Parthian King – in the presence of his army and of the legions deployed by Vitellius – forced to honour Tiberius and the Roman emblems. After the inspection of the forces and the due reverence towards the valour of the defeated, the two Great men and their respective escorts entered a pavilion set upon a bridge, where Artabanus then signed the state protocol using the imperial seal and swore to renounce any right over Armenia and, finally, so as to guarantee the respect of his obligations, handed over his son Darius, sent to Tiberius as a hostage …
“But Herod (Antipas), desiring to be the first to inform Emperor Tiberius of the news that the hostages had been received, wrote a complete and accurate report, then sent couriers with letters to exactly inform him, and to the Governor left nothing new to communicate to the Emperor. Therefore, when he received the dispatch from Vitellius, the Emperor (Tiberius) informed him that he was already aware of the news, having already been informed by Herod. Vitellius was furious and for him the offense was greater than it truly was; yet he stifled his scorn until having taken revenge. And this occurred when Gaius (Caligula) was Emperor of the Romans.” (Ant. XVIII 104-105).
Herod Antipas acted hastily and informed, prior to Vitellius, Tiberius of the agreements accepted by Artabanus. Unfortunately the Tetrarch had to pay a very high price, as anticipated by Josephus: “eternal exile to Lyons, city in Gaul” (Ant. XVIII 252). It is to be observed, however, that the announcement of the agreement between Rome and Parthia, and the subsequent order to execute Aretas given to Vitellius by Tiberius, was also communicated to the Nabatean King through the same source of law (the majority of the Jews had been in favour of the success of Artabanus, who by this time had failed). Aretas understood that, after the submission of Artabanus, his only means of salvation was to flee to Petra and abandon the territories taken from Antipas (under Roman protectorate). It was the last chance that Aretas IV had to avoid the death penalty hanging over his head (see above Ant. XVIII 114).
After peace was established between the two Empires in late February of 37, Vitellius had two legions remain but sent back to Antioch the bulk of the army answering to the Legion Generals, whose responsibility it was to guard Darius, son of Artabanus, and send him to Tiberius in Rome by trireme.
Afterwards – in compliance with the Emperor’s directives aimed at executing Aretas IV for having appropriating himself of the district of Gabala and the Fortress Machaerus – Vitellius, accompanied by Herod Antipas, at the head of two legions moved towards Damascus, from there proceeded towards Ptolemais, then went up to the coast to Galilee, where he entered the Great Plain on his way to Jerusalem, where for the second time (after the celebration of 36), Passover was once again being celebrated (in 37 A.D.) … but the Roman leader had not been invited to admire the miracles that the Apostles, according to their “Acts” (5,12/16), were carrying out under and inexistent “Portico of Solomon”. Vitellius remained in the Holy City a few days as Antipas’s guest:
“Vitellius along with the Tetrarch Herod went to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to God during the traditional feast that the Jews were celebrating. Upon his arrival, he was greeted with special warmth by the Jewish multitude. He stayed here for three days … on the fourth he was delivered a letter announcing to him the death of Tiberius, and he (Vitellius) led the people to swear allegiance to Gaius” (Ant. XVIII 124).
The imperial Legate was obliged to follow the same custom with regard to Artabanus, since Vitellius had signed a peace treaty in name of Tiberius; as a result the Roman leader, after returning to the General Headquarters, forced the King of the Parthians to go to Antioch and honour Gaius and the imperial emblems, and reconfirm, at the same time, the validity of the agreements in respect to the new Princeps.
Meanwhile in Jerusalem, during the Passover * celebrations, Viltellius, having been informed of the death of Tiberius and no longer bound to the orders of the late Emperor, and aware of the difficulties encountered by his predecessor, Emilius Scaurus, prevented his legions from venturing into the arid desert as far as Petra.
* It is to be observed that the death of Tiberius took place on 16 March of 37 A.D. Considering that the letter containing the official announcement of his passing was sent by sea, from Rome to Caesarea Maritima, and then brought to Jerusalem by couriers on horses; and being that the delivery required about seven days, it can be affirmed that the Passover celebrations took place after 20 March of 37. Therefore forty days passed between the encounter on the Euphrates and Vitellius’s arrival in Jerusalem; while the previous year his journey had required fifty days.
In fact, the Roman leader – who went to Jerusalem to reconquer the city which had risen up against Roman domination – in early February of 36, at the head of his legions, from Antioch moved towards Ptolemais all the way to Caesarea Maritima, where the Prefect Marcellus reported to him on the situation of the Holy City strangled by a famine. The Prefect gave Vitellius the chariots having the equipment needed to build the siegeworks, then the leader advanced to Jerusalem during the Passover of 36. After besieging the city, he imposed his conditions upon the city and obtained its immediate surrender, by this time exhausted by the famine and no longer capable of resisting. Thus, as his first act, Vitellius crucified the self-styled “King of the Jews”, then freed the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the payment of taxes on agricultural products and led the people to swear allegiance to Tiberius.
Due to its historical importance, it is to be highlighted that L. Vitellius – during his first journey to Jerusalem, in 36 A.D., which also took place during Passover – he was neither accompanied nor hosted by Herod Antipas. This can be explained by the fact that the Tetrarch could not have been present in the Holy City because he would have been executed by the Zealots as a result of the Jewish rebellion which occurred in late summer early autumn (Feast of Tabernacles) of 35 A.D. There was therefore the risk of also involving in the revolt of the people of Jerusalem, starved by the famine, the Galileans, connoted by Josephus as being among “the most fanatical of nationalists”; thus Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, was forced by the wartime events to remain in Tiberias and prevent the imminent rebellion from spreading into his territory. This is the reason why Antipas had John the Baptist, the most fervent orator in Galilee, eliminated in late 35 early 36 A.D.:
“… When others crowded around him (John the Baptist) because his sermons had arrived at the highest of levels, Herod (Antipas) became alarmed. An eloquence, which had great effect upon men, could bring about any sort of sedition … Herod thus decided that it would have been much better to attack in advance and free himself of him before his actions could bring about an uprising. As a result of Herod’s suspicions he (John the Baptist) was brought to Machareus and here was put to death. But the verdict of the Jews was that the destruction of Herod’s army was John the Baptist’s vendetta, meaning that it was a good decision on God’s part to inflict such a calamity upon Herod” (Ant. XVIII 118).
The “destruction of Herod Antipas’s army” was caused by his defeat in a battle against his former father-in-law, battle which, as we have just seen above (Tacitus: Annales VI 44), took place in the summer of 36 A.D., when the Arabs became allies of Artabanus.
Now let’s go back to 37 A.D.
Upon the conclusion of his victorious mission against the Parthians, Vitellius maintained his role of Chief of Staff along with all the powers connected to this appointment; he remained in the General Headquarters in Antioch until 39 A.D., or rather … until Gaius Caligula was mentally sane.
After drawing the historical information from direct sources, handed down by the protagonists themselves and the eyewitness to the narrated events, at this point we have resolved the investigation concerning the war carried out by Artabanus against Rome; this conflict culminated in the defeat of the Parthian Empire thanks to the Roman leader Lucius Vitellius, when the powerful imperial Legate obliged the “King of Kings” to sign on the Euphrates, in late February of 37 A.D., a peace treaty that was advantageous to the Roman Empire.
Having specified this, the fact we have proven wrong the study written by Albino Garzetti forces us to demonstrate the other mistakes he made …
The positive opinion regarding the work of L. Vitellius is confirmed in “Roman History” by Cassius Dio, historian who could not have been aware of events unknown to the imperial Legate himself and, consequently, to the “Acts of the Senate”. Least of all, the famous third century chronicler carried out inevitable research on the accounts of Josephus Flavius, and proof of this is that even Cassius Dio, just like the other imperial historians, knew nothing about King Izates, supporter of the rebirth of Artabanus, nor was the historian aware of the “historical void” as he lacked knowledge of the chronicles written in the annales of the “Acts of the Sanhedrin” of Jerusalem.
“Lucius Vitellius was renowned for his governorship in Syria, during which, among other things, he obtained brilliant success, and had intimidated Artabanus, who was organizing an invasion of Syria … he had reached Artabanus when the latter was in the vicinity of the Euphrates, and after convincing him to negotiate had obliged him to sacrifice the images of Augustus and Gaius, imposing upon him an agreement advantageous to the Romans and taking his sons as hostages” (Op. cit. LIX 27,2/3).
Cassius Dio’s passage is invoked by Albino Garzetti as “witness” par excellence to the encounter on the Euphrates which took place under Gaius Caesar. According to the chronology of “Roman History” this passage dates back to 40 A.D., yet it is belied by the more direct, detailed sources prior to this date, those deriving from the legal source, which we urge be reread above in “Ant. XVIII 104-105”.
As can be verified, anyone can understand that Emperor Tiberius – having been informed through letters (by both Herod Antipas and Lucius Vitellius) of the treaty already stipulated by his Legate with Artabanus – just after receiving the missives, replied personally to both Antipas and Vitellius with other letters whose content, as we have read above, was reported by Josephus, thanks to the “Antipas → Sanhedrin” source.
Unchallengeable evidence which proves that he was still alive even after the event on the Euphrates arranged by the Great men.
Therefore, being that Tiberius died on 16 March of 37 A.D., this demonstrates that the meeting on the on the Euphrates between Vitellius and Artabanus took place prior to this date, within late February of 37 A.D., as we have demonstrated above: fact that is beyond dispute, understood by all … apart from those historians who have undergone a mystical crisis, as is the case for Albino Garzetti and his worthy “surrogates”.
Preamble
Acts of the Apostles:
"And one of the Prophets whose name was Àgabus, seized by the Spirit, stood up and predicted that a severe and universal famine was going to happen. This in fact happened while Claudius was Emperor" (Acts 11,28).
As of the fourth century, period in which the "Acts of the Apostles" were drawn up in their respective biblical codexes (which still exist today, like the "Codex Sinaiticus" and the "Codex Vaticanus"), the historians of the Christians who had come to power, having read the first century scrolls containing the works of Josephus and preserved in the imperial library, were aware of the serious famine which had hit Judea between 34 and 36 A.D., during the Prinicipate of Tiberius not under Claudius. The gravity of this misfortune exasperated the Jews so much that in 35 A.D., during the "Feast of Tabernacles" (late summer early autumn), the people of Jerusalem, led by the Zealots, rose up against the Roman Prefect "Pontius Pilate" (who in this moment was in Caesarea Maritima) and the Sanhedrin of the Holy City.The latter was a religious institution made up of seventy-three people, and which for the Jews was the most authoritative in interpreting the Mosaic Law; its members came mainly from the wealthy pro-Roman priestly class and was presided over by a High Priest of the Temple.
The rebellion took place at the same time as the war declared against Rome in 34 A.D. by the supreme King of the Parthians Artabanus III*, who belonged to the Arcaside Dynasty. The destruction of the Roman military garrison stationed in Jerusalem, allowed the Zealots to place a descendant of the Hasmoneans on the throne which had belonged to David: "John, son of Judas the Galilean", who was acclaimed by the people as "Yeshùa" (Saviour) and King of the Jews".
This change in political power, which John and the powerful King of the Parthians had already agreed upon, entailed the investiture as King and "High Priest" of the Temple through the ancestral rite of anointing. Just like his ancestor Antigonus II, son of Aristobulus who, in 40 B.C., after allying himself with the King of the Parthians, Barzaphranes, also managed to become "King of the Jews" and High Priest. This is how, during the 35 A.D. "Feast of Tabernacles" in Jerusalem, an absolute monarch, a Doctor of the Law (Rabbi), ascended the throne and whose name was "John".
* In modern times historians have identified the King of the Parties in "Artabano II", however, having to deal with previous studies of other authors, by convention we will continue to quote it as "Artabano III".
In the eleventh century, the scribes of "Codex Ambrosianus F 128", when copying the text of "Jewish Antiquities", modified the chronicles of the Israelite people described in the third book of this work where the Jewish historian, Josephus, a thousand years earlier, had reported the events of his era. The aim of the scribes was to mislead researchers as to the precise dating of the grave famine which afflicted the Jews and brought about a popular revolt resulting in the acclamation of John as "King of the Jews" and "Saviour" (Yeshùa); until the Romans, after after defeating Artabanus, crucified him at Easter in 36 A.D. This event was idealized over a century later by the Jewish sect of the Essenic Jews through the creation of a new myth: the "Messiah, Universal Saviour and Son of God", with power to raise the dead and give them eternal life. A Messiah, "Son of God," which the Essenes, over a century before, had prophesied as "Universal Dominator" in the Dead Sea Scrolls, "fragment 4Q 246":
"He will be called the Son of God: they will call him the Son of the Most High. His kingdom will be an eternal dominion ... God's people will rise up and will all stand with the sword".
A Messiah whose traces still remain in the Gospels. So Luca:
"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David ... so what will be born will be called the holy Son of God" (Lk 1,32-35).
So Matthew: "I did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword" (Mt 10.34).
This is how the falsifiers dealt with the historical reference, drawn on by Josephus as an example of the Jewish priests' total respect of fasting (provided for in the Mosaic Law), even in cases of extreme difficulty.
"Jewish Antiquities", Book III 320: "This legislation arriving from God ensured that this hero (Moses) be raised to a level higher than that of his nature; in addition, but just before our current war, under Roman Emperor Claudius, and our High Priest Ismael,* was our region was undergoing a famine of such a gravity that an assaron was worth four drachmas, and when for the the feast of the Azymes no fewer than seventy cori of flour were transported, the equivalent of thirty-one Sicilian medimni and forty-one attics, none of the priests dared to eat even a loaf, despite the great famine devastating the earth, for they feared the law and the wrath with which God always punishes crimes, even if hidden. We therefore should not be surprised by what took place at the time, having verified that to this day the writings left by Moses are so authoritative that even our enemies recognize that our constitution was promulgated by God through him and his merits".
* Here are the oversights carried out by the exegetes of God whwn they modified the passage we have just read.
1° - This "Ismael" lacks the patronymic "son of (bar) Fabi": an omission which Josephus never committed when, in first citation, the historian mentioned each High Priest of the Temple. Now let's verify the specific passages contained in "Antiquities" (XX 179 and foll.), which attests the investiture, decided by King Agrippa II, of the young "Ismael son of Fabi" as High Priest - under Nero, not under Claudius - from 56 to 61 A.D., date in which he was replaced by the High Priest "Joseph called Kabi" son of Simon. During Ismael's five years as High Priest it has been verified that no famine took place.
2° - On the contray, during the feast mentioned in "Acts of the Apostles" and which took place under Claudius in 47 A.D. (cfr. Tacitus, Annales XI 4) in the faraway province of Judea, the High Priest of the Temple was not "Ismael" but "Joseph son of Kamei". The latter was appointed by "Herod brother of Agrippa" to replace "Simon called Kanthera, son of Boethus" (Ant. XX 16).
The following year, under the newly-elected Procurator "Ventidius Cumanus" (in office as of 48 A.D.), a new High Priest was appointed and his name was "Ananias son of Nebedee" who in 52 A.D. was arrested by the Legate of Syria "Ummidius Durmius Quadratus" and never re-elected by the Romans.
It is important to remember that the scribes of God made a blunder when they had Saint Paul argue with "Ananias" in 59 A.D. (see second study), describing it as unacceptable "Chief of the Jewish People" and High Priest of the Temple.
The chronotaxis of the High Priests of the Temple is completed by the accounts of their detailed actions, accurately described by the Jewish historian Josephus who was also an eyewitness and scribe of the Sanhedrin of "Ismael son of Fabi" in Jerusalem.
Being it impossible for Josephus to have described in two contrasting events the same High Priest "Ismael" who presided over the Sanhedrin to which they both belonged, it is evident that the quotation highlighted above in yellowis a spurious interpolation inserted, for the first time, in "Jewish Antiquites" by the editors of "Codex Ambrosianus F 128" so as to as to make the dating of the famine questionable. In this passage, in addition to making the High Priest "Ismael" a contemporary of Emperor Claudius, something which is impossible, the eleventh century Christian calligraphers also make the mistake (allowing us to discover the blunder) of quoting the same phrase from "Acts of the Apostles": "the grave famine which devasted the earth". We will soon understand why the copyists forced the tragic famine to spread throughout the world in additon to Judea.
At this point it is sufficient to eliminate the extemporaneous interpolation highlighted in yellow in order to verify that the abstinence from food, contained in the Mosaic Law, was respected (as documented by Josephus) by all the priests even during the lethal famine which hit the Jewish people, reaching its peak in 35 and 36 A.D., then under the principality of Emperor Tiberius.
Having said this, now let's analyze the famine in-depth so as to demonstrate the cause which drove Christian historians to falsify the dating during the fifth and sixth centuries, first in "Acts of the Apostles", then in "Jewish Antiquities" and, inevitably, in "Historia Ecclesiastica" by Eusebius of Caesarea.
Part one: The famine
Through a reading of the "Acts of the Apostles" we have also proven the inexistence of Saint Paul and the other evangelical protagonists, all of whom possessed supernatural powers given to them by the "Holy Spirit"; the description of these powers is so puerile and silly that the learned ecclesiastical exegetes, starting from the Pope himself, are ashamed to report these details to believers in order to prevent these "actor saints" ... and they themselves, from being ridiculed.
Nonetheless, one must admit that it would have been fascinating to meet men in the street with long beards looking up towards the sky, with a priestly appearance and "tongues of fire [which] came to rest on the head of each of them ... They were all filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2,3/4) which accompanied them in their solemn advance ...
We are about to discover another of these extraordinary characters invented by Luke: the Prophet Àgabus. He, thanks to the prophecy revealed by the Holy Spirit, convinced Saul Paul to go to Judea to help the "brothers" who are starving due to the famine.
So let's follow the true historical events and verify the deeds of the "fictitious super Apostle of the Gentiles".
In Acts (Acts 21, 8/11), "at the house of Phillip, one of the seven", Àgabus predicts the following to Saint Paul : "This is what the Holy Spirit says" ... informing the Saint of his imminent capture by the pagans (Antonius Felix and Porcius Festus); but, thanks to the study on Paul of Tarsus, we know that the events and all of the characters, including Phillip, were invented by deceitful Christian scribes who wrote under the pseudonym of "Luke". The mystification which we are about to verify (as in the case of those verified previously) had a precise objective, vital to the new doctrine: hide, in this case, the precise date and relative historical context which allowed "Jesus" and his brothers, leaders of the Zealot national liberation movement, to take power in Jerusalem in 35 A.D.
In Acts (Acts 21, 8/11), "at the house of Phillip, one of the seven", Àgabus predicts the following to Saint Paul : "This is what the Holy Spirit says" ... informing the Saint of his imminent capture by the pagans (Antonius Felix and Porcius Festus); but, thanks to the study on Paul of Tarsus, we know that the events and all of the characters, including Phillip, were invented by deceitful Christian scribes who wrote under the pseudonym of "Luke". The mystification which we are about to verify (as in the case of those verified previously) had a precise objective, vital to the new doctrine: hide, in this case, the precise date and relative historical context which allowed "Jesus" and his brothers, leaders of the Zealot national liberation movement, to take power in Jerusalem in 35 A.D.
This was the year when Iohannes (John) succeeded in crowning the King of the Jews, then being executed by the Romans just outside the walls of the Holy City during the Jewish Passover period of the following year, 36 AD.
We continue, therefore, to compare New Testament writings and history. Even if it may seem impossible at first, we manage to bring out the historical truth from the "holy texts"; we demonstrate that the true events linked to "Jesus Christ" have to do with a simple war, among the many fought by the Roman Empire to maintain Roman domination over a land whose inhabitants, the Israelites, considered "Holy" and inviolable because assigned to them by God; thus, they could not accept pagan domination of their territory.
Josephus in "Jewish Antiquities" (Book XX 101) states:
"It was under the administration of Tiberius Alexander (from 46 to 48 A.D.) that in Judea a grave famine took place, and during which Queen Helen spent a huge sum of money to buy grain from Egypt and distributed it to the needy, as I said above".
A reader who gradually reads the work of Josephus at this point realizes that there is a very reduced repetition of a serious event which had just been reported in detail by the historian ... and they must ask themself why. What is striking is the prominence given to the dating, true aim of the spurious introducton of this passage: under the administration of Procurator Tiberius Julius Alexander (46-48 A.D.), therefore under the reign of Claudius.
In effect, what had the Jewish historian "said above" about Queen Helen?
"Her arrival had been very useful to the people of Jerusalem, because at that time the city was saddened by the famine and many people died because they lacked the money to buy what they needed. Queen Helen sent her attendants to Alexandria to buy huge quantities of grain, and others to Cyprus to buy loads of dried figs. When Izates, her son, was informed of the famine, he also sent huge sums of money to the leaders of Jerusalem. The distribution of these sums to the needy allowed mant to overcome the hardships caused by the famine. I will to later the description of the good deeds carried out by this royal couple for our city" (Antiquities XX 51/53).
Let's highlight the first detail which makes the two pieces of information incompatible: the one we have just read, much more circumstantial, speaks about "leaders of Jerusalem" (the Sanhedrin, it means that there was no Roman governor, as we will prove later), while the previous is laconic and tells us that there was only one "leader", obviously Rome: the Procurator Tiberius Alexander.
Aware of the fact that between 6 and 48 A.D. the Governors of Judea who followed one another in this Province were all Roman imperial legates, with the exception of the Jewish King Herod Agrippa (from 41 to 44 A.D.), let's carry on with our investigation in order to clear up this point.
Helen and her son Izates were respecticely Queen and King, Jews from Adiabene, a region south of Armenia and east of the upper Euphrates river, which marked the border agreed upon by the Roman Empire and Parthia and beyond the Tigris River.
Just before this event we read that Izates, who had just been chosen as King:
"When Izates arrived in Adiabene to take possession of his Kingdom and saw his brothers, considering it cruel to execute them and bearing in mind the affronts received, sent some of them to Caesar Claudius in Rome as hostages along with their children; and with the same pretext sent others (brothers) to Artabanus King of the Parthians" (Antiquities XX 36-37).
The chronological matching of the two great Emperors with regard to this event is a serious historical error which Josephus could not have made: he was well-aware that Artabanus died in 38 A.D., as he mentions later on (Ant. XX 36-37).
This information is given after the historian describes the famine and the war conducted by the great Parthian against Tiberius; therefore, Josephus was aware that Claudius was proclaimed Emperor in 41 A.D. (as is described in the chronicle).
It is important to point out that the manuscripts written by the Jewish chronicler in the first century were checked by Roman historians before being approved and deposited in the Imperial Archives ... and this is history of Rome.
Therefore, being that Artabanus was alive, the only Emperor who interacted with him was Tiberius and no one else.
The fact that we are dealing with Emperor Tiberius is unequivocally confirmed once again by history; in fact, in Antiquities XX 92 Josephus writes: "Izates died, at fifty-two years of age and after a reign of twenty-four years" (he became King at the age of 28).
Thanks to Tacitus (Annales XII 13-14) we know that Izates was still alive in 49 A.D., allowing us draw the conclusion that he became King before 30 A.D.; having read that just after ascending the throne he sent his brothers as hostages to the Emperor of Rome, the latter had to have been Tiberius.
Josephus in "Jewish Antiquities" (Book XX 101) states:
"It was under the administration of Tiberius Alexander (from 46 to 48 A.D.) that in Judea a grave famine took place, and during which Queen Helen spent a huge sum of money to buy grain from Egypt and distributed it to the needy, as I said above".
A reader who gradually reads the work of Josephus at this point realizes that there is a very reduced repetition of a serious event which had just been reported in detail by the historian ... and they must ask themself why. What is striking is the prominence given to the dating, true aim of the spurious introducton of this passage: under the administration of Procurator Tiberius Julius Alexander (46-48 A.D.), therefore under the reign of Claudius.
In effect, what had the Jewish historian "said above" about Queen Helen?
"Her arrival had been very useful to the people of Jerusalem, because at that time the city was saddened by the famine and many people died because they lacked the money to buy what they needed. Queen Helen sent her attendants to Alexandria to buy huge quantities of grain, and others to Cyprus to buy loads of dried figs. When Izates, her son, was informed of the famine, he also sent huge sums of money to the leaders of Jerusalem. The distribution of these sums to the needy allowed mant to overcome the hardships caused by the famine. I will to later the description of the good deeds carried out by this royal couple for our city" (Antiquities XX 51/53).
Let's highlight the first detail which makes the two pieces of information incompatible: the one we have just read, much more circumstantial, speaks about "leaders of Jerusalem" (the Sanhedrin, it means that there was no Roman governor, as we will prove later), while the previous is laconic and tells us that there was only one "leader", obviously Rome: the Procurator Tiberius Alexander.
Aware of the fact that between 6 and 48 A.D. the Governors of Judea who followed one another in this Province were all Roman imperial legates, with the exception of the Jewish King Herod Agrippa (from 41 to 44 A.D.), let's carry on with our investigation in order to clear up this point.
Helen and her son Izates were respecticely Queen and King, Jews from Adiabene, a region south of Armenia and east of the upper Euphrates river, which marked the border agreed upon by the Roman Empire and Parthia and beyond the Tigris River.
Just before this event we read that Izates, who had just been chosen as King:
"When Izates arrived in Adiabene to take possession of his Kingdom and saw his brothers, considering it cruel to execute them and bearing in mind the affronts received, sent some of them to Caesar Claudius in Rome as hostages along with their children; and with the same pretext sent others (brothers) to Artabanus King of the Parthians" (Antiquities XX 36-37).
The chronological matching of the two great Emperors with regard to this event is a serious historical error which Josephus could not have made: he was well-aware that Artabanus died in 38 A.D., as he mentions later on (Ant. XX 36-37).
This information is given after the historian describes the famine and the war conducted by the great Parthian against Tiberius; therefore, Josephus was aware that Claudius was proclaimed Emperor in 41 A.D. (as is described in the chronicle).
It is important to point out that the manuscripts written by the Jewish chronicler in the first century were checked by Roman historians before being approved and deposited in the Imperial Archives ... and this is history of Rome.
Therefore, being that Artabanus was alive, the only Emperor who interacted with him was Tiberius and no one else.
The fact that we are dealing with Emperor Tiberius is unequivocally confirmed once again by history; in fact, in Antiquities XX 92 Josephus writes: "Izates died, at fifty-two years of age and after a reign of twenty-four years" (he became King at the age of 28).
Thanks to Tacitus (Annales XII 13-14) we know that Izates was still alive in 49 A.D., allowing us draw the conclusion that he became King before 30 A.D.; having read that just after ascending the throne he sent his brothers as hostages to the Emperor of Rome, the latter had to have been Tiberius.
We highlight the fact that King Izate sent the brothers as "hostages" (a practice adopted by the two Empires, the Roman one and the Particulates, as a demonstration of loyalty to one or other Emperor) to both Great Regents, Adiabene, located in the south of Armenia, a vast region contended by the Romans and the Parthians, but almost always subject to the power of Rome, because its legions succeeded in defeating all attempts made by aggressive enemies, conquer it.
Let's carry on with the reading of Antiquities. After Izates's relatives were sent to Rome as hostages, we - aware of the fact that we are at the time of Tiberius - observe the presence of Queen Helen in Jerusalem and her providential help to the starving people, as described above. Later, in Antiquiites XX (from par. 54 to par. 68) Josephus describes the political crisis of Artabanus III, supreme King of the Parthians, which, as confirmed by the history of Tacitus, we know occurred during the second half of the year 35 A.D. and was provoked by imperial Legate Lucius Vitellius, Roman commander of all the legions of the Eastern Empire (Annales VI 31/38).
On the basis of what is clearly stated above, the famine described from par. 51 to 53 without a doubt hit Judea before the crisis of Artabanus dating back to the latter part of 35 A.D.; this crisis is described from par 54 to 68. In fact, this famine was alleviated (with benefits that are impossible to calculate) mainly by the Jewish royal family who offered direct aid, then by the imperial Legate Lucius Vitellius who, during Easter of 36 A.D. (Ant. XVIII 90), lifted taxes on foodstuffs and reduced prices and social tension as a result of the events described above.
It is important to highlight the cronological sequence of the events, which can be read in "Jewish Antiquities"; this sequence is utterly absurd as first Emperor Claudius (elected in 41) - to whom Izates sends his relatives as hostages - is mentioned, then the famine. According to the "Acts" of Luke (which we are about to read) and par. 101 of Book XX of "Antiquities" (reported above), the famine is dated after 46, while the 35 A.D. crisis of Artabanus took place before his death in 38 A.D. (thus causing a contradiction in the chronology of the events).
This erroneous dating is corrected by simply rectifying "the error regarding the name of the Emperor": it was Tiberius and not Claudius.
The political crisis of Artabanus, which took place in the late autumn of 35, was caused by the intervention in Armenia of Transcaucasian barbarian hordes, allocated to the Far East of the Empire (paid for by Tiberius), in conjunction with the invasion of Parthia, beyond the Euphrates, carried out by the Roman legions of Lucius Vitellius. The imperial leader managed to corrupt the Satrapes Dignitaries, relatives and friends of the old King, and managed to unseat him). The Proconsul operated thanks to the mandate and capital given by Tiberius, and was able to retake Armenia, conquered by Artabanus the previous year (summer of 34 A.D.).
DEspite the grave initial difficulties, Artabanus managed to overcome the crisis thanks to the intervention of King Izates (early 36 A.D.), who convinced the Great Satrapes (Ant. XX 62/66) to recognize him once again as their "King of Kings", allowing him to resume the conflict which brought several victories. Partial successes, yet not enough to win the war due to the large scale deployment of Roman forces (still intact), under the command of L. Vitellius, ready to invade Parthia a second time thus threatening the territorial integrity and the life of Artabanus. At the end of 36 A.D., Tiberius, aware of his strength, decided to close the hostilities and ordered Vitellius to meet Artabanus in order to sign a treaty between the two Empires, but on the basis of precise conditions. So at the beginning of 37 A.D. (as will be proven in Part III) Artabanus and Vitellius met on the Euphrates River, which marked the border between the two Empires, and signed pacts which forced the King of the Parthians to recognze Roman rule over Armenia, to honour through sacrifices the images of Augustus and Tiberius and, finally, to send his son "Darius" to Rome as a hostage so as to guarantee the respect of the provisions, therefore:
"Having terminated the negotiations, the Tetrarch Herod (Antipas) held a feast under a tent which he raised at the middle of the bridge at great expense" (Antiquities XVIII 101-102).
Tiberius had just enough time to receive the important news and rejoice because on 16 March of 37 A.D. In the same days that Vitellio, for the second time, had gone to Jerusalem, a guest of the Tetrarca Antipa, a must before fulfilling the imperial order that required him to eliminate Areta IV, already escaped to Petra in the Nabatea arabia, guilty of having taken possession of territories under the Protectorate of Rome, assigned to the Tetrarch by Caesar Augustus. But destiny wanted that, in that part of time, it would strike the hour also for the Great birth ...
"Shortly thereafter Artabanus died and left his kingdom to his son Vardanes" (Antiquities XX 69). It was the year 38 A.D.
The substitution of the name Emperor Tiberius with that of Emperor Claudius was carried out by Christian scribes to lead us to believe that the famine took place under Claudius, exactly as is reported in "Acts of the Apostles" (11,28-30), thus enriching the "historical bait" of the famine with the usual disguise of the divine "Prophesy":
"And one of the Prophets whose name was Àgabus, seized by the Spirit, stood up and predicted that a severe and universal famine was going to happen. This in fact happened while Claudius was Emperor. The disciples decided to send relief, each to contribute what he could afford, to the brothers living in Judaea. They did this and delivered their contributions to the elders through the agency of Barnabas and Saul (Paul)".
It is important to highlight that the writers of "Acts of the Apostles" and the "Letters of Paul", after giving us this information, forgot to mention the conclusion of the "mission" of Saint Paul in Judea, which was however motivated by the gravity of the calamity that hit the entire region and provoked many deaths.
The scribes wanted the famine to appear to have occurred under Claudius, therefore ... why waste other precious papyrus and ink? And run the risk of historical oversight.
The reference to Claudius in fact was not accidental but deliberate. "Luke", while sifting through the events in order to find an alibi able to divert the attention of experts, ruled out a famine which occurred under Tiberius in 32 A.D. (Annales VI 13) because too close to the time of the evangelical "Jesus", and chose a famine reported by Suetonius and Tacitus which hit Rome during the reign of Claudius:
"...the charges made against one of the two were to have seen, in a dream, Claudius wearing a crown made of ears of wheat turned backwards, with consequent prediction of a famine" (Annales XI 4).
This "prophetic dream" allowed "Luke" to have "God dictate to him" the prophecy of the Prophet Àgabus and chronologically sidetrack the true and much more serious famine which took place in Judea and reached its climax between 35 and 36 A.D.; but as the two territories were too far from each other, Luke made the Prophet declare that "a severe and universal famine was going to happen": a very dramatic event to be mentioned by all writers of the time. This event did not occur because what did hit Rome was not a true famine but simply a brief food shortage during which no one died of hunger, unlike what happened in Judea. Meanwhile we have highlighted the motive that, in observance of the above-mentioned "Acts of the Apostles", the naive amanuensis of the "Codex Ambrosianus F 128", in the XI century committed the lightness of "witnessing" in an historical text an evangelical absurdity.
The exceptional scarcity of food was fatal for many Jews and this was one of the reasons which triggered "Jeshùa's" decision to take power in Jerusalem and have himself proclaimed King of the Jews.
The pilgrims belonging to the Jewish world - mainly the inhabitants of Galilee, Idumea, Judea and those of Jerusalem exasperated by the famine - took part in the revolt against imperial power and the pro-Roman religious aristocracy.
In order to prevent this calamity and the military events which took place between 34 and 36 A.D. from being recalled by historians, forcing them to investigate and thus discover that the year 36 was the year of the death of "Jesus Christ"; as such an investigation (and this would have been even worse) would have allowed them to come to the rightful conclusion that the man who truly existed was not ideologically compatible with the prodigious, supernatural being created upon a myth long after the true events occurred, the Lucan Christian scribes brought the famine forward ten years: under Claudius rather than under Tiberius.
The eminent Bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea, thanks to his position at the court of Emperor Constantine, was the first Christian to have access to the state archives in order to consult the scrolls of "Antiquities" and falsify them where necessary. When the Bishop invented "Historia Ecclesiastica", he mentioned this famine in detail and, in order to make it seem more credible, he was forced (and we must thank him!) to connect the "testimony" of Josephus, duly corrected by Josephus, to that of "Acts of the Apostles", where the prophecy of Àgabus is reported; Eusebius also mentions the intervention of Queen Helen. According to him, all of these events occurred under Claudius (HEc. 12,1/3).
Eusebius - through his testimony - wanted to "guarantee" the lies of "Saint Luke" in "Acts" by tampering with the Jewish historian's work in the above-mentioned points in order to hide the true identity of the protagonists of the events and their dating. But he made the mistake of specifying that it was "the famine of Queen Helen", the same famine (as already seen) which took place - as demonstrated by history - under Tiberius and not under Claudius.
In "Historia Ecclesiastica" Eusebius falsified the contents the handwritten scroll reporting the chronicle; it originally contained his true name and patronymic - the Prophet Theudas whose real name was Judas, one of the brothers of "Jesus"; he was even forced to eliminate the information (mentioned above by the Jewish historian) regarding further donations for the benefit of Jerusalem, which we would have certainly read about in "Antiquities":
"I shall leave to a later time the description of the good deeds carried out by the royal couple for our city" (ibid).
Saint Paul Saul - "the Secretary of State" without an executive-jet - took a "collection" to raise money for to help those hit by the famine. We can be certain the Jews finally, even if ten years later, gorged themselves and today's contemplative mystical historians, astounded by the above-said prophecy, swallow the bait stuck onto the hook of the "Prophet", almost as if it were a consecrated host; they all work to "interpolate" with footnotes hinting to the famine under Claudius and to the "Acts of the Apostles", didactic texts and "Jewish Antiquities", in order to indoctrinate young people in deference to the historical truthfulness of a pseudonym: "Saint Luke the Evangelist" ... the impostor.
But why was this lie - reported in "Acts" and taken up again in "Historia Ecclesiastica" - considered so relevant to the point of tampering with the principal source: the writings of Josephus? The Jewish historian already speaks about the fatal famine in "Jewish Antiquities" at the start of Book XVIII par. 8, in the preamble which makes reference to the Zealots. It introduces:
"They were to blame for the seething seditions and there was much civilian bloodshed, due to the massacres carried out by the nationalist fanatics (the Zealots) and to the butchery which they afflicted upon their enemies. Then came the famine which made them devastatingly uncontrollable...".
If "Acts of the Apostles" and Eusebius of Caesarea found it necessary to lie about the dating of this calamity, it means that such dating was vital for Christian doctrine and had to be sidetracked in order to prevent the reconstruction of the events involving the true protagonists, who would have run the risk of being identified as "Jesus Christ" and his brothers.
Between 34 and 37 A.D. there was a conflict between Rome and the Kingdom of the Parthians as Artabanus III, their King of Kings - as mentioned by Tacitus in Annales VI 31 - "Took control of Armenia and threatened to invade the lands formerly owned by Cyrus and Alexander", including Palestine. In order to prevent this, in the spring of 35, Tiberius sent to Antioch his Lieutenant, the Lucius Vitellius, of consular rank, who had full powers over the Orient; during the war, which lasted until the the beginning of 37 A.D., he found the time to go to Jerusalem (600 km further south) at the head of his legions in 36 A.D. during Passover:
"In the meantime Vitellius arrived in Judea and went up to Jerusalem where the Jews were celebrating their feast called Passover and was welcomed with many honours, granted forever to the inhabitants all of the taxes deriving from the sale of agricultural products and ordered that the sacred gown of the High Priest, along with its ornaments, be kept by the priests in the Temple" (Antiquities XVIII 90).
This event has a prologue: in Book XV of "Jewish Antiquities" the writer explains that the "Sacred Gown", which had belonged to Kings and High Priests of Hasmonean blood, was taken away from the Jews upon the death of King Herod the Great.
From that time on, the Romans kept it in the Antonia Fortress and and allowed the High Priests to use it only for Jewish festivities (Antiquities XV 403/409). The great symbolical value and power represented by the this sacred cloak for the Jewish people is clearly evident ... and the Romans were aware of this.
This went on until the Passover of 36 A.D. when Vitellius gave the sacred gown back to the religious authorities, after choosing a new pro-Roman High Priest. The historian ends the prologue by stating that: "This digression was caused by the sad experience which took place afterwards" (ibid). But what "sad experience took place afterwards"? And why did the "digression" provoke the deviation and break with the described practice?
In "Antiquities" we do not find the explanation for the important preamble - which should have been mentioned in Book XVIII just before the passage regarding the tax amnesty on behalf the Jews - as even this is censored by the scribes of God.
During a war between the Empire of the Parthians (a huge eastern State, which had always been a rival to Rome, governed by a "King of Kings") it is not credible that the most powerful man in the Roman Empire after Tiberius - by virtue of the mandate conferred to him - could have gone as far south as Jerusalem only to lift taxes on the agricultural goods produced by Jews dying of hunger due to the famine.
Why would Vitellius - Lieutenant of Tiberius and Commander of all the Roman forces in the Orient - have needed to go personally to Judea during a difficult and risky wartime period and leave Antioch, seat of the most important anti-parthian military garrison? It would have simply been necessary to send couriers to Prefect Pontius Pilate (his subordinate) with an order to lift taxes on the Jews. It would have been necessary to use force to impose taxes ... but not to abolish them. Just as Vitellius himself did at the start of 36 A.D. Here is what Tacitus has to say:
On the basis of what is clearly stated above, the famine described from par. 51 to 53 without a doubt hit Judea before the crisis of Artabanus dating back to the latter part of 35 A.D.; this crisis is described from par 54 to 68. In fact, this famine was alleviated (with benefits that are impossible to calculate) mainly by the Jewish royal family who offered direct aid, then by the imperial Legate Lucius Vitellius who, during Easter of 36 A.D. (Ant. XVIII 90), lifted taxes on foodstuffs and reduced prices and social tension as a result of the events described above.
It is important to highlight the cronological sequence of the events, which can be read in "Jewish Antiquities"; this sequence is utterly absurd as first Emperor Claudius (elected in 41) - to whom Izates sends his relatives as hostages - is mentioned, then the famine. According to the "Acts" of Luke (which we are about to read) and par. 101 of Book XX of "Antiquities" (reported above), the famine is dated after 46, while the 35 A.D. crisis of Artabanus took place before his death in 38 A.D. (thus causing a contradiction in the chronology of the events).
This erroneous dating is corrected by simply rectifying "the error regarding the name of the Emperor": it was Tiberius and not Claudius.
The political crisis of Artabanus, which took place in the late autumn of 35, was caused by the intervention in Armenia of Transcaucasian barbarian hordes, allocated to the Far East of the Empire (paid for by Tiberius), in conjunction with the invasion of Parthia, beyond the Euphrates, carried out by the Roman legions of Lucius Vitellius. The imperial leader managed to corrupt the Satrapes Dignitaries, relatives and friends of the old King, and managed to unseat him). The Proconsul operated thanks to the mandate and capital given by Tiberius, and was able to retake Armenia, conquered by Artabanus the previous year (summer of 34 A.D.).
DEspite the grave initial difficulties, Artabanus managed to overcome the crisis thanks to the intervention of King Izates (early 36 A.D.), who convinced the Great Satrapes (Ant. XX 62/66) to recognize him once again as their "King of Kings", allowing him to resume the conflict which brought several victories. Partial successes, yet not enough to win the war due to the large scale deployment of Roman forces (still intact), under the command of L. Vitellius, ready to invade Parthia a second time thus threatening the territorial integrity and the life of Artabanus. At the end of 36 A.D., Tiberius, aware of his strength, decided to close the hostilities and ordered Vitellius to meet Artabanus in order to sign a treaty between the two Empires, but on the basis of precise conditions. So at the beginning of 37 A.D. (as will be proven in Part III) Artabanus and Vitellius met on the Euphrates River, which marked the border between the two Empires, and signed pacts which forced the King of the Parthians to recognze Roman rule over Armenia, to honour through sacrifices the images of Augustus and Tiberius and, finally, to send his son "Darius" to Rome as a hostage so as to guarantee the respect of the provisions, therefore:
"Having terminated the negotiations, the Tetrarch Herod (Antipas) held a feast under a tent which he raised at the middle of the bridge at great expense" (Antiquities XVIII 101-102).
Tiberius had just enough time to receive the important news and rejoice because on 16 March of 37 A.D. In the same days that Vitellio, for the second time, had gone to Jerusalem, a guest of the Tetrarca Antipa, a must before fulfilling the imperial order that required him to eliminate Areta IV, already escaped to Petra in the Nabatea arabia, guilty of having taken possession of territories under the Protectorate of Rome, assigned to the Tetrarch by Caesar Augustus. But destiny wanted that, in that part of time, it would strike the hour also for the Great birth ...
"Shortly thereafter Artabanus died and left his kingdom to his son Vardanes" (Antiquities XX 69). It was the year 38 A.D.
The substitution of the name Emperor Tiberius with that of Emperor Claudius was carried out by Christian scribes to lead us to believe that the famine took place under Claudius, exactly as is reported in "Acts of the Apostles" (11,28-30), thus enriching the "historical bait" of the famine with the usual disguise of the divine "Prophesy":
"And one of the Prophets whose name was Àgabus, seized by the Spirit, stood up and predicted that a severe and universal famine was going to happen. This in fact happened while Claudius was Emperor. The disciples decided to send relief, each to contribute what he could afford, to the brothers living in Judaea. They did this and delivered their contributions to the elders through the agency of Barnabas and Saul (Paul)".
It is important to highlight that the writers of "Acts of the Apostles" and the "Letters of Paul", after giving us this information, forgot to mention the conclusion of the "mission" of Saint Paul in Judea, which was however motivated by the gravity of the calamity that hit the entire region and provoked many deaths.
The scribes wanted the famine to appear to have occurred under Claudius, therefore ... why waste other precious papyrus and ink? And run the risk of historical oversight.
The reference to Claudius in fact was not accidental but deliberate. "Luke", while sifting through the events in order to find an alibi able to divert the attention of experts, ruled out a famine which occurred under Tiberius in 32 A.D. (Annales VI 13) because too close to the time of the evangelical "Jesus", and chose a famine reported by Suetonius and Tacitus which hit Rome during the reign of Claudius:
"...the charges made against one of the two were to have seen, in a dream, Claudius wearing a crown made of ears of wheat turned backwards, with consequent prediction of a famine" (Annales XI 4).
This "prophetic dream" allowed "Luke" to have "God dictate to him" the prophecy of the Prophet Àgabus and chronologically sidetrack the true and much more serious famine which took place in Judea and reached its climax between 35 and 36 A.D.; but as the two territories were too far from each other, Luke made the Prophet declare that "a severe and universal famine was going to happen": a very dramatic event to be mentioned by all writers of the time. This event did not occur because what did hit Rome was not a true famine but simply a brief food shortage during which no one died of hunger, unlike what happened in Judea. Meanwhile we have highlighted the motive that, in observance of the above-mentioned "Acts of the Apostles", the naive amanuensis of the "Codex Ambrosianus F 128", in the XI century committed the lightness of "witnessing" in an historical text an evangelical absurdity.
The exceptional scarcity of food was fatal for many Jews and this was one of the reasons which triggered "Jeshùa's" decision to take power in Jerusalem and have himself proclaimed King of the Jews.
The pilgrims belonging to the Jewish world - mainly the inhabitants of Galilee, Idumea, Judea and those of Jerusalem exasperated by the famine - took part in the revolt against imperial power and the pro-Roman religious aristocracy.
In order to prevent this calamity and the military events which took place between 34 and 36 A.D. from being recalled by historians, forcing them to investigate and thus discover that the year 36 was the year of the death of "Jesus Christ"; as such an investigation (and this would have been even worse) would have allowed them to come to the rightful conclusion that the man who truly existed was not ideologically compatible with the prodigious, supernatural being created upon a myth long after the true events occurred, the Lucan Christian scribes brought the famine forward ten years: under Claudius rather than under Tiberius.
The eminent Bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea, thanks to his position at the court of Emperor Constantine, was the first Christian to have access to the state archives in order to consult the scrolls of "Antiquities" and falsify them where necessary. When the Bishop invented "Historia Ecclesiastica", he mentioned this famine in detail and, in order to make it seem more credible, he was forced (and we must thank him!) to connect the "testimony" of Josephus, duly corrected by Josephus, to that of "Acts of the Apostles", where the prophecy of Àgabus is reported; Eusebius also mentions the intervention of Queen Helen. According to him, all of these events occurred under Claudius (HEc. 12,1/3).
Eusebius - through his testimony - wanted to "guarantee" the lies of "Saint Luke" in "Acts" by tampering with the Jewish historian's work in the above-mentioned points in order to hide the true identity of the protagonists of the events and their dating. But he made the mistake of specifying that it was "the famine of Queen Helen", the same famine (as already seen) which took place - as demonstrated by history - under Tiberius and not under Claudius.
In "Historia Ecclesiastica" Eusebius falsified the contents the handwritten scroll reporting the chronicle; it originally contained his true name and patronymic - the Prophet Theudas whose real name was Judas, one of the brothers of "Jesus"; he was even forced to eliminate the information (mentioned above by the Jewish historian) regarding further donations for the benefit of Jerusalem, which we would have certainly read about in "Antiquities":
"I shall leave to a later time the description of the good deeds carried out by the royal couple for our city" (ibid).
Saint Paul Saul - "the Secretary of State" without an executive-jet - took a "collection" to raise money for to help those hit by the famine. We can be certain the Jews finally, even if ten years later, gorged themselves and today's contemplative mystical historians, astounded by the above-said prophecy, swallow the bait stuck onto the hook of the "Prophet", almost as if it were a consecrated host; they all work to "interpolate" with footnotes hinting to the famine under Claudius and to the "Acts of the Apostles", didactic texts and "Jewish Antiquities", in order to indoctrinate young people in deference to the historical truthfulness of a pseudonym: "Saint Luke the Evangelist" ... the impostor.
But why was this lie - reported in "Acts" and taken up again in "Historia Ecclesiastica" - considered so relevant to the point of tampering with the principal source: the writings of Josephus? The Jewish historian already speaks about the fatal famine in "Jewish Antiquities" at the start of Book XVIII par. 8, in the preamble which makes reference to the Zealots. It introduces:
"They were to blame for the seething seditions and there was much civilian bloodshed, due to the massacres carried out by the nationalist fanatics (the Zealots) and to the butchery which they afflicted upon their enemies. Then came the famine which made them devastatingly uncontrollable...".
If "Acts of the Apostles" and Eusebius of Caesarea found it necessary to lie about the dating of this calamity, it means that such dating was vital for Christian doctrine and had to be sidetracked in order to prevent the reconstruction of the events involving the true protagonists, who would have run the risk of being identified as "Jesus Christ" and his brothers.
Between 34 and 37 A.D. there was a conflict between Rome and the Kingdom of the Parthians as Artabanus III, their King of Kings - as mentioned by Tacitus in Annales VI 31 - "Took control of Armenia and threatened to invade the lands formerly owned by Cyrus and Alexander", including Palestine. In order to prevent this, in the spring of 35, Tiberius sent to Antioch his Lieutenant, the Lucius Vitellius, of consular rank, who had full powers over the Orient; during the war, which lasted until the the beginning of 37 A.D., he found the time to go to Jerusalem (600 km further south) at the head of his legions in 36 A.D. during Passover:
"In the meantime Vitellius arrived in Judea and went up to Jerusalem where the Jews were celebrating their feast called Passover and was welcomed with many honours, granted forever to the inhabitants all of the taxes deriving from the sale of agricultural products and ordered that the sacred gown of the High Priest, along with its ornaments, be kept by the priests in the Temple" (Antiquities XVIII 90).
This event has a prologue: in Book XV of "Jewish Antiquities" the writer explains that the "Sacred Gown", which had belonged to Kings and High Priests of Hasmonean blood, was taken away from the Jews upon the death of King Herod the Great.
From that time on, the Romans kept it in the Antonia Fortress and and allowed the High Priests to use it only for Jewish festivities (Antiquities XV 403/409). The great symbolical value and power represented by the this sacred cloak for the Jewish people is clearly evident ... and the Romans were aware of this.
This went on until the Passover of 36 A.D. when Vitellius gave the sacred gown back to the religious authorities, after choosing a new pro-Roman High Priest. The historian ends the prologue by stating that: "This digression was caused by the sad experience which took place afterwards" (ibid). But what "sad experience took place afterwards"? And why did the "digression" provoke the deviation and break with the described practice?
In "Antiquities" we do not find the explanation for the important preamble - which should have been mentioned in Book XVIII just before the passage regarding the tax amnesty on behalf the Jews - as even this is censored by the scribes of God.
During a war between the Empire of the Parthians (a huge eastern State, which had always been a rival to Rome, governed by a "King of Kings") it is not credible that the most powerful man in the Roman Empire after Tiberius - by virtue of the mandate conferred to him - could have gone as far south as Jerusalem only to lift taxes on the agricultural goods produced by Jews dying of hunger due to the famine.
Why would Vitellius - Lieutenant of Tiberius and Commander of all the Roman forces in the Orient - have needed to go personally to Judea during a difficult and risky wartime period and leave Antioch, seat of the most important anti-parthian military garrison? It would have simply been necessary to send couriers to Prefect Pontius Pilate (his subordinate) with an order to lift taxes on the Jews. It would have been necessary to use force to impose taxes ... but not to abolish them. Just as Vitellius himself did at the start of 36 A.D. Here is what Tacitus has to say:
"Under the Consulate of Quintus Plautius and Sextus Papinius (36 A.D.) ... At this same time the Clitæ, a tribe subject to the Cappadocian Archelaus, retreated to the heights of Mount Taurus, because they were compelled in Roman fashion to render an account of their revenue and submit to tribute. There they defended themselves by means of the nature of the country against the king's unwarlike troops, till Marcus Trebellius, whom Vitellius, the governor of Syria, sent as his lieutenant with four thousand legionaries and some picked auxiliaries, surrounded with his lines two hills occupied by the barbarians, the lesser of which was named Cadra, the other Davara. Those who dared to sally out, he reduced to surrender by the sword, the rest by drought" (Ann. VI 41).
If a Roman General and Chief of the Army General Staff who commanded many legions moved at such a difficult and dangerous time, it meant that something serious had occurred and, for the Roman Empire, "serious" meant "war".
Taking advantage of the favourable international political situation, in 35 A.D. the Zealot Jews - while Vitellius was struggling against Artabanus III, King of the Parthians - seized the opportunity offered by the conflict between Rome and Parthia and set off a rebellion in order to liberate Holy Jerusalem from pagan domination...
Taking advantage of the favourable international political situation, in 35 A.D. the Zealot Jews - while Vitellius was struggling against Artabanus III, King of the Parthians - seized the opportunity offered by the conflict between Rome and Parthia and set off a rebellion in order to liberate Holy Jerusalem from pagan domination...
"Then came the famine which made them devastatingly uncontrollable"
A serious famine was underway and the starving people "oppressed by the taxes owed to Rome" - incited by the Zealot prophets' vehement preaching in favour of the re-establishment of the Law of Yahweh - rebelled against the Roman garrison stationed in the Holy City and massacred its soldiers "... and shattered all that was left of the political systems" (Bellum VII chap. 8). This mention made by the historian refers to a distant memorial family of the subversive feats of the Zealot John, which brought about the suppression of the "political systems" founded by the Roman government and by the opportunistic priests of the Jewish Sanhedrin in collusion with imperial power.
The influential Jewish Rabbi of Gàmala John (called the Nazirean)* - eldest son of the Doctor of Law Judas the Galilean (who according to the historian was "of great power") and descendant of the Hasmonean royal line on his mother's side - a few days prior to the the Feast of the Tabernacles in 35 A.D (early autumn), became leader of the revolt and managed to have himself proclaimed King of the Jews and High Priest of the Temple, thereby re-establishing the practice of his monarchic Hasmonean ancestors who held both sacred positions; and as a result he wore the "Sacred Garment" and upon his head placed a royal diadem.
* As explained in more detail in the previous study, we can identify him through the analysis of a distant memory of relatives mentioned by Josephus at the end of the "Jewish War", Book VII chap. 8.
For the Jews of that time John was the "Jeshùa" (Saviour) of the Holy Land, and after being consecrated as "Messiah" (Christ) throught the ritual of the anointment described by the Ancestral Law, he founded a new Kingdom without slaves in which "only God was Owner", therby fulfilling the precepts of the "fourth philosophy, a novelty unknown until this time in line with all the opinions of the Phariseans apart from the fact that they (the Zealots) have a burning love for freedom" (Ant. XVIII 23), philosophy whose precepts were created by his father Judas of Gamala, called the Galilean.
But the "Saviour" did not last long. At the late autumn of 35 A.D., Vitellius managed to undermine Artabanus and forced him to flee. After subjugating Armenia once again to Roman rule, the General Commander pushed forward and crossed the Euphrates River, where "he had arrived thanks to the strength of his Roman legions and his allies", and invaded the Kingdom of the Parthians; he "considered it sufficient to have made a show of Roman force to the Great Parthian Dignitaries, and returned to Antioch in Syria with his legions" (Tacitus, Ann. VI 37).
When the Roman leader arrived at the garrison (between the end of 35 and the beginning of 36 A.D.), he was informed of the events which had taken place in Judea, and after having given a rest to his army in the winter quarters, led his legions on a march to retake Jerusalem and execute the monarch who had illegitimately proclaimed himself King of the Jews.
In the meantime he had already sent Prefect Marcellus to Caesarea Maritima to remove Pontius Pilate from officea and prepare all the military logistics for the Roman army prior to its arrival.
The imperial Legate considered Prefect Pontius Pilate, who was of equestrian order, responible for not being able to prevent the revolt and for losing Jerusalem. Pilate should have strengthened the Roman military reserve contingent before all Jewish feasts, in compliance with precise written military orders.
A few days before Easter in 36 A.D., Lucius Vitellius - after laying seige and sending an ultimatum to the Holy City, unable to put forth further resistance without supplies of food (the help given by Helen could not last long and feed an entire population) - obtained the surrender of Jerusalem and was handed over the illegitimate King.
The Sanhedrin, which was convened by the High Priest of the Temple John in a moment of dramatic crisis, decreed the end of the King's brief reign. This is how Caifa, at the meeting of the elders, explained Vitellius's order for the surrender of Jerusalem:
"You fail to see that it is to your advantage that one man should die for the people, rather than that the whole nation should perish" (Jh 11,50).
This testimony, which has survived the ecclesiastical censorships which the "Gospel of John" has undergone, is alone enough to demonstrate that the danger for the entire Jewish nation was not constituted by simple military reserves recluted by a Prefect identified in the Gospels as Pontius Pilate. Only a Consul "Legatus Augusti pro Praetore" like Lucius Vitellius - Roman Chief of Staff stationed in Antioch (Syria) and assigned by Tiberius full powers over the military contingent in the Eastern theatre - could have destroyed a possible revolt of the Jews united in a "Holy Alliance".
For John, the "Saviour" King of the Jews, there was no way out and he accepted his destiny: the crucifixion. He was arrested and brought to Fortress Antonia in chains and kept watch on. The Holy Gown was brought to the Temple and put under the protection of High Priest Jonathan, who had just been chosen by Vitellius and son of the conservative Sadducean High Priest Ananus ("Anne" of the Gospels); while the Tribune (Commander of the Roman garrison) reacquired guardianship over the Diadema (Sacred Crown), which remained in the fortress until being placed on the head of the King of the Jews Herod Agrippa the Great by order of Claudius Caesar.
The following day, after a long, useless interrogation carried out under torture to make him confess the names of his accomplices and the details regarding the revolutionary organization, John the Nazirean son of Judas was crucified in public as a warning to the Jews and to highlight their subjugation to the Roman Empire.
John was the head of the Pharisean Zealots sect, founded by his father and the most popular among Jews for its philosophical principles and goals. And the Zealots, just like the Essenes, were devoted to martyrdom in order to "save" the land promised by God to the people of Israel. Being Zealot leaders, the execution of the sons of Judas the Galilean had to be public as a warning to the Jews. Nine years after John, in 45 A.D., his brother Judas - called "Uriel", the mythological avenging angel (in Greek "Theudas": Light of God) - was also executed.
Even if the latter was executed in public by Cuspius Fadus far from Jerusalem, his head was brought to the Holy City and shown in public: another significant warning. James and Simon's turn came in 47 A.D.; they were crucified in public after being captured and put on trial by Procurator Tiberius Julius Alexander.
The fifth and youngest son of Judas the Galilean met a different death. In 66 A.D. Joseph, called Menahem*, head of the Zealots, after destroying the Roman garrison in Jerusalem, was killed by the Guardians of the Temple who answered to the priestly aristocracy which he had overthrown.
*The identification of Menahem as Joseph, the fourth brother of John "Yeshùa, will be as simple as Columbus's egg.
Zealots, Essenes, Pharisees, Sadduceans and all the people, kept behind a cordon guarded by Roman militiamen, powerlessly and in silence witnessed the death of John, "who was tortured to death" through a long agony (Bellum VII chap. 8,272); they were well-aware of the meaning of such a death ... while Roman legions were camped outside Jerusalem. According to Roman Law, the person's name and the motivation for capital punishment had to be written on a sign which was then hung around the victim's neck.
Second part
I N R I : IOHANNES NAZIREVS REX IVDAEORVM
For ideological reasons the future Christian iconography represented the suffering of its God stuck up on a cross, stylized and yet unreal due to the complex carpentry characterized by elaborate "crux" joints and footrests; the presence of the latter demonstrates that to this day we continue to not know how the Romans pierced the feet of the crucified ... if they truly pierced them. A torture ritualized in an unreal manner, which to this day continues to depict the condemned Jesus along an imaginary "via crucis", despite there being no evidence of this in classical literature.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca (3 B.C. - 65 A.D.) - a famous philosopher and contemporary of Jesus - in "De Consolatione Ad Marciam" (XX 3) states that crosses (or gallows) for the torturing of the condemned were made in different ways. Like Seneca, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Maccius Plautus and Plinius the Elder also mention the crucifixions, yet they make no reference to the "via crucis": a ridiculous complication which would have forced security to move the cordon of militiamen surrounding the condemned and follow them. A macabre scene of copious bloodshed symbolizing the universal Eucharistic sacrifice had to be paraded ... but the letters "I N R I" could not hide the "Sacred Heart of Jesus", so the upper part of the "crux" was deliberately extended as if it were a "playbill" in order to accommodate the most famous manifesto of indoctrinated humanity.
Yahweh had abandoned John to his destiny and for the Jews this meant that he was not the Messiah chosen by Him. According to the Jewish prophets, the intervention of Yahweh would have lined up the heavenly powers and His wrath and would have annihilated the supremacy of the "Kittim" pagan invaders through a great massacre; this would have allowed the Chosen people to set up a "Kingdom which would have lasted for eternity" (Scrolls of Qumran: fragment 4Q 246).
The true Messiah would have been a "Dominator of the World"; His advent was known for certain by the Prophets, thus driving the Jews towards a war against Rome, as explained by Josephus in "The Jewish War" (Bellum VI 317).
But the Jewish historian could not forsee that after his death that a new Messianic doctrine would have been founded, a doctrine deriving from the "fourth philosophy, a novelty unknown until this time" and which would have transformed the Jewish "Messiah" ("Christos" in Greek) from the "Dominator of the World" into a "Saviour of the World": Jesus (Yeshùa).
In the previous study we have demonstrated that "John" was on the cross and not under the cross, as instead is reported in the Gospel, where he is surrounded by three "Marys", mothers of sons who had Jewish names which were the same as those of the brothers of Christ; these "Marys" were invented to cause confusion and prevent believers from understanding the connection between the sons of the only true Mary and the sons of Judas the Galilean through the matching of the identical appellatives. But, so as to render debatable the correlation between mothers and sons and the same names of the brothers of Christ, the evangelical scribes added another "Mary" without children under the cross: Mary Magdalene. However this naive artifice was proven wrong in the eighth study, in which "Mary without children", according to the Gospels, is said to live in Bethania, where the evangelist makes a series of blunders involving "Mary Magdalene" which turn her into a fairy-tale just like the resurrection of her brother "Lazarus".
In reality, before and during the crucifixion, no one was allowed to go near the condemned, especially not the relatives. Eschatological exigencies forced the Christian scribes responsible for this Evangelical representation to create a scene which was incompatible with historical reality:
"Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother (Mary) and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas (sic! two sisters with the same name), and Mary of Magdala. Seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near her, Jesus said to his mother, «Woman, this is your son»" (Jh 19,25-26).
The poorly specified "disciple who Jesus loved" (who the Catholic Church identifies as "John son of Mary, mother of Christ") would have also been crucified if he had dared go near someone condemned to death, publicly and atrociously tortured as an exemplary warning to the Jews to discourage them from imitating his deeds. According to Roman Law John the Nazirean could only be nailed on the cross: the armed militiamen made sure that everyone else kept their distance.
"Then all the disciples deserted him (Jesus) and ran away" (Mt 26,56).
In the Gospel according to Matthew the Law of Rome is respected (at least with regard to this detail). The brothers of Jesus and the most well-known Zealots knew that they could have been identified and reported by informers of the conservative party, which was against the social changes that had abolished the privileges it had acquired before the brief reign of "Jeshùa". Social advantages and wealth fought against by the ideology of the "fourth philosophy, a novelty unknown until this time", created by the father of Johannes bar Yehudas in 6 A.D.
John was the name of one of the sons of Mary ("mother of Jesus"); he was listed along with his brothers, as mentioned in many handwritten codexes of the Gospel of Matthew listed in the first study "The Apostles did not exist".
There was no trial whatsoever to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused person, there was no need to do so: he had been caught in the act. John, a subject of the Empire, took advantage of the war against the Parthians to sit himself through the use of force on the throne of a territory belonging to Tiberius: a rebel without Roman citizenship who became an enemy of Rome and, as such, was eliminated. This is why.
The impossible "trial against Jesus"
The rules concerning criminal proceedings in the imperial Provinces of ancient Rome provided that where, like in Judea, there was no Roman Tribunal, the local inhabitants accused of crimes and in possesson of a Diploma of Roman Citizenship were to be sent to Rome. As in the case of the trials, according to the New Testament documents of the Church, which the "Roman citizen Paul underwent at the time of Emperor Nero. Trials which in reality never took place (see study on Paul of Tarsus).
In Judea the sole judge was the Governor who, as a Roman magistrate, possessed "imperium", thus the only person who held the "ius gladii" (right to execute), specially conferred by the Caesar in power. The Magistrates issued sentences (Prefects from 6 to 40 A.D. and Procurator from 44 to 66 A.D.) having executive power and were in possession of the military strength necessary to apply such decisions.
The most serious crime committed by the mythical "Jesus Christ", if it had truly taken place, would have been the "crimen perduellionis", that is to say sedition against State institutions and considered to be high treason (all that one needs to do is consult a Latin dictionary).
The crimnal proceedings were documented in the "Acts" to be sent to the Emperor and, during the interrogation, the Magistrate asked for and recorded the defendant's personal details, starting with their city of residence and Gens or tribe to which they belonged along with their patronymic and the names of any possible direct relatives who, without prior notification, were considered as accomplices: obligatory data which, absurdly, the imperial Prefect Pontius Pilate did not ask the defendant for during trail against Jesus. This on its own is enough to make it unbelievable, and demonstrated by other aspects (of a particularly grave nature) and the numerous testimonies related to very serious crimes commited by the defendant against Roman domination.
The most serious crime committed by the mythical "Jesus Christ", if it had truly taken place, would have been the "crimen perduellionis", that is to say sedition against State institutions and considered to be high treason (all that one needs to do is consult a Latin dictionary).
The crimnal proceedings were documented in the "Acts" to be sent to the Emperor and, during the interrogation, the Magistrate asked for and recorded the defendant's personal details, starting with their city of residence and Gens or tribe to which they belonged along with their patronymic and the names of any possible direct relatives who, without prior notification, were considered as accomplices: obligatory data which, absurdly, the imperial Prefect Pontius Pilate did not ask the defendant for during trail against Jesus. This on its own is enough to make it unbelievable, and demonstrated by other aspects (of a particularly grave nature) and the numerous testimonies related to very serious crimes commited by the defendant against Roman domination.
Crimes ascribed to Jesus
The accusation of primary concern for Roman law consisted in the overthrowing of the prefectorial power held by the imperial Legate appointed by the Caesar and the subsequent coup d'ètat, carried out by Jesus: a subject of the Empire proclaimed King of the Jews by the inhabitants of Jerusalem in contrast with the Emperor's orders.
"The next day the great crowd of people who had come up for the festival heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. They took branches of palm and went receive him, shouting: Hosanna! Blessed is he who is coming in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel" (Jh 12,12/13).
Judas the traitor takes action in order to arrest Jesus and, something impossible within the Roman military hierarchy, passes over the authority of the imperial Tribune of Jerusalem and takes command of the contingent of Roman soldiers stationed in the Antonia Fortress:
"So Judas got a band of soldiers and guards (of the Temple) from the chief priests and the Pharisees..." (Jh 18,3);
"Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him (Jesus) before Pilate. They brought charges against him, saying, «We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king»" (Lk 23, 1/3).
"So Pilate said to him, «The you are a king?» Jesus answered, «You say I am a king»" (Jh 18,37).
"Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him (Jesus) before Pilate. They brought charges against him, saying, «We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king»" (Lk 23, 1/3).
"So Pilate said to him, «The you are a king?» Jesus answered, «You say I am a king»" (Jh 18,37).
No Roman Prefect would have have remained indifferent to the self-styled "King of the Jews" acclaimed by the people, a monarch who, as such, prohibited the payment of tributes to the Emperor. Behaviour which would have entailed the ouster of Pontius Pilate from his role as Governor of Judea (resident in Caesarea Maritima, then the imperial capital of Judea) and the subsequent subversion of the powers-duties delegated to him by Tiberius ...
On the contrary, according to what was written by the evangelists:
On the contrary, according to what was written by the evangelists:
"Pilate once more went out and said to them, «Look, I am bringing him out to you, so that you may know that I find no guilt in him»" (Jh 19,4).
At this point (another absurdity) the Jews are those who remind the imperial Prefect Pilate about the Law of Rome and what his duties are:
"If you release him, you are not a friend of Caesar! Everyone who makes himself king opposes Caesar" (Jh 19,12).
"At this, Pilate said to them, «Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law». The Jews answered him, "We do not have the right to execute anyone" (Jh 18,31), obviously in observance of Roman imperial law.
"If you release him, you are not a friend of Caesar! Everyone who makes himself king opposes Caesar" (Jh 19,12).
"At this, Pilate said to them, «Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law». The Jews answered him, "We do not have the right to execute anyone" (Jh 18,31), obviously in observance of Roman imperial law.
During the interrogatory, an authentic Governor of Rome, in front of such evident accusations, would have never asked the defendant "Are you the King of the Jews?"; or even worse, while "Jesus was in front of him he is said to have asked the crowd: "Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" (Mk 15,9).
The paradox of this affirmation is confirmed by the fact the first witness consulted by the Prefect should inevitably have been, on the basis of its official functions, the Tribune of Jerusalem, high imperial official, commander of the military contingent statione in the Antonia Fortress. This official was responsible for the conservation of public order in the city and, as an eyewitness, should inevitably have been aware of Jesus's acclamation as King of the Jews by the inhabitants of Jerusalem and, as a result, the Tribune should have immediately notified the supreme consular authority in the Province, the imperial Legate of Syria, a leader chosen by the Caesar, who should have intervened at the head of his legions, specifically deployed in Antioch. The high Roman official present in Jerusalem was aware that the people's acclamation of a self-styled "King of the Jews" would have been totally unacceptable for Rome, therefore to be considered a coup d'ètat against the legitimate Prefectorial power established in the Provinces of the Empire by decree of Tiberius and in compliance with the precepts of Caesar Augustus.
It is dutiful to highlight that the Gospel of John, in the passages which have just been read, demonstrates the Tribune of Jerusalem was not stationed at the Antonia Fortress; and the only explanation being that the imperial official was killed during the Zealot insurrection.
Returning to the evangelical text, the scribe who drew it up depicts inadmissible behaviour on the part of Pontius Pilate, as would have been the case for any Roman Governor behaving in such a manner:
The paradox of this affirmation is confirmed by the fact the first witness consulted by the Prefect should inevitably have been, on the basis of its official functions, the Tribune of Jerusalem, high imperial official, commander of the military contingent statione in the Antonia Fortress. This official was responsible for the conservation of public order in the city and, as an eyewitness, should inevitably have been aware of Jesus's acclamation as King of the Jews by the inhabitants of Jerusalem and, as a result, the Tribune should have immediately notified the supreme consular authority in the Province, the imperial Legate of Syria, a leader chosen by the Caesar, who should have intervened at the head of his legions, specifically deployed in Antioch. The high Roman official present in Jerusalem was aware that the people's acclamation of a self-styled "King of the Jews" would have been totally unacceptable for Rome, therefore to be considered a coup d'ètat against the legitimate Prefectorial power established in the Provinces of the Empire by decree of Tiberius and in compliance with the precepts of Caesar Augustus.
It is dutiful to highlight that the Gospel of John, in the passages which have just been read, demonstrates the Tribune of Jerusalem was not stationed at the Antonia Fortress; and the only explanation being that the imperial official was killed during the Zealot insurrection.
Returning to the evangelical text, the scribe who drew it up depicts inadmissible behaviour on the part of Pontius Pilate, as would have been the case for any Roman Governor behaving in such a manner:
"Pilate said to them, «Then what shall I do with Jesus called Messiah?» They all said, «Let him be crucified!» But he said, «Why? What evil has he done?»They only shouted the louder, «Let him be crucified!» ... he (Pilate) took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying, «I am innocent of this man's blood. Look to it yourselves.» And the whole people said in reply, «His blood be upon us and upon our children»" (Mt 27,22/25).
With this crazy passage concerning the self-damnantion of the Jews the scribe endorsed the falsity of the "trial against Jesus", created solely for eschatological e doctrinal reasons: sacrifice, blood, death and resurrection fro the salvation of humanity.
"But they kept on shouting at the top of their voices, demanding that he should be crucified. And their shouts kept growing louder. Pilate then gav his verdict: their demand was to be granted" (Lk 23,23/24).
It is to be pointed out that Pilate, as a Roman Magistrate, had recognized the innocence of the defendant, but nevertheless he had Jesus whipped before his crucifixion resulting in a long painful death, when instead he could have simply beheaded him thus sparing him such prolonged and agonizing torture.
For Christian eschatology the blood shed by the "Saviour" Son, wanted by God the Father as a sacrifice for the salvation of the whole of humanity, had to be copious and shed along an imaginary "via crucis" (never carried out by the Romans who, like all military men from the beginning of time, were very hasty), overly torturous due to the hatred of both Romans and Jews who followed and tortured him.
For Christian eschatology the blood shed by the "Saviour" Son, wanted by God the Father as a sacrifice for the salvation of the whole of humanity, had to be copious and shed along an imaginary "via crucis" (never carried out by the Romans who, like all military men from the beginning of time, were very hasty), overly torturous due to the hatred of both Romans and Jews who followed and tortured him.
An irrational description drawn up by psychopathic fanatics in which the blood shed by Christ was spread all over his body that had just been unnailed and taken off cross by Joseph of Arimathea. The latter wrapped him in a candid cloth and transported the body from Golgota to a sepulchre he owned. Blood which, inevitably, is said to have stained the "Holy Shroud" in a totally irregular manner thus making it impossible to recognize the authentic shape of the deceased before his death. The narration, reported by three scribes in the synoptic Gospels, proves to be invented when compared to a completely different description given by John the Evangelist, the "favourite disciple". The latter, unlike the other evangelists, and among these the only direct eyewitness, described a completely different sepulture.
Initially the body of Christ was wrapped in the shroud dripping in blood by Joseph of Arimathea, then, with the help of Nicodemus (another converted Sanhedrist), the body was transported to the sepulchre and, before entering, eliminated the stained cloth (in fact inside the sepulchre there is no such cloth). Afterwards both Sanhedrists wrapped the body very carefully after washing and oiling it and soaking the bandages in a thirty kilo mixture of aloe and myrrh, so as to embalm him according to an eastern rite reserved for Kings and High Priests and in use from ancient Persia to Egypt.
Initially the body of Christ was wrapped in the shroud dripping in blood by Joseph of Arimathea, then, with the help of Nicodemus (another converted Sanhedrist), the body was transported to the sepulchre and, before entering, eliminated the stained cloth (in fact inside the sepulchre there is no such cloth). Afterwards both Sanhedrists wrapped the body very carefully after washing and oiling it and soaking the bandages in a thirty kilo mixture of aloe and myrrh, so as to embalm him according to an eastern rite reserved for Kings and High Priests and in use from ancient Persia to Egypt.
Conclusion: an invented trial, which therefore never took place ... just like the "resurrection". In fact, a subject of the Empire, once proclaiming himself "King of the Jews" in flagrante delicto, was in no need of investigation in order to verify his crime. The high treason of a subject against the imperial State would have immediately brought about a public crucifixion as a warning against whoever did not recognize the dominion of Rome.
As we have already mentioned, a sign stating the offender's crime was hung around their neck and everything came to an end before sunset (Bellum IV 317), when, before allowing the cross to be taken down, a soldier verified that the criminal had died by inserting a spear into their heart.
Instead, for the evangelist John, "the Sacred Heart" of Jesus could not be pierced, therefore the Christian scribe who passed himself off as the "favourite disciple" chose his "side" (Jh 19,34).
As we have already mentioned, a sign stating the offender's crime was hung around their neck and everything came to an end before sunset (Bellum IV 317), when, before allowing the cross to be taken down, a soldier verified that the criminal had died by inserting a spear into their heart.
Instead, for the evangelist John, "the Sacred Heart" of Jesus could not be pierced, therefore the Christian scribe who passed himself off as the "favourite disciple" chose his "side" (Jh 19,34).
The primitive trial contemplated two Jesuses
With regard to the "trial" against "Jesus" there is another aspect, in addition to the historical unreliability just mentioned, which highlights the manipulation of this evangelical event: the initial theology which portrayed two different Saviour Jesuses. Let's verify this together.
As we all know, prior to the crucifixon, Pontius Pilate was forced by the Jews to release the thief "Barabbas" instead of Jesus, but, from a reading of the "Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine" (A. Merck S. I. - Rome - Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1933), which we reproduce below, there is evidence of totally different information.
With regard to the Gospel of Matthew, Chap. 27, it can be observed that the reference to verse 16 (underlined in red), containing the existence of two "Jesuses": one, known to all, and a second one: "Jesus Barabbas". While for us, common mortals, there is something strange, in effect the exegetical Christian "insiders" are well aware of this "peculiarness" and the existence of the oldest evangelical fragment containing the specification "Jesus Barabbas". The find is named "P. Oxy. L 3523" and dated paleographically to the second century; there are also various codexes, which report this quotation of Matthew (Mt 27,16), drawn up several centuries later, starting with the fourth century "Codex (Q) Koridethianus" and followed by other manuscripts which, all together, are generically classified throught he acronym "F1".
Long before the aforementioned manuscripts, Origen, in the the third century, was already aware of this evangelical narration and in two passages of his "Commentary on Matthew" (Book XIV 19), despite criticizing the fact, reports the existence of two Jesuses: "Jesus Barabbas" and "Jesus called the Christ".
It is to be pointed out that "Barabbas" is recalled in the current Gospels with a capital B, while in reality we are dealing with a compound word made up of the original Aramaic lemma "Abba", meaning "Father", preceded by "Bar" meaning "Son of". In fact, in the Gospel of Mark (14.36) we read "« Abba, Father, for you everything is possible »", and in Luke (23,34) "« Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing »".
We know that this "Abba", being that the priests have explained it to us from the time of our childhood, means "God", but, at the same time, it was a supreme appellative which the Jews could not pronounce. Therefore "Abba" (Father) in the original manuscriots designated "God", thus, the phrase reported in the "canonized" Gospels: "Pilate said to them, «Which do you want me to release for you: Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ? »" (Mt 27.17), while in the "non-canonized" we read "« Which do you want me to release for you: Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ? »" ... exactly as reported by Origen*.
Consequently, in the theologically univocal and coherent primitive manuscripts there were two "Saviours" attested as such: "«Which do you want me to release for you: Jesus son of (bar) Abba (God Father) or Jesus called the Christ (Messiah)?» ".
We find ourselves before a "theological plot twist".
It is to be pointed out that "Barabbas" is recalled in the current Gospels with a capital B, while in reality we are dealing with a compound word made up of the original Aramaic lemma "Abba", meaning "Father", preceded by "Bar" meaning "Son of". In fact, in the Gospel of Mark (14.36) we read "« Abba, Father, for you everything is possible »", and in Luke (23,34) "« Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing »".
We know that this "Abba", being that the priests have explained it to us from the time of our childhood, means "God", but, at the same time, it was a supreme appellative which the Jews could not pronounce. Therefore "Abba" (Father) in the original manuscriots designated "God", thus, the phrase reported in the "canonized" Gospels: "Pilate said to them, «Which do you want me to release for you: Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ? »" (Mt 27.17), while in the "non-canonized" we read "« Which do you want me to release for you: Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ? »" ... exactly as reported by Origen*.
Consequently, in the theologically univocal and coherent primitive manuscripts there were two "Saviours" attested as such: "«Which do you want me to release for you: Jesus son of (bar) Abba (God Father) or Jesus called the Christ (Messiah)?» ".
We find ourselves before a "theological plot twist".
* The fact that Origen, far into the third century, had been the first Christian to highlight this event, shattering for the doctrine, demonstrates that the paleographical estimate of the "P. Oxy. L 3523" fragment is erroneously predated by a century.
Regardless of the datings of the texts, it is evident that the numerous subsequent codexes, containing the same information, highlight the importance of the news, in total contrast with the Christian doctrine in effect from the fourth century to to this very day.
Preoccupied by the shattering conseqences, the Church eliminated "Jesus" from "Jesus Barabbas" - reported in the primitive Gospels prior to those canonized during the fourth century - and left only "Barabbas" so as to make it appear to be a common appellative.
But it is dutiful to take a more indepth look at this particular, opportunely not revealed to followers from that time onwards, to the point that Eusebius of Caesarea, in his "Historia Ecclesiastica" - written before the 325 A.D. Council of Nicea, and destined to certify the existence of the famous Christians, starting with all the evangelical protagonists - does not even cite "Barabbas" among the personalities of the of the holy texts, as the Bishop and historian was unaware of his existence.
Ultimately, a series of circmstances which bring about the suppression of the famous "Barabbas" from the tragic primitive "divine iconography", a representation which, unlke the current canonical Gospels, provided for the "Son of God" graced by Pilate rather than nailed onto the cross; where, unlike what is stated in the Gospel just mentioned, "Jesus called the Christ" was tortured by the Roman prefect. As a result, The Messiah King was crucified in place of the "Son of God"; that is to say "an "Anointed King", according to the ancient biblical practice of the anointment with holy oil, reserved for Kings and High Priests.
But it is dutiful to take a more indepth look at this particular, opportunely not revealed to followers from that time onwards, to the point that Eusebius of Caesarea, in his "Historia Ecclesiastica" - written before the 325 A.D. Council of Nicea, and destined to certify the existence of the famous Christians, starting with all the evangelical protagonists - does not even cite "Barabbas" among the personalities of the of the holy texts, as the Bishop and historian was unaware of his existence.
Ultimately, a series of circmstances which bring about the suppression of the famous "Barabbas" from the tragic primitive "divine iconography", a representation which, unlke the current canonical Gospels, provided for the "Son of God" graced by Pilate rather than nailed onto the cross; where, unlike what is stated in the Gospel just mentioned, "Jesus called the Christ" was tortured by the Roman prefect. As a result, The Messiah King was crucified in place of the "Son of God"; that is to say "an "Anointed King", according to the ancient biblical practice of the anointment with holy oil, reserved for Kings and High Priests.
"Contemplative" biblicists and philologists attempt to carry out miracles by inventing overly complicated "theories" (tangling up their brains as a result) so as to find a justification for this paradox which represents two different "Jesuses" (Saviours), mainly with regard to the perturbing conclusion to the trial in which the Son of God (Bar Abba) is freed without being "sacrificed". An extremely grave heresy for the Christian faith, officialized from the fourth century onwards, to the point that today's spiritual exegetes accuse the scribes, who drew up the Gospels and communicated such a heresy in the holy texts, of incompetence. The ecclesiastical hermeneuts of all the Christian sects are well aware that their doctrine wold collapse: Christianity provides for only one crucified "Jesus, Saviour, Son of God" ... despite the fact that we know that he is the result of the syncretism of many "Saviour Christs" represented in different ways, therefore considered to be "heretical" (see the numerous fourth century Councils against the "heretical Christs"), including the "Soteres", pagan Saviours, starting with the God Mithra.
For history, instead, this "Creed" has already collapsed ... with or without the two Jesuses (Saviours). Therefore, this stretch which sees "Abba" (some attempt to do so, such as the priestly Gianluigi Bastia author of the website "Cristianesimo Primitivo") as a common name among first century Jews is contradicted by Josephus Flavius's History (in his many works the Jewish historian reports hundreds of Israelite names without any "Abba" whatsoever) and by the Archeology of the period. In effect, simple logic teaches us that no Jew could have ever said or written down "son of the father" on its own, because, without specifying the true name of his parent, the phrase would be meaningless, being that we are all children of fathers: this is why the Jews are obliged to always indicate the patronymic the first time someone is mentioned.
Being that we are dealing with pure eschatology, it is impossible for any analytical historian to understand how, through the centuries, Christian scribes managed to witness different "Saviours", both in the substance and in their representation; well aware that the so-called "Christian tradition" was made to appear homogeneous from an eschatological point of view, and its protagonists were deified at the end of the fourth century (this is verified in the third part of the sixth study), following the destruction of all the incoherent Gospels incompatible with the final victorious doctrine; this was done through the elimination, first of all, of the catechesis and the liturgy of the "Saviour" God Mithra, so as not to highlight the similiarities with the rising Christian faith, like the Grotto (Mitreus) and the theophagic eucharistic meal. Very few primitive Gospels survived the annihilation carried out by Catholic integralists.
Today we are certain that the starting point, that is to say the "Dominator of the World" reported by Jospehus Flavius, identified in the Holy Scriptures and awaited by the vast majority of the Jews in order to defeat the pagan invaders and free the Promise Land from Roman hegemony. In particular the Essenes prophetized the advent of a "Son of God Dominator of the World" (which we will soon document) capable of defeating the "Kittim, Sons of Darkness" oppressors. Unfortunately for the Jews, as a result of the ethnic holocausts undergone in the 70-73 and 132-135 A.D. wars due to the Romans, the Essenes were forced to "correct" their initial prophecy by making it appear that, over a century earlier, a Messiah, Son of God "Saviour of the World", (no Longer "Dominator of the World"), capable of resurrecting after death, had already come, with the promise of guaranteeing eternal life to those who believed in Him.
In reality, no historian is allowed to know about the evolution of the initial doctrine being that, as we have already affirmed, all the forerunning Gospels in contrast with the final catechesis were deliberately destroyed so as not to leave trace of the fact that such works were the fruit of human imagination and not dictated by a divine revelation.
Today we are certain that the starting point, that is to say the "Dominator of the World" reported by Jospehus Flavius, identified in the Holy Scriptures and awaited by the vast majority of the Jews in order to defeat the pagan invaders and free the Promise Land from Roman hegemony. In particular the Essenes prophetized the advent of a "Son of God Dominator of the World" (which we will soon document) capable of defeating the "Kittim, Sons of Darkness" oppressors. Unfortunately for the Jews, as a result of the ethnic holocausts undergone in the 70-73 and 132-135 A.D. wars due to the Romans, the Essenes were forced to "correct" their initial prophecy by making it appear that, over a century earlier, a Messiah, Son of God "Saviour of the World", (no Longer "Dominator of the World"), capable of resurrecting after death, had already come, with the promise of guaranteeing eternal life to those who believed in Him.
In reality, no historian is allowed to know about the evolution of the initial doctrine being that, as we have already affirmed, all the forerunning Gospels in contrast with the final catechesis were deliberately destroyed so as not to leave trace of the fact that such works were the fruit of human imagination and not dictated by a divine revelation.
Ultimately, the awkward attempt of spiritual historians to rationally explain the contradictory evangelical testimonies is due to their weakness or inability to recognize their own naivety and "belief" in a miraculous fairy tale characterized by the illusory prospect of achieving eternal life ... but, above all, is aimed precisely at indoctrinating one's neighbours for personal advantage. Having said this, it is important to point out that there is only one certain conclusion: the imaginary thief "Barabbas" never existed (we have just proven this) and no "trial against Jesus" ever took place.
It is has been proven once and for all that the "biography of Jesus" is simply a mystical literary canovaccio based on a "script" created sloppily, and so: "Nativity", "Miracles", "Trial", "Sacrifice", "Resurrection" and "Ascension" of the "Universal Saviour" prove to be naive narrations fruit of irrational human, and not divine, thought.
Having concluded this latest "theological excursus", extremely embarassing for the animist exegetes (but very funny for we atheists), aware of the existence of Gospels which narrate that the "Son of God" was not crucified, let's recover the "canonical" line of discussion.
Therefore
we confirm, the "Trial" was made up in order to place the blame for the
execution of the "Saviour" upon the Jews. In fact, for the new doctrine
Jesus Christ "Our Lord" it could not emerge that He had been
executed by the imperial plenipotentiary; this would have demonstrated
that he was a Zealot Jewish King and warrior, which was in contrast with the new, docile figure of the "Agnus Dei", divine victim sacrificed for the good of humanity.
A "Lamb of God" with warlike intentions, according to His words:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace that I have come to bring, but a sword" (Mt 10,34);
"As for my enemies who did not want me for their King, bring them here and execute them in my presence"
(Lk 19,27);
"Whoever has no sword must sell his coat and buy one...the apostles said: «Lord, here are two swords»"
(Lk 22,36/38).
We all know that the Gospels narrate that Pontius Pilate (and not Lucius Vitellius) was forced by the Jews to execute Jesus. There are also two non-Christian writings by Josephus (Testimonium Flavianum) and Cornelius Tacitus (Annales XV, chap. 44) that have reached us thanks to Christian scribes and they state that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate. Evidence of this can also be found in the "Creed" in which masses of believers recite aloud - as a symbol of Apostolic faith - "he suffered under Pontius Pilate...", in a puerile singsong repeated an infinite number of times during the liturgy of the Sunday Mass. An outright brainwashing carried out in order to prevent the historical truth from being known; this was done by moving the dating of the execution of "Jesus", which in reality had taken place a few months after the destitution of Pilate.
In the comparative study of the chronicles of Cornelius Tacitus and Josephus Flavius contained in the later studies regarding the martyrs of Nero and the "Testimonium Flavianum", we demonstrate that the passages of the two great historians of the first century are spurious interpolations. They were introduced by false scribes who, after copying and censoring the original manuscripts of the two writers, rather than save them destroyed them in order to eliminate the proof of the tampering.
But history even has Pontius Pilate - Roman magistrate who did not want to execute Jesus, but simply submitted to the will of the Sanhedrin and of the Jewish people - disappear from the... "Creed". The name of this Prefect was introduced into the "Creed" formulated at the Council of Constantinople convened in 381 A.D., which declaimed:
A "Lamb of God" with warlike intentions, according to His words:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace that I have come to bring, but a sword" (Mt 10,34);
"As for my enemies who did not want me for their King, bring them here and execute them in my presence"
(Lk 19,27);
"Whoever has no sword must sell his coat and buy one...the apostles said: «Lord, here are two swords»"
(Lk 22,36/38).
We all know that the Gospels narrate that Pontius Pilate (and not Lucius Vitellius) was forced by the Jews to execute Jesus. There are also two non-Christian writings by Josephus (Testimonium Flavianum) and Cornelius Tacitus (Annales XV, chap. 44) that have reached us thanks to Christian scribes and they state that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate. Evidence of this can also be found in the "Creed" in which masses of believers recite aloud - as a symbol of Apostolic faith - "he suffered under Pontius Pilate...", in a puerile singsong repeated an infinite number of times during the liturgy of the Sunday Mass. An outright brainwashing carried out in order to prevent the historical truth from being known; this was done by moving the dating of the execution of "Jesus", which in reality had taken place a few months after the destitution of Pilate.
In the comparative study of the chronicles of Cornelius Tacitus and Josephus Flavius contained in the later studies regarding the martyrs of Nero and the "Testimonium Flavianum", we demonstrate that the passages of the two great historians of the first century are spurious interpolations. They were introduced by false scribes who, after copying and censoring the original manuscripts of the two writers, rather than save them destroyed them in order to eliminate the proof of the tampering.
But history even has Pontius Pilate - Roman magistrate who did not want to execute Jesus, but simply submitted to the will of the Sanhedrin and of the Jewish people - disappear from the... "Creed". The name of this Prefect was introduced into the "Creed" formulated at the Council of Constantinople convened in 381 A.D., which declaimed:
"... was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilatus, and he sacrificed himself, and was buried, and the third day he rose again...".
While the original "Creed" formulated in Nicea in 325 A.D. said:
"... was incarnate and was made man; He sacrificed himself, and the third day he rose again...".
There is no mention of Pilate and of the "Virgin Mary Mother of God" whose "Immaculate Conception" was adopted by the pagan cults in 431 A.D. at the Council of Ephesus under Emperor Theodosius II. With regard to the imperial Prefect of Tiberius, we must mention a very important declaration made by Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century:
"It is therefore demonstrated the falsity of the Acts of the Apostles against our Saviour, published recently, these, in fact, place under the fourth consulate of Tiberius, which coincides with the seventh year of his reign, the suffering which the Jews dared inflict upon our Savior: but at that time Pilatus did not govern over Judea" (HEc. I 9,3/4).
According to what we just read, Eusebius informs us of the publication of a version, in his time, of "Acts of Jesus" (which obviously disappeared) - different from the one which we know today - in which the torture of Jesus is said to have taken place in 21 A.D. (fourth consulate of Tiberius), in other words under Valerius Gratus, Pilate's predecessor; this demonstrates that the alterations were carried out by the evangelical editors to sidetrack the research on who really crucified "Jesus" ... including the dating of the imaginary event.
According to those "Acts of Jesus" it was the Prefect Valerius Gratus who "sacrificed" Christ.
On the basis of what was written by Eusebius's Christian calligraphers when copying the spurious passage "Testimonium Flavianum" into "Historia Ecclesiastica" (XVIII 63/4) - in which the "testimony" of the historian Josephus and Pilate's decision to sentence Jesus to crucifixion are reported - today we continue to read that naive scribes placed ("stuck") the event before 19 A.D., under Valerius Gratus.
As proven in the sixth study, from a brief analysis of "Testimonium Flavianum" - drawn on by the copyists who, in the eleventh century, wrote "Jewish Antiquities" (XVIII 63-64) in "Codex Ambrosianus Gr F 128" - anyone can understand that the passage is a fake as "Jesus" is crucified the year before (18 AD) in which the Jewish historian records the expulsion from Rome of all the Jews, by Tiberius, which took place in 19 AD, confirmed by Tacitus (Annales 2,85) and Suetonius (Tiberius 36).
However, Eusebius's scribes made a second "painful mystical boo-boo" and went as far as to contradict the Gospels themselves: the crucifixion of "Jesus" is said to have taken place many years prior to the execution of John the Baptist while the Evangelists attest that he died before Christ. According to history, the death of the Baptist was ordered by Herod Antipas seventeen years after the "resurrection of Jesus" reported in "Testimonium Flavianum" off Jewish Antiquities (Ant. XVIII 63-64), that is to say at the end of 35; beginning of 36 A.D., year in which Antipas was defeated in the war against his ex-father-in-law Aretas IV (Ant. XVIII 116/9), war declared by the latter in the summer of 36.
Further proof of the dating, which demonstrates that the execution of John the Baptist took place at the end of 35 beginning of 36 A.D., can be found in Eusebius of Caesarea's "Historia Ecclesiastica":
"Herod Tetrarch married Herodias, his brother's wife, after repudiating his first wife who he had married according to the laws (she was the daughter of Aretas, King of Petrea) and after separating Herodias from her husband, who was still alive. And due to this woman he had John executed and waged war against Aretas, whose daughter he had dishonoured" (op. cit. I 11,1).
It is evident that the cause and effect of the war are immediate, and from history we have the confirmation that Aretas IV opened the conflict against Herod Antipas in the summer of 36 A.D.; therefore, as the Baptist was already dead at the beginning of 36, it is clear that the crucifixion of the "Saviour" took place during Easter of 36 A.D.
Unlike what truly occurred in history, the events narrated in the Gospels highlights irreconcilable chronological contradictions with historiography; but all you have to do is move the death of "Jesus" to 36 A.D. and the datings of the events become coherent for both history and the Gospels, thus obtaining an incontrovertible sequence of dates: death of John the Baptist, end of 35 beginning of 36 A.D.; the ousting of Pilate as Governor of Judea at the beginning of 36 A.D; the intervention of Lucius Vitellius during Easter of 36 A.D.
While the original "Creed" formulated in Nicea in 325 A.D. said:
"... was incarnate and was made man; He sacrificed himself, and the third day he rose again...".
There is no mention of Pilate and of the "Virgin Mary Mother of God" whose "Immaculate Conception" was adopted by the pagan cults in 431 A.D. at the Council of Ephesus under Emperor Theodosius II. With regard to the imperial Prefect of Tiberius, we must mention a very important declaration made by Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century:
"It is therefore demonstrated the falsity of the Acts of the Apostles against our Saviour, published recently, these, in fact, place under the fourth consulate of Tiberius, which coincides with the seventh year of his reign, the suffering which the Jews dared inflict upon our Savior: but at that time Pilatus did not govern over Judea" (HEc. I 9,3/4).
According to what we just read, Eusebius informs us of the publication of a version, in his time, of "Acts of Jesus" (which obviously disappeared) - different from the one which we know today - in which the torture of Jesus is said to have taken place in 21 A.D. (fourth consulate of Tiberius), in other words under Valerius Gratus, Pilate's predecessor; this demonstrates that the alterations were carried out by the evangelical editors to sidetrack the research on who really crucified "Jesus" ... including the dating of the imaginary event.
According to those "Acts of Jesus" it was the Prefect Valerius Gratus who "sacrificed" Christ.
On the basis of what was written by Eusebius's Christian calligraphers when copying the spurious passage "Testimonium Flavianum" into "Historia Ecclesiastica" (XVIII 63/4) - in which the "testimony" of the historian Josephus and Pilate's decision to sentence Jesus to crucifixion are reported - today we continue to read that naive scribes placed ("stuck") the event before 19 A.D., under Valerius Gratus.
As proven in the sixth study, from a brief analysis of "Testimonium Flavianum" - drawn on by the copyists who, in the eleventh century, wrote "Jewish Antiquities" (XVIII 63-64) in "Codex Ambrosianus Gr F 128" - anyone can understand that the passage is a fake as "Jesus" is crucified the year before (18 AD) in which the Jewish historian records the expulsion from Rome of all the Jews, by Tiberius, which took place in 19 AD, confirmed by Tacitus (Annales 2,85) and Suetonius (Tiberius 36).
However, Eusebius's scribes made a second "painful mystical boo-boo" and went as far as to contradict the Gospels themselves: the crucifixion of "Jesus" is said to have taken place many years prior to the execution of John the Baptist while the Evangelists attest that he died before Christ. According to history, the death of the Baptist was ordered by Herod Antipas seventeen years after the "resurrection of Jesus" reported in "Testimonium Flavianum" off Jewish Antiquities (Ant. XVIII 63-64), that is to say at the end of 35; beginning of 36 A.D., year in which Antipas was defeated in the war against his ex-father-in-law Aretas IV (Ant. XVIII 116/9), war declared by the latter in the summer of 36.
Further proof of the dating, which demonstrates that the execution of John the Baptist took place at the end of 35 beginning of 36 A.D., can be found in Eusebius of Caesarea's "Historia Ecclesiastica":
"Herod Tetrarch married Herodias, his brother's wife, after repudiating his first wife who he had married according to the laws (she was the daughter of Aretas, King of Petrea) and after separating Herodias from her husband, who was still alive. And due to this woman he had John executed and waged war against Aretas, whose daughter he had dishonoured" (op. cit. I 11,1).
It is evident that the cause and effect of the war are immediate, and from history we have the confirmation that Aretas IV opened the conflict against Herod Antipas in the summer of 36 A.D.; therefore, as the Baptist was already dead at the beginning of 36, it is clear that the crucifixion of the "Saviour" took place during Easter of 36 A.D.
Unlike what truly occurred in history, the events narrated in the Gospels highlights irreconcilable chronological contradictions with historiography; but all you have to do is move the death of "Jesus" to 36 A.D. and the datings of the events become coherent for both history and the Gospels, thus obtaining an incontrovertible sequence of dates: death of John the Baptist, end of 35 beginning of 36 A.D.; the ousting of Pilate as Governor of Judea at the beginning of 36 A.D; the intervention of Lucius Vitellius during Easter of 36 A.D.
In
spite of the continual reelaboration and rearrangement of both the New
Testament and patristic documents, with regard to Pontius Pilate there
remains the certainty that the Christian scribes never blamed the Roman Prefect for the death of "Jesus", but instead put the blame on the Sanhedrin and on all the Jewish people, as attested by Eusebius (ibid):
"it was the Jews who dared inflict suffering upon our Saviour ...".
There is another important piece of
evidence regarding the Governor of Judea Pontius Pilate which,
inevitably, also reflects upon Jèshua, the Jewish "Saviour" of humanity:
that of the great Jewish scholar and philosopher Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. - 45 A.D.), a contemporary of Jesus the Messiah and Pontius Pilate.
After stating in his treatise "De Providentia" (II 107) that Philo frequently went on pilgrimages to the Temple of Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to God (without touching upon the existence of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, let alone their "miracles"), in his work "De Legatione ad Caium" (par. 299-303), Philo expresses a very negative and lapidary opinion about Pontius Pilate:
After stating in his treatise "De Providentia" (II 107) that Philo frequently went on pilgrimages to the Temple of Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to God (without touching upon the existence of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, let alone their "miracles"), in his work "De Legatione ad Caium" (par. 299-303), Philo expresses a very negative and lapidary opinion about Pontius Pilate:
"A corrupt tyrant, avid and insensitive to the reasons of justice. Pride, arrogance and insolence were his attributes ... The country under his rule was abandoned to its destiny and sacked and the people were killed without any respect for the law". (A Guide to the Bible: An introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, Published Under the Direction of A. Robert and A. Tricot, Volume 2 - Paris 1955).
This is the description of the true historical Pilate, totally different from the one depicted by the evangelists obliged not to have a "Christ" condemned by the Sanhedrin, rather than by the law of Rome,
so as not to have Jesus appear to be an anti-Roman militant. Moreover,
the reference to the revolutionary Zealots is clearly evident and there
is also clear evidence of the powerlessness of the Prefect, who had the
command over a limited military force, unable to contrast the numerous
subversive raids that took place everywhere in a Palestine in which the
"Nationalist Fanatic" Party had the majority.
Philo was a wealthy, privileged Jew and he mentioned this piece of information regarding his own recent past after the unfortunate Jewish Legation before Gaius Caligula (Legatio ad Gaium XXX 203) dating back to 40 A.D.
But the philosopher Philo of Alexandra, who had profound knowledge of the Old Testament, in none of his works makes mention of the Advent of a divine Jewish "Messiah" (Cristòs) by the name of "Jesus" who, according to the Gospels, lived in the same land, at the same time, author of extraordinary miracles, acclaimed by the inhabitants of Jerusalem as King of the Jews and by them called "son of David" ... nor knows anything about the crucifixion ordered by the Jewish Sanhedrin and carried out by the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
But the philosopher Philo of Alexandra, who had profound knowledge of the Old Testament, in none of his works makes mention of the Advent of a divine Jewish "Messiah" (Cristòs) by the name of "Jesus" who, according to the Gospels, lived in the same land, at the same time, author of extraordinary miracles, acclaimed by the inhabitants of Jerusalem as King of the Jews and by them called "son of David" ... nor knows anything about the crucifixion ordered by the Jewish Sanhedrin and carried out by the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
As
can be verified in the fourth century, the "historical construction" of
the new faith was still evolving and tended to distance itself from the
previous pagan religions, especially from that of the last sacrificed "Saviour", the God Mithra, in order to distinguish itself from the latter.
In addition to the invention of the new "Mother of God" (which previously did not exist) to be adored by gullible "gentiles", the "Venerable Holy Bishops" also invented the "sacrificer" of "Jesus", by digging up a Roman official by the name of Pilate (without blaming him for the crime) - in office prior to Lucius Vitellius - in order to sidetrack the historical research on the entire event.
In addition to the invention of the new "Mother of God" (which previously did not exist) to be adored by gullible "gentiles", the "Venerable Holy Bishops" also invented the "sacrificer" of "Jesus", by digging up a Roman official by the name of Pilate (without blaming him for the crime) - in office prior to Lucius Vitellius - in order to sidetrack the historical research on the entire event.
The
coup - an outright act of war against the domination of Rome - forced
Vitellius, who was still fighting against the Parthians, to immediately
subject the leader to torture and execute him. The Lieutenant of
Tiberius - Plenipotentiary and imperial representative for the entire
Orient, sole "Leader" of the Province of Syria which included Judea,
Idumea, and Samaria - knew that this rebellion aimed at depriving him of
his powers and duties, the first of which was to guarantee the
supremacy of Rome over the territories under its control.
John the Nazirean dared to proclaim himself King of the Jews, King of a territory owned by the Empire, guilty of having commited the worst crime chargeable to a subject of Caesar. This was an attack against the sovereignty of Rome and the imperial regulations regarding the preservation of the state and, consequently, the safety of everyone.
Emperor Tiberius decided who - when and where - could become King of one of the lands under his jurisdiction as long as the latter remained his faithful "client".
From 63 B.C. - year in which Pompeius Magnus conquered Palestine - all of the Kings and Tetrarchs who ruled over this region were chosen by Rome; and they could not remain in power without the consent of the Emperor, who allowed them to exercise their authority if, and only if, they were believed to be governing in the interest of the Emperor; these leaders were removed from office or exiled if there was the slightest doubt ... and any decision to this regard made by the Emperor was unappealable. This happened to Herod Archelaus in 6 A.D. and to Herod Antipas in 39 A.D.
John the Nazirean dared to proclaim himself King of the Jews, King of a territory owned by the Empire, guilty of having commited the worst crime chargeable to a subject of Caesar. This was an attack against the sovereignty of Rome and the imperial regulations regarding the preservation of the state and, consequently, the safety of everyone.
Emperor Tiberius decided who - when and where - could become King of one of the lands under his jurisdiction as long as the latter remained his faithful "client".
From 63 B.C. - year in which Pompeius Magnus conquered Palestine - all of the Kings and Tetrarchs who ruled over this region were chosen by Rome; and they could not remain in power without the consent of the Emperor, who allowed them to exercise their authority if, and only if, they were believed to be governing in the interest of the Emperor; these leaders were removed from office or exiled if there was the slightest doubt ... and any decision to this regard made by the Emperor was unappealable. This happened to Herod Archelaus in 6 A.D. and to Herod Antipas in 39 A.D.
During
the alleged interrogation Vitellius (and the same would have gone for
Pilate) did not even think of asking John the Nazirean: "Are you the King of the Jews?"; or even worse, while "Jesus" was in front of him, Vitellius (or Pilate) supposedly asked the crowd: "Do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews?"
(Mark 15,9); or, in reference to the military instructions of an
imperial Prefect, let's have a look at what Saint Luke would lead us to
believe in his Gospel in order to free Pilate from blame.
"But they kept on shouting at the top of their voices, demanding that they should be crucified. And their shouts kept growing louder. Pilate then gave his verdict: their demand was to be granted. He released the man (Barnabba) they asked for, who had been imprisoned because of rioting and murder..." (Lk 23,23/25).
It is to be pointed out that Pilate, as a Roman Magistrate, had recognized the defendant as innocent, but nevertheless has him brutally whipped before crucifying him and having him undergo an excruciatingly painful death, when instead he could have simply beheaded him thus avoiding such prolonged agonizing torture.
For Christian eschatology the blood shed by the "Saviour" Son, ordered by God the Father as a sacrifice for the salvation of all humanity, had to be copious and shed along a fictitious "via crucis" (never created by he Romans who, like all soldiers, acted very hastily), overly tortuous due to the hatred expressed by the both the Roman militiamen and the Jews, who followed him as executioners.
"But they kept on shouting at the top of their voices, demanding that they should be crucified. And their shouts kept growing louder. Pilate then gave his verdict: their demand was to be granted. He released the man (Barnabba) they asked for, who had been imprisoned because of rioting and murder..." (Lk 23,23/25).
It is to be pointed out that Pilate, as a Roman Magistrate, had recognized the defendant as innocent, but nevertheless has him brutally whipped before crucifying him and having him undergo an excruciatingly painful death, when instead he could have simply beheaded him thus avoiding such prolonged agonizing torture.
For Christian eschatology the blood shed by the "Saviour" Son, ordered by God the Father as a sacrifice for the salvation of all humanity, had to be copious and shed along a fictitious "via crucis" (never created by he Romans who, like all soldiers, acted very hastily), overly tortuous due to the hatred expressed by the both the Roman militiamen and the Jews, who followed him as executioners.
An
irrational description invented by fanatical psychopaths according to
whom the blood shed by Christ - who had just been unnailed and taken
down from the cross by Joseph of Arimathea - covered his entire body; he
wrapped him in a clean cloth and transported his body to a sepulchre in
Golgotha which he owned. Blood which, inevitably, stained the "Holy Shroud" in an uneven manner this making it impossible to identify the authentic shape of the deceased prior to his death. It is evident that the narration, reported by three scribes in the Sypnotic Gospels, was invented when placed alongside a totally different account provided by John the Evangelist, the "favourite disciple". The latter, unlke the other evangelists, was the only direct eyewitness and he describes a totally different burial which excludes the presence of the shroud inside the sepulchre.
Initially the body of Christ was wrapped in a blood-soaked shroud by Joseph of Arimathea who, along with Nicodemus (another converted sanhedrist), transported his body to the sepulchre and, before going inside, eliminated the stained cloth (in fact inside the sepulchre there is no trace of the cloth). Afterwards, both sanhedrists carefully wrapped the body after washing it and oiling and soaking the bandages with a mixture made up of thirty kilograms of aloe and myrrh, so as to embalm him in compliance with the eastern rite followed in Ancient Persia and Egypt and reserved for Kings and High Priests.
Initially the body of Christ was wrapped in a blood-soaked shroud by Joseph of Arimathea who, along with Nicodemus (another converted sanhedrist), transported his body to the sepulchre and, before going inside, eliminated the stained cloth (in fact inside the sepulchre there is no trace of the cloth). Afterwards, both sanhedrists carefully wrapped the body after washing it and oiling and soaking the bandages with a mixture made up of thirty kilograms of aloe and myrrh, so as to embalm him in compliance with the eastern rite followed in Ancient Persia and Egypt and reserved for Kings and High Priests.
Conclusion:
an invented trial which therefore never took place ... just like the
"resurrection" In fact, a subject of the Empire, after proclaiming
himself "King of the Jews", in flagrante delicto, did not have to undergo any sort of investigaton in order to be convicted of the crime.
The high treason of the subject against the imperial State was clear
and would have resulted in a public execution as a warning against
whoever did not recognize Roman domination.
A sign indicating the crime committed was hung around the offenders neck and the whole process had to end before sunset (Bellum IV 317), when, so as to allow the body to be taken off the cross, a soldier verified that the person was dead by inserting a spear into their heart.
Instead, for John the evangelist, "the Holy heart" of Jesus could not be pierced, therefore the Christian scribe who passed himself off as the "favourite disciple" chose his "hip" (John 19,34).
A sign indicating the crime committed was hung around the offenders neck and the whole process had to end before sunset (Bellum IV 317), when, so as to allow the body to be taken off the cross, a soldier verified that the person was dead by inserting a spear into their heart.
Instead, for John the evangelist, "the Holy heart" of Jesus could not be pierced, therefore the Christian scribe who passed himself off as the "favourite disciple" chose his "hip" (John 19,34).
We therefore confirm that the "Trial" was an invention aimed at pinning the blame for the decision to execute the "Saviour" on the Jews. In fact, according to the new doctrine, Jesus Christ "Our Lord" could not be executed by a high imperial Roman plenipotential as this would have demostrated that Jesus was a Zealot and warlike Jewish King ... in contrast with the new, docile figure of the "Agnus Dei", divine victim sacrificed for the well-being of humanity.
We are however dealing with a "Lamb of God" with bellicose intentions, as can be seen through His words:
We are however dealing with a "Lamb of God" with bellicose intentions, as can be seen through His words:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword" (Mt 10.34).
"As for their enemies who did not want me for their king, bring them here and execute them in my presence" (Lk 19,27).
"If you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one...the apostles said: «Lord, here are two swords»" (Lk 22,36/38).
We all know that the Gospels narrate that the Jews forced Pontius Pilate, and not Lucius Vitellius, to execute "Jesus". Even two non-Christian writings by Josephus Flavius (Testimonium Flavianum) and Cornelius Tacitus (Annales XV chap. 44), which have reached us through the hands of Christian scribes, report that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate. And the same is reported in the "Creed" which, as an apostolic symbol of faith, masses of followers recite aloud in the form of a childish sing-song repeated over and over again during the liturgy at Sunday mass: "he suffered under Pontius Pilate"...".
This a true brainwashing perpetrated in order to prevent the historical truth from being known and done so by moving the dating of the execution of Jesus which took place shortly after the destitution of Pilate.
This a true brainwashing perpetrated in order to prevent the historical truth from being known and done so by moving the dating of the execution of Jesus which took place shortly after the destitution of Pilate.
In the comparative analysis of the chronicles of Josephus Flavius and Cornelius Tacitus, reported in the sixth and twelfth study on the martyrs of Nero, we demonstrate that the passages of the two great first century historians are spurious interpolations. They were introduced by phony scribes who, after copying and censoring the original manuscripts of the two writers, destroyed the original manuscripts so as to eliminate the proof of such tampering.
However history has Pontius Pilate - the Roman Magistrate who, according to the Gospels, did not intend to execute "Jesus" but submitted to the decision of the Sanhedrin of the Jewish people who wanted him to be crucified - even disappear from the ..."Creed".
The name of this Prefect was introduced into the "Creed" at the 381 A.D. Council of Constantinople convened by the Catholic Christians, and which declamed:
However history has Pontius Pilate - the Roman Magistrate who, according to the Gospels, did not intend to execute "Jesus" but submitted to the decision of the Sanhedrin of the Jewish people who wanted him to be crucified - even disappear from the ..."Creed".
The name of this Prefect was introduced into the "Creed" at the 381 A.D. Council of Constantinople convened by the Catholic Christians, and which declamed:
"... was incarnate by the Virgin Mary, and was made man. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again...".
While the original Creed, formulated in Nicea in 325 A.D. recited:
"...was incarnate and was made man; he suffered and the third day he rose again...".
In addition to Pilate (another detail of vital importance for the new doctrine) there is no "Virgin Mary Mother of God" whose "Immaculate Conception" - which had yet to be adopted by the pagan cults - was officialized during the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. under Emperor Theodosius.
With regard to the imperial Prefect of Tiberius, it is our obligation to report the very important declaration made in the fourth century by the Christian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea:
With regard to the imperial Prefect of Tiberius, it is our obligation to report the very important declaration made in the fourth century by the Christian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea:
"The falsity of the Acts against our Saviour is therefore demonstrated; published recently, they in fact place under the fourth consulate of Tiberius, which coincides with the seventh year of his reign, the suffering which the Jews dared inflict upon our Saviour: but at that time Pilate no longer governed over Judea" (HEc. I 9,3/4).
According to what we have just read, Eusebius informs us of the publication, during his lifetime, of a version of "Acts of Jesus" (a Gospel which, obviously, disappeared), different from the one which has reached us today, in which the suffering of Christ is set in 21 A.D. (fourth consulate of Tiberius), that is to say under Valerius Gratus, Pilate's predecessor, thus demonstrating the alterations carried out by the evangelical writers so as to throw off the research on who really crucified "the Saviour" ... along with the dating of the imaginary event. According to those "Acts of Jesus" Prefect Valerius Gratus "sacrificed" Christ.
According to what was written by the Christian calligraphers of Eusebius at the time of the interpolation of the spurious passage from the "Testimonium Flavianum" in "Historia Ecclesiastica" (I 11,7/8) - which contains the "testimony" of the historian Josephus concerning Pilate's sentencing of Jesus to crucifixion - to this very day we continue to read that the naive scribes set (pasted) the event in 18 A.D., under Valerius Gratus.
As proven in the sixth study, on the basis of a simple analysis of the "Testimonium Flavianum" - copied by the Christian scribes who, in the eleventh century, transcribed Josephus's "Jewish Antiquities" in "Codex Ambrosianus Gr F 128" (cfr XVIII 63-64) - anyone can understand that it is a phony as "Jesus" is reported as having been crucified the year before (18 A.D.) the Jewish historian records the expulsion from Rome of all the Jews ordered by Tiberius in 19 A.D., confirmed by both Tacitus (Annales 2,85) and Suetonius (Tiberius 36).
Moreover, the scribes of Eusebius (see the details in Part II of the sixth study) made a second "painful mystical blunder" and went as far as to contradict the Gospels themselves: the crucifixion of "Jesus" is reported as taking place many years before the execution of John the Baptist, while the evangelists attest that he died before Christ. Unlike the Gospels, History affirms that the death of the Baptist was ordered by Herod Antipas 17 years after the "resurrection of Jesus", as is reported in the phony "Testimonium Flavianum" of "Jewish Antiquities" (Ant. XVIII 63-64); that is to say John the Baptist was executed in late 35, early 36 A.D. In fact, in the summer of 36 Herod Antipas was defeated in the war declared against him by his ex-father-in-law, King Aretas IV (Ant. XVIII 116/119).
Further proof of the dating which demonstrates the execution of John the Baptist as taking place in late 35, early 36 A.D., can be found in Eusebius of Caesarea's "Historia Ecclesiastica":
As proven in the sixth study, on the basis of a simple analysis of the "Testimonium Flavianum" - copied by the Christian scribes who, in the eleventh century, transcribed Josephus's "Jewish Antiquities" in "Codex Ambrosianus Gr F 128" (cfr XVIII 63-64) - anyone can understand that it is a phony as "Jesus" is reported as having been crucified the year before (18 A.D.) the Jewish historian records the expulsion from Rome of all the Jews ordered by Tiberius in 19 A.D., confirmed by both Tacitus (Annales 2,85) and Suetonius (Tiberius 36).
Moreover, the scribes of Eusebius (see the details in Part II of the sixth study) made a second "painful mystical blunder" and went as far as to contradict the Gospels themselves: the crucifixion of "Jesus" is reported as taking place many years before the execution of John the Baptist, while the evangelists attest that he died before Christ. Unlike the Gospels, History affirms that the death of the Baptist was ordered by Herod Antipas 17 years after the "resurrection of Jesus", as is reported in the phony "Testimonium Flavianum" of "Jewish Antiquities" (Ant. XVIII 63-64); that is to say John the Baptist was executed in late 35, early 36 A.D. In fact, in the summer of 36 Herod Antipas was defeated in the war declared against him by his ex-father-in-law, King Aretas IV (Ant. XVIII 116/119).
Further proof of the dating which demonstrates the execution of John the Baptist as taking place in late 35, early 36 A.D., can be found in Eusebius of Caesarea's "Historia Ecclesiastica":
"Herod Tetrarch married Herodias, the wife of his brother, after ripudiating his first wife who he had married according to the laws (she was the daughter of Aretas, King of Petrea) after separating Herodias from her husband, who was still alive. And due to this woman he had John killed and waged war against Aretas whose daughter he had dishonoured" (HEc. I 11,1).
We ascertain that the cause and effect of the war are immediate, and history offers us the confirmation that Aretas IV opened the conflict against Herod Antipas in the summer of 36 A.D.; therefore, being that the Baptist was alread dead in late 35, early 36, the crucifixion of the "Saviour" took place during Easter of 36 A.D.
Unlike reality, the events narrated in the Gospels highlight chronological contradictions incompatible with historiography, but by just moving the death of "Jesus" to 36 the dating of the events becomes coherent, for both history and the Gospels, hereby obtaining an incontrovertible sequence of dates: death of John the Baptist, early 35, late 36 A.D.; destitution of Pontius Pilate as Governor of Judea in early 36 A.D.; intervention of Lucius Vitellius during Easter of 36 A.D.
In fact, on the basis of the ancient Christian documentaton, even the Church knows that "Jesus Christ" was crucified in 36 A.D., but it is careful to not reveal such information as it is aware that, during the Jewish Passover of 36 A.D., as historically verified above, the Legate of Syria Lucius Vitellius was present in Jerusalem and not Pontius Pilate, already dismissed from office by order of the imperial Legate.
The ecclesiastical testimony which has the death of Christ date back to 36 A.D. has reached us thanks to the Christian historian Saint Jerome Sophronius, who, in "De viris illustribus", chap. IX, attests the following with regard to the biography of the Apostle John:
Unlike reality, the events narrated in the Gospels highlight chronological contradictions incompatible with historiography, but by just moving the death of "Jesus" to 36 the dating of the events becomes coherent, for both history and the Gospels, hereby obtaining an incontrovertible sequence of dates: death of John the Baptist, early 35, late 36 A.D.; destitution of Pontius Pilate as Governor of Judea in early 36 A.D.; intervention of Lucius Vitellius during Easter of 36 A.D.
In fact, on the basis of the ancient Christian documentaton, even the Church knows that "Jesus Christ" was crucified in 36 A.D., but it is careful to not reveal such information as it is aware that, during the Jewish Passover of 36 A.D., as historically verified above, the Legate of Syria Lucius Vitellius was present in Jerusalem and not Pontius Pilate, already dismissed from office by order of the imperial Legate.
The ecclesiastical testimony which has the death of Christ date back to 36 A.D. has reached us thanks to the Christian historian Saint Jerome Sophronius, who, in "De viris illustribus", chap. IX, attests the following with regard to the biography of the Apostle John:
"John ...under the principate of Nerva (from 96 to 98) returned to Ephesus and, remaining there until the principate of Trajan (from 98 to 117), founded and directed the various Churches of the Province of Asia. Exhausted by old-age, he died sixty-eight years after the death of the Lord".
Being that the over one hundred-year-old John died in 104 A.D., all we need to do is subtract 68 years from this date and we find ourselves in 36 A.D., year in which "Jesus" was executed. Due to the importance of such precise and irrefutable historical information, the subtle minds of the Vatican are forced to add an "around" to the date of the Apostle's death († Ephesus around 104) when, in the biography of the Apostle and evangelist John (see the photo from Cathopedia we have taken), they indicate the dath of the decrepit Saint John ... so as to "exorcise" the contemporaneity of "Jesus Christ-Lucius Vitellius" in contrast with the absence of Pilate.
Let's remind readers that the oldest codexes, witnesses to Jerome's "De viris illustribus" (nint century), precede by over a century those concerning the "Historia Ecclesiastica" by Eusebus of Caesarea (tenth-eleventh century). For the datings of all of Eusebius's manuscripts see third study, while for those of Jerome see the fifth study chap. entitled “the oversights of the scribes of Tertullianus”. As a result, being that Eusebius was Jerome's historical source, we are certain that the same information was first reported by the historian and Bishop in Book III chap. 31 of the above-mentioned treatise, but, from the tenth century onwards, the high clergy censored this detail in Eusebius's work for the reasons we have just brought forth.
Let's remind readers that the oldest codexes, witnesses to Jerome's "De viris illustribus" (nint century), precede by over a century those concerning the "Historia Ecclesiastica" by Eusebus of Caesarea (tenth-eleventh century). For the datings of all of Eusebius's manuscripts see third study, while for those of Jerome see the fifth study chap. entitled “the oversights of the scribes of Tertullianus”. As a result, being that Eusebius was Jerome's historical source, we are certain that the same information was first reported by the historian and Bishop in Book III chap. 31 of the above-mentioned treatise, but, from the tenth century onwards, the high clergy censored this detail in Eusebius's work for the reasons we have just brought forth.
Despite the constant reelaboration and alteration of the New Testament and patristic documents, with regard to Pontius Pilate it remains certain that the Christian scribes have never blamed the Roman Prefect for the execution of "Jesus", but instead the Sanhedrin and the entire Jewish population, as clearly attested by Eusebius in his famous "Historia Ecclesiastica":
"the Jews were those who dared inflict the sufferings upon our Saviour"...
There is another important testimony about the Governor of Judea Pilate which, inevitably, also reflects on Yeshùa; the Jewish saviour of humanity: that of the great Jewish scholar and philosopher Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. - 45 A.D.), contemporary of the Messiah Jesus and Pontius Pilate.
After reporting in his treatise "De Providentia" (II 107) that he often went on pilgrimages to the Temple of Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to God (without making any reference to the existence of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, let alone to their "miracles"), in his work "De Legatione ad Caium" (paragraphs 299-303), Philo gave a negative opinion of Pontius Pilate:
After reporting in his treatise "De Providentia" (II 107) that he often went on pilgrimages to the Temple of Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to God (without making any reference to the existence of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, let alone to their "miracles"), in his work "De Legatione ad Caium" (paragraphs 299-303), Philo gave a negative opinion of Pontius Pilate:
"A corrupt tyrant, greedy and insensitive to the reasons of justice...Pride, arrogance and insolence were his rule. The country under him was sacked and the people were killed with no respect whatsoever of the law". (Guide to the Bible: An Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, Published under the Direction of A. Robert and A. Tricot, Volume 2 - Paris 1955).
This is the description of the true historical Pilate (in conformity with the one described by Josephus Flavius), but with a personality totally different from the one connoted by the evangelists obliged to have "Christ" condemned by the Sanhedrin rather than by the law of Rome, so as not ao have Jesus appear to be an anti-Roman Zealot militant. Moreover, there is an evident reference to the revolutionary Zealots and to the inability of the Prefect, who had command of a limited military force, to prevent and contrast the numerous eversive raids that were taking place throughout a Palestine in which the party of the "fantical nationalists" prevailed.
Philo was a wealthy privileged Jew and he reported this information about his recent past after the unfortunate Legation in the presence of Gaius Caligula (op. cit. XXX 203) which took place in 40 A.D.
Yet the philosopher Philo of Alexandria, with deep knowledge of the Old Testament and who lived at the time of Christ, in none of his works makes mention of the Advent of a divine Jewish "Messiah" (Christòs) by the name of "Jesus" who, according to the Gospels, lived in the very same land, at the same time, author of extraordinary miracles, praised by the inhabitants of Jerusalem as "King of the Jews" and by them called "son of David" ... nor is he aware of the crucifixion ordered by the Sanhedrin and carried out by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.
Philo was a wealthy privileged Jew and he reported this information about his recent past after the unfortunate Legation in the presence of Gaius Caligula (op. cit. XXX 203) which took place in 40 A.D.
Yet the philosopher Philo of Alexandria, with deep knowledge of the Old Testament and who lived at the time of Christ, in none of his works makes mention of the Advent of a divine Jewish "Messiah" (Christòs) by the name of "Jesus" who, according to the Gospels, lived in the very same land, at the same time, author of extraordinary miracles, praised by the inhabitants of Jerusalem as "King of the Jews" and by them called "son of David" ... nor is he aware of the crucifixion ordered by the Sanhedrin and carried out by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.
As can be ascertained, during the fourth century the "historical construction" of the new faith was still in progress and tended to distance itself from the previous pagan religions, especially from that of the final pagan "Saviour", sacrificed prior to Christ: the God Mithra:
In addition to inventing the new "Mother of God" (which previously did not exist) to be adored by the naive "gentiles", the "Venerable Holy Bishops" also invented the "sacrificer" of "Jesus" by digging out the Roman official Pilate (without blaming him for the crime), in office prior to Lucius Vitellius, so as to throw off all historical research regarding the event.
In addition to inventing the new "Mother of God" (which previously did not exist) to be adored by the naive "gentiles", the "Venerable Holy Bishops" also invented the "sacrificer" of "Jesus" by digging out the Roman official Pilate (without blaming him for the crime), in office prior to Lucius Vitellius, so as to throw off all historical research regarding the event.
The coup d'ètat, a true act of war against the dominion of Rome, forced Vitellius, still at war with the Parthians, to torture the leader of the revolt and have him executed. Plenipotentiary and imperial representative in the East, sole "hegemon" of the Province of Syria to which Judea, Idumea and Samaria were annexed, Vitellius, Lieutenant of Tiberius, knew that the rebellion aimed at divesting him of his powers-duties, the first of which was that of guaranteeing the supremacy of Rome over the territories subject to its rule.
John the Nazireus had dared to appoint himself "King of the Jews", monarch of a territory owned by the Empire, thus committing the most serious of crimes imputable to a subject of the Caesar. An aggression against the sovereignty of Rome and the imperial system safeguarding the State and, therefore, an attack against the security of all citizens.
It was Tiberius who, as Emperor, decided who, when and where, within the territories under its jurisdiction, could become King, as long as they always behaved as faithful "clients".
From the time in which Pompeius Magnus, in 63 A.D., conquered Palestine, all the King and Tetrarchs who governed over these regions were appointed by Rome: and they remained in office for as long as the Emperor said so ... and the Emperor granted his consent for as long as he, on the basis of his unappealable judgement, deemed that such rulers governed in the interest of the Empire ... the slightest doubt and they were immediately removed or exiled; as happened in 6 A.D. to Herod Archelaus and in 39 A.D. to Herod Antipas.
John the Nazireus had dared to appoint himself "King of the Jews", monarch of a territory owned by the Empire, thus committing the most serious of crimes imputable to a subject of the Caesar. An aggression against the sovereignty of Rome and the imperial system safeguarding the State and, therefore, an attack against the security of all citizens.
It was Tiberius who, as Emperor, decided who, when and where, within the territories under its jurisdiction, could become King, as long as they always behaved as faithful "clients".
From the time in which Pompeius Magnus, in 63 A.D., conquered Palestine, all the King and Tetrarchs who governed over these regions were appointed by Rome: and they remained in office for as long as the Emperor said so ... and the Emperor granted his consent for as long as he, on the basis of his unappealable judgement, deemed that such rulers governed in the interest of the Empire ... the slightest doubt and they were immediately removed or exiled; as happened in 6 A.D. to Herod Archelaus and in 39 A.D. to Herod Antipas.
During the interrogatory Vitellius (the same goes for Pilate) did not even think of asking John the Nazireus: "Are you the King of the Jews?": or even worse, while Jesus was in front of him, we read that he asked: "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?" (Mk 15,8-9); or, with regard to Pilate, in contrast with the military duties which had to be respected by an imperial Prefect, let's have a look at what Saint Luke in his Gospel leads us to believe so as to exculpate him:
"But they kept on shouting at the top of their voices, demanding that he should be crucified. And their shouts kept growing louder. Pilate then gave his verdict: their demand was to be granted. He released the man (the inexistent "Barabbas") who had been imprisoned because of rioting and and murder..." (Lk 23,25).
A Prefect of Tiberius - who governed a territory controlled by Rome thanks to an imperial mandate - would have given little importance to the execution of a Jew, but he would have never released the leader of a rebellion carried out against the authorities ... only an army could have convinced him to release a rebel ... but the army obeyed his orders and the legions obeyed those of his direct superior: Vitellius.
Only minds under the influence of mystical ecstasy and day-dreamers lacking even basic knowledge of all the Empires preceding and following that of Rome could have conceived such foolishness; and despite having understood why it was done, the gross mistake remains nonetheless ... even for those who naively and dociley believe. The evangelist and scribe "Luke" and all those who imitated him did not want to have a powerful Roman official appear to be the one who had subjected "Jesus" the "Saviour" to torture for having carried out bloody political subversion against the power of Rome.
Only minds under the influence of mystical ecstasy and day-dreamers lacking even basic knowledge of all the Empires preceding and following that of Rome could have conceived such foolishness; and despite having understood why it was done, the gross mistake remains nonetheless ... even for those who naively and dociley believe. The evangelist and scribe "Luke" and all those who imitated him did not want to have a powerful Roman official appear to be the one who had subjected "Jesus" the "Saviour" to torture for having carried out bloody political subversion against the power of Rome.
In the Gospels a false trial was introduced in order to pin the blame for the decision to condemn Jesus on the Jews and on the Sanhedrin. The reasons given were solely religious; the political and revolutionary motives which had provoked bloodshed were not mentioned: "Agnus Dei" could not have organized and carried out such a violent and clearly anti-Roman military action.
All of the subjects of the Empire were witnesses to the fact that Rome had never persecuted the followers of any religion, except in extreme, well-motivated cases. Within the Empire there was a melting pot of doctrines, all of which peacefully coexisted; there would have been trouble for Rome if it had persecuted such doctrines: the Empire would have fallen.
The authorities worried about a religion only when it became the ideological basis of a popular revolt against the institutions; these situations were violently repressed by Rome, as in the case of the nationalist Jewish revolt.
The "Lucan" Christian scribes were fully aware of this and hid the "Saviour" and the other Jewish protagonists surrounding him behind a halo of harmless and reassuring "holiness" ... and even go so far as to depict a "Jesus" who, with impunity, preached to the Jews to "give the tribute to Caesar" ... while, in reality, the Jews - for such a provocation - would have stoned Christ even before his "short parable" had come to an end.
The new Christian doctrine - based on the Essenic reform of the Jewish Messiah created after the 66/70 and 132/135 A.D. wars and the resulting holocausts of Jews carried out in many cities in the Eastern Empire - had, opportunely, become ... pro-Roman.
Thus far in our study we have precisely identified four of Judas the Galilean's sons: John, James, Simon and Judas, who all had the same names as the brothers of "Jesus". And we have partly mentioned the deeds of the fifth and youngest son Joseph, who the Jewish historian Josephus calls "Menahem son of Judas the Galilean" and who managed to become King of the Jews in 66 A.D. We would like to point out once again that identifying Joseph as "Menahem" is simple: it is as plain as the nose on our face.
John was the eldest son and had the right to be invested with the title of King of the Jews; this is why several generations after the event he began to be mythicized by Essene Jewish monks as the "Messiah", with the divine Aramaic title of "Yeshùa", meaning the "Saviour".
During the Roman domination the Essenic Jews, who were nationalists like the Zealots, used their "prophecies" - as was also the case with regard to the "Oracles of Yahweh" - to drive the people towards rebellion. This resulted in the ethnic extermination carried out by the Romans and the persecutions ordered by Vespasian against Jews (relatives included) who did not recognize him as their Lord and Owner, culminating in the final holocaust ordered by Emperor Hadrian.
All of the subjects of the Empire were witnesses to the fact that Rome had never persecuted the followers of any religion, except in extreme, well-motivated cases. Within the Empire there was a melting pot of doctrines, all of which peacefully coexisted; there would have been trouble for Rome if it had persecuted such doctrines: the Empire would have fallen.
The authorities worried about a religion only when it became the ideological basis of a popular revolt against the institutions; these situations were violently repressed by Rome, as in the case of the nationalist Jewish revolt.
The "Lucan" Christian scribes were fully aware of this and hid the "Saviour" and the other Jewish protagonists surrounding him behind a halo of harmless and reassuring "holiness" ... and even go so far as to depict a "Jesus" who, with impunity, preached to the Jews to "give the tribute to Caesar" ... while, in reality, the Jews - for such a provocation - would have stoned Christ even before his "short parable" had come to an end.
The new Christian doctrine - based on the Essenic reform of the Jewish Messiah created after the 66/70 and 132/135 A.D. wars and the resulting holocausts of Jews carried out in many cities in the Eastern Empire - had, opportunely, become ... pro-Roman.
Thus far in our study we have precisely identified four of Judas the Galilean's sons: John, James, Simon and Judas, who all had the same names as the brothers of "Jesus". And we have partly mentioned the deeds of the fifth and youngest son Joseph, who the Jewish historian Josephus calls "Menahem son of Judas the Galilean" and who managed to become King of the Jews in 66 A.D. We would like to point out once again that identifying Joseph as "Menahem" is simple: it is as plain as the nose on our face.
John was the eldest son and had the right to be invested with the title of King of the Jews; this is why several generations after the event he began to be mythicized by Essene Jewish monks as the "Messiah", with the divine Aramaic title of "Yeshùa", meaning the "Saviour".
During the Roman domination the Essenic Jews, who were nationalists like the Zealots, used their "prophecies" - as was also the case with regard to the "Oracles of Yahweh" - to drive the people towards rebellion. This resulted in the ethnic extermination carried out by the Romans and the persecutions ordered by Vespasian against Jews (relatives included) who did not recognize him as their Lord and Owner, culminating in the final holocaust ordered by Emperor Hadrian.
It was then that the Essenes - conscious of the overwhelming strength of Rome - revised the description of the "Messiah commander", who the Jews expected to be like the mythical David and, in compliance with their prophecy written on scroll of Qumran "4Q246", they deified him as the "Son of God", no longer a "Dominator of the World" but a suffering "Saviour of the World" ... as docile as an "Agnus Dei": a "Messiah. Son of God, Saviour of the World", capable of resurrecting the dead, "whose reign will be an eternal domination". In the second half of the second century A.D. the Essenes of Alexandria wrote the primitive Gospels, without worrying about the consubstantiality of the Father and Son, as it was there aim to simply deceive people through the idea of resurrection after death.
In the fourth century the Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, aware of the period in which first New Testament documents were actually written, brought forward the dating by over a century and, adjusting it, wrote: "They narrate that Mark, sent to Egypt, was the first to there preach the Gospel which he then also wrote down, and founded Churches right in Alexandria". It was Eusebius who decided which Gospels were canonical, but after his death in 340 A.D. a series of Councils, aimed at defining the Christian doctrine, were held during the fourth century. In addition to the consubstantiality of the Father and Son (already decreed in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea), the virginal birth of Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ, was later decreed in execution of the 380 A.D. Edict of Thessalonica.
This is how, as a result of the Christian councils convened in the fourth century, Catholicism prevailed. The latter was legitimized as the sole religion of the newly-founded Roman Catholic Empire through the 380 A.D. Edict of Thessalonica; consequently, in 381 the Council of Constantinople was held during which the previous Gospels - which had been approved by Eusebius before the Council of Nicea held in 325 A.D. - were modified. Proof of these further changes to the Gospels and the related details can be found in the third part of the fourth study dedicated to the "Testimonium Flavianum".
This is how, as a result of the Christian councils convened in the fourth century, Catholicism prevailed. The latter was legitimized as the sole religion of the newly-founded Roman Catholic Empire through the 380 A.D. Edict of Thessalonica; consequently, in 381 the Council of Constantinople was held during which the previous Gospels - which had been approved by Eusebius before the Council of Nicea held in 325 A.D. - were modified. Proof of these further changes to the Gospels and the related details can be found in the third part of the fourth study dedicated to the "Testimonium Flavianum".
In reality, in contrast with the pacifist doctrine created at the end of the second century by the Essenes who mythicized the events regarding the Zealots and which are described above. The incidents linked to the struggle carried out in the first century A.D. by five brothers members of a Jewish dynasty which Josephus repeatedly defined as being "of great power"
A royal bloodline which claimed the right to sit on the throne of the Jews previously belonging to the Hasmoneans, and which waged a war against the domination of Rome to the point of martyrdom during a time that was very dangerous and difficult for the Israelites.
The Hasmonean line finally died out in 73 A.D., as a result of the fall of Masada, final stronghold of the Zealots led by the grandson of Judas the Galilean, Eleazar bar Jair (Lazarus son of Jair).
A sad epic which was consistent with the real events of those years, mentioned mainly, as we are about to report, by Josephus Flavius and Cornelius Tacitus, but confirmed by Philo of Alexandria, Suetonius and Cassius Dio through shorter descriptions.
Third Part
As we have, the study published above allowed us to discover the event which originated the myth of “Jesus Christ”, Son of God, created by the Essenes, after the last holocaust perpetrated by Hadrian in 35 A.D. in order to punish the Israelites for their latest massive revolt. However, skimming through the events, attentive readers will have surely noticed the importance, from a historical point of view, of the fact that, while a war between Rome and the Kingdom of the Parthians was in progress, Lucius Vitellius, the most powerful man in the Empire after Tiberius, went to Jerusalem two times: during Passover in 36 and 37. The same years in which, according to New Testament documents, in the Holy City, just after the resurrection of the “Saviour”, the Apostles which He chose began to carry out “miraculous Acts”, capable of astonishing the inhabitants of Jerusalem and those of nearby cities, healing the sick of all illnesses and even resurrecting the dead (Acts 5,12; 9,34; 9,40).
The fact that the “Acts of the Apostles” and the “Acts of Lucius Vitellius” date back to the same time has been worrying for about a century the genuflexion historians of Ancient Rome, who “instinctively” perceive that something was “escaping” “Christian tradition”, a sensation which, in the absence of plausible explanations, ran the risk of transforming itself into anguish.
Over half a century ago, one of these academics, Albino Garzetti, decided to come to grips with the problem by carrying out an “analysis” aimed at belittling the undertakings of the great Roman leader; he ended up negating one of the two journeys to Jerusalem (so as to reduce the attention of curious researchers) and, most importantly, modified the dating of Vitellius’s exploits, with the ill-concealed intention of distancing such deeds from the time of Jesus and of His successors.
Indeed, Albino Garzetti, through his “applications” on Lucius Vitellius, managed to placate the repressed anxiety of his imitators and, as a sign of respect, he was mentioned by them in history books … and as a result even “got into history”.
But let’s verify, now, “which history” …
Albino Garzetti (1914 – 1998), a high school professor with a degree in literature who, after conquering the right to spiritual stigmata thanks to previous works like “I valori morali nella vita pubblica degli antichi” in “Saggi di umanesimo cristiano” (Pavia, Italy 1952), published in 1956 his umpteenth heavenly work entitled “Studi in onore di A. Calderini and R. Paribeni”, in which, in Volume I (pages 211 to 229), he reports his personal analysis regarding
“The date of the encounter on the Euphrates between Artabanus III and L. Vitellius Legate of Syria”
since, as can be inferred by the title, the chronology of the important event, in his opinion, had yet to be discovered: such a chronolgy, on the contrary, had never been questioned by direct and well informed historical sources.
Professor Garzetti drew up this “contemplative masterpiece” - already predestined to “enter history” - as a sign of gratitude for his future career: an act owed to the High Clergy after being assigned, in 1955, the chair of Roman History at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan (Italy).
Now let’s go into the substance of this misleading work whose sole aim is to shape, like malleable play dough, precise events certifying the dating of the encounter being discussed and that took place under Tiberius. Professor Albino Garzetti holds an entirely different view and on p. 228 concludes:
“…we must therefore set the encounter on the Euphrates between Artabanus and Vitellius in the late spring or summer of 37, that is to say under Gaius”.
The learned believer could not go any further because Artabanus died less than a year later. As a matter of fact, in order to try and demonstrate that the meeting on the Euphrates between the two important statesmen had taken place during the reign of Emperor Gaius Caligula, Garzetti was forced to patch up theory after theory in order to reject the incidents recorded in the texts and invalidate their logic, and thus, inexorably, ended up clashing with historical reasoning so as to justify “evangelical foolishness”.
The first mistake made by Albinus G. can be found when, on page 211 (first page of the “study” being discussed) we read that the appointment – awarded by Tiberius to the “Legatus Augusti pro Praetore”, Lucius Vitellius, in order to degrade him – is to be considered as “ordinary”, fact that, by means of an accurate reading of the “Annales”, is categorically contradicted by Cornelius Tacitus:
“In the consulship of Caius Cestius and Marcus Servilius (35 A.D.), some Parthian nobles came to Rome without the knowledge of their King Artabanus. Dread of Germanicus* had made that prince faithful to the Romans and just to his people, but he subsequently changed his behavior for insolence towards us and tyranny to his subjects. He was elated by the wars which he had successfully waged against the surrounding nations, while he disdained the aged and, as she thought, unwarlike Tiberius, eagerly coveting Armenia, over which, on the death of Artaxias, he placed Arsaces, his eldest son. He further added insult, and sent envoys to reclaim the treasures left by Vonones in Syria and Cilicia. Then he too insisted on the ancient boundaries of Persia and Macedonia, and intimated, with a vainglorious threat, that he meant to seize on the country possessed by Cyrus and afterwards by Alexander” (Annales VI 31).
* In 18 A.D. Tiberius awarded his adopted son, Germanicus Julius Caesar, “the imperium proconsulare maius” upon all the eastern Provinces:
“Germanicus was assigned all the overseas Provinces and was conferred a power, valid wherever he journeyed, superior to that of the Governors” (Tacitus Ann. II 43).
Therefore, a role of a higher rank compared to that of the simple Proconsular Governors, not limited to a sole Province and for an unlimited period of time.
Unfortunately, in the case of Germanicus … “Sent to sort out affairs in the East, and having done so, he was poisoned by G. Calpurnius Piso” (Ant. XVIII 54; cfr. Tacitus, Ann. II 55/70) … the time was “limited” by his death which took place in 19 A.D., and it was strongly suspected that the Tiberius had ordered the murder.
We have just seen that the event of 35 A.D. (recalled by Tacitus), from a military a perspective was equal to the one which had been tackled, 17 years earlier, by Emperor Tiberius as a result of Artabanus himself; but, in this case, the risk for the Empire was greater, exacerbated by the declaration of war that the “King of Kings” (a Parthian descending from the Arsacides) had formalized through his ambassadors who, in addition to Armenia which had already been occupied, threatened to invade all the lands from Syria to Egypt:
“In the year of the consulate of Gaius Cestius and Marcus Servilius (35 A.D.) … Artabanus further added insult, and sent envoys to reclaim the treasures left by Vonones in Syria and Cilicia. Then he too insisted on the ancient boundaries of Persia and Macedonia, and intimated, with a vainglorious threat, that he meant to seize on the country possessed by Cyrus and afterwards by Alexander” (Ann. VI 31).
If this had taken place, the Roman Empire would have lost its most important eastern territories, including Egypt, while Artabanus, thanks to the seaports already built by the Romans in the “Mare nostrum”, would have been able to construct a naval fleet capable of contrasting Rome’s control over all Mediterranean routes.
In order to ward off such a possibility …
“Tiberius chose Tiridates, of the same stock as Artabanus, to be his rival, and the Iberian Mithridates to be the instrument of recovering Armenia, having reconciled him to his brother Pharasmanes, who held the throne of that country. He then intrusted the whole of his eastern policy to Lucius Viltellius” (Ann. VI 32,3).
Lucius Viltellius, father of the future Emperor “Aulus Vitellius”, was appointed Consul in 34 A.D. and Tacitus judges him as such:
“The man (Vitellius), I am aware, had a bad name at Rome, and many a foul story was told of him. But in the government of provinces he acted with the virtue of ancient times” (ibid.).
Tacitus, rightfully so, speaks about “Provinces” in the plural form, being that Lucius Viltellius, awarded broad powers over all the East, journeyed twice to Jerusalem, in the Province of Judea, where, as we have already verified above, the leader resubjugated the “Holy City”, being that, as a result of the famine, it had rebelled against the dominion of Rome. Ergo … “he demonstrated the ability of the men of the past”: a positive historical judgement which, obviously, could not refer to a simple tax reduction on agricultural products in favour of the Jews.
As a result of the powers assigned to him by Tiberius over the eastern territories, the Legatus Augusti pro Praetore, L. Viltellius, had the right to mobilize, in addition to the four legions stationed in Antioch in Syria (one of which already deployed by Caesar Augustus in the district of Zeugma on the Euphrates), all the Legates of the eastern imperial legions, the Procurators, the Prefects, Tetrarchs, Ethnarchs and vassal Kings along with their respective armies.
We are dealing with a rapid reaction force, already deployed in time of peace, for a total of over forty thousand men, deployed in the eastern theatre of the Roman Empire, in defense of a limes that went from the Black Sea, Bithynia, Pontus, Armenia, the upper Euphrates, Palestine, all the way to Egypt; therefore … “In strategic areas of the Provinces there were allied triremes, cavalry units and auxiliary cohorts, for a total number of forces not much lower than that of the legions” (cfr Tacitus Ann. V). And, if necessary, as was many times the case, Roman military power was increased by means of other auxiliary forces and through the transfer of legions deployed in other territories.
Specifically, the armies of the Prefect Pontius Pilate and the Tetrarch Herod Antipas were in Palestine at this time.
The second grave error made by the spiritualist historian Garzetti regards his “evangelical hoax”, to be found on the first page of his study, where he starts by saying:
“And if we must judge by the fact that a few years later we find Damascus in the hands of the Nabateans, and that perhaps the city was the refined gift of Gaius (Caligula) to their king Aretas”.
Meditating between rosary beads, Albino G., from his “high” chair of Roman History just obtained at the Università del Sacro Cuore, adopted as a “heavenly historical source” the “Letter” of Saint Paul (Corinthians II 11.32) and “Acts of the Apostles” (IX 23/25) of Saint Luke, where the super Apostle “witnessed” the great rubbish:
“When I was in Damascus, the Governor who was under King Aretas put guards round Damascus city to catch me” (Cor. II 11,32).
Skimming through the “Acts of the Apostles”, the event took place prior to 40 A.D. (year of Aretas’s death), thus this monarch could have only been the Nabatean King Aretas IV of Petra, whose daughter married Herod Antipas IV the Tetrarch, but he demoted her after also marrying Herodiade, another Herodian princess, who wished to be Queen alongside an Antipas interested in becoming the “King of the Jews”.
But Herod Antipas’s father-in-law, Aretas IV, never reigned over Damascus because the city belonged to the Roman Province of Syria: if this had taken place, due to the importance of such information, all the imperial historians would have reported it. But there is no source which makes such a reference.
Instead, an ancestor of his, King Aretas III, reigned over Damascus over a century before Christ walked on the waters of Lake Tiberias.
On 85 B.C., Aretas III, King of the Nabatean Arabs, conquered Damascus where he reigned until 83 B.C., when Tigran II of Armenia, known as the Great,, conquered Syria and Aretas III was forced to abandon Damascus and take refuge in Petra.
The imperium of Tigran II was not long-lasting.The incessant advance of the power of Rome, personified by Pompeius Magnus and his legions, provoked the decline of the Eastern Kingdoms of the Mediterranean and Aretas III took advantage of these conflicts in order to extend once again the borders of Nabatean Arabia as far as Damascus. But in 64 B.C., the Proconsul Aemilius Scaurus (Bellum I 159; also cited on the scrolls of Qumran), Legate of Pompeius, forced Aretas III to withdraw from Damascus and retreat to Philadelphia and then even further south, to Petra, capital of Nabatean Arabia, where he was protected by an arid desert which forced the Roman legions led by the Roman commander to put an end to the endeavour due to the adversities of a territory accessible only by expert camel drivers who knew where water wells were located, therefore impassable for the Roman armies.
After Aretas III, Obodas II reigned over the Nabateans and was succeeded by Malichus I, followed by his son Obodas III, who was the father of Aretas IV. The latter reigned from 4 B.C. to 40 A.D., but never over Damascus: there is no historical, archeological or numismatic source that attests this. Whoever affirms the contrary must furnish all the necessary quotations. Albino Garzetti, who believes the world is full of simpletons, did not fulfill this obligation and intentionally hides the evidence that Saint Luke attached his “historical bait” to a misnumbered genealogical hook, confusing “Aretas IV” and “Aretas III”. Garzetti’s disdain for the cognizance of others can only result in the indignation of serious historians.
The third error (even more grave for it is of military relevance), committed by a university professor of Ancient Roman History like Garzetti, was to affirm that the Syrian city of Damascus had been “a refined gift of Gaius to Aretas, King of the Nabateans”.
This is absurd because, during the war between Rome and the Empire of the Parthians, after an initial crisis provoked by the intervention of Lucius Vitellius, which took place in the late autumn of 35, Artabanus, a few months later, retook control of the situation and began a counterattack. It was not until the summer of 36 A.D. that Aretas IV, taking advantage of the military situation favourable to the Parthians, managed to settle the score with the Jew Herod Antipas and get back at him for having married Herodiade due years earlier (34 A.D. cfr. Ant. XVIII 149), to the detriment of his daughter, and at the same time retake the district of Gabala*, which he claimed possession of from the distant past (Ant. XVIII 110/113).
Artetas’s only possibility to seize a territory under Roman rule (since the time of Pompeius Magnus in 63 B.C.) was when (36 A.D.) Artabanus was victorious, under the Consulate of Quintus Plautius and Sextus Papinius (Tacitus Ann. VI 44).
“Tiridates was a coward in the face of danger. But their retreat resembled a flight. The Arabs made a beginning, and then the rest went to their homes or to the camp of Artabanus, till Tiridates returned to Syria with a few followers”.
The Hasmonean line finally died out in 73 A.D., as a result of the fall of Masada, final stronghold of the Zealots led by the grandson of Judas the Galilean, Eleazar bar Jair (Lazarus son of Jair).
A sad epic which was consistent with the real events of those years, mentioned mainly, as we are about to report, by Josephus Flavius and Cornelius Tacitus, but confirmed by Philo of Alexandria, Suetonius and Cassius Dio through shorter descriptions.
Third Part
As we have, the study published above allowed us to discover the event which originated the myth of “Jesus Christ”, Son of God, created by the Essenes, after the last holocaust perpetrated by Hadrian in 35 A.D. in order to punish the Israelites for their latest massive revolt. However, skimming through the events, attentive readers will have surely noticed the importance, from a historical point of view, of the fact that, while a war between Rome and the Kingdom of the Parthians was in progress, Lucius Vitellius, the most powerful man in the Empire after Tiberius, went to Jerusalem two times: during Passover in 36 and 37. The same years in which, according to New Testament documents, in the Holy City, just after the resurrection of the “Saviour”, the Apostles which He chose began to carry out “miraculous Acts”, capable of astonishing the inhabitants of Jerusalem and those of nearby cities, healing the sick of all illnesses and even resurrecting the dead (Acts 5,12; 9,34; 9,40).
The fact that the “Acts of the Apostles” and the “Acts of Lucius Vitellius” date back to the same time has been worrying for about a century the genuflexion historians of Ancient Rome, who “instinctively” perceive that something was “escaping” “Christian tradition”, a sensation which, in the absence of plausible explanations, ran the risk of transforming itself into anguish.
Over half a century ago, one of these academics, Albino Garzetti, decided to come to grips with the problem by carrying out an “analysis” aimed at belittling the undertakings of the great Roman leader; he ended up negating one of the two journeys to Jerusalem (so as to reduce the attention of curious researchers) and, most importantly, modified the dating of Vitellius’s exploits, with the ill-concealed intention of distancing such deeds from the time of Jesus and of His successors.
Indeed, Albino Garzetti, through his “applications” on Lucius Vitellius, managed to placate the repressed anxiety of his imitators and, as a sign of respect, he was mentioned by them in history books … and as a result even “got into history”.
But let’s verify, now, “which history” …
Against Albino Garzetti and His Analysis of Lucius Vitellius
Albino Garzetti (1914 – 1998), a high school professor with a degree in literature who, after conquering the right to spiritual stigmata thanks to previous works like “I valori morali nella vita pubblica degli antichi” in “Saggi di umanesimo cristiano” (Pavia, Italy 1952), published in 1956 his umpteenth heavenly work entitled “Studi in onore di A. Calderini and R. Paribeni”, in which, in Volume I (pages 211 to 229), he reports his personal analysis regarding
“The date of the encounter on the Euphrates between Artabanus III and L. Vitellius Legate of Syria”
since, as can be inferred by the title, the chronology of the important event, in his opinion, had yet to be discovered: such a chronolgy, on the contrary, had never been questioned by direct and well informed historical sources.
Professor Garzetti drew up this “contemplative masterpiece” - already predestined to “enter history” - as a sign of gratitude for his future career: an act owed to the High Clergy after being assigned, in 1955, the chair of Roman History at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan (Italy).
Now let’s go into the substance of this misleading work whose sole aim is to shape, like malleable play dough, precise events certifying the dating of the encounter being discussed and that took place under Tiberius. Professor Albino Garzetti holds an entirely different view and on p. 228 concludes:
“…we must therefore set the encounter on the Euphrates between Artabanus and Vitellius in the late spring or summer of 37, that is to say under Gaius”.
The learned believer could not go any further because Artabanus died less than a year later. As a matter of fact, in order to try and demonstrate that the meeting on the Euphrates between the two important statesmen had taken place during the reign of Emperor Gaius Caligula, Garzetti was forced to patch up theory after theory in order to reject the incidents recorded in the texts and invalidate their logic, and thus, inexorably, ended up clashing with historical reasoning so as to justify “evangelical foolishness”.
The first mistake made by Albinus G. can be found when, on page 211 (first page of the “study” being discussed) we read that the appointment – awarded by Tiberius to the “Legatus Augusti pro Praetore”, Lucius Vitellius, in order to degrade him – is to be considered as “ordinary”, fact that, by means of an accurate reading of the “Annales”, is categorically contradicted by Cornelius Tacitus:
“In the consulship of Caius Cestius and Marcus Servilius (35 A.D.), some Parthian nobles came to Rome without the knowledge of their King Artabanus. Dread of Germanicus* had made that prince faithful to the Romans and just to his people, but he subsequently changed his behavior for insolence towards us and tyranny to his subjects. He was elated by the wars which he had successfully waged against the surrounding nations, while he disdained the aged and, as she thought, unwarlike Tiberius, eagerly coveting Armenia, over which, on the death of Artaxias, he placed Arsaces, his eldest son. He further added insult, and sent envoys to reclaim the treasures left by Vonones in Syria and Cilicia. Then he too insisted on the ancient boundaries of Persia and Macedonia, and intimated, with a vainglorious threat, that he meant to seize on the country possessed by Cyrus and afterwards by Alexander” (Annales VI 31).
* In 18 A.D. Tiberius awarded his adopted son, Germanicus Julius Caesar, “the imperium proconsulare maius” upon all the eastern Provinces:
“Germanicus was assigned all the overseas Provinces and was conferred a power, valid wherever he journeyed, superior to that of the Governors” (Tacitus Ann. II 43).
Therefore, a role of a higher rank compared to that of the simple Proconsular Governors, not limited to a sole Province and for an unlimited period of time.
Unfortunately, in the case of Germanicus … “Sent to sort out affairs in the East, and having done so, he was poisoned by G. Calpurnius Piso” (Ant. XVIII 54; cfr. Tacitus, Ann. II 55/70) … the time was “limited” by his death which took place in 19 A.D., and it was strongly suspected that the Tiberius had ordered the murder.
We have just seen that the event of 35 A.D. (recalled by Tacitus), from a military a perspective was equal to the one which had been tackled, 17 years earlier, by Emperor Tiberius as a result of Artabanus himself; but, in this case, the risk for the Empire was greater, exacerbated by the declaration of war that the “King of Kings” (a Parthian descending from the Arsacides) had formalized through his ambassadors who, in addition to Armenia which had already been occupied, threatened to invade all the lands from Syria to Egypt:
“In the year of the consulate of Gaius Cestius and Marcus Servilius (35 A.D.) … Artabanus further added insult, and sent envoys to reclaim the treasures left by Vonones in Syria and Cilicia. Then he too insisted on the ancient boundaries of Persia and Macedonia, and intimated, with a vainglorious threat, that he meant to seize on the country possessed by Cyrus and afterwards by Alexander” (Ann. VI 31).
If this had taken place, the Roman Empire would have lost its most important eastern territories, including Egypt, while Artabanus, thanks to the seaports already built by the Romans in the “Mare nostrum”, would have been able to construct a naval fleet capable of contrasting Rome’s control over all Mediterranean routes.
In order to ward off such a possibility …
“Tiberius chose Tiridates, of the same stock as Artabanus, to be his rival, and the Iberian Mithridates to be the instrument of recovering Armenia, having reconciled him to his brother Pharasmanes, who held the throne of that country. He then intrusted the whole of his eastern policy to Lucius Viltellius” (Ann. VI 32,3).
Lucius Viltellius, father of the future Emperor “Aulus Vitellius”, was appointed Consul in 34 A.D. and Tacitus judges him as such:
“The man (Vitellius), I am aware, had a bad name at Rome, and many a foul story was told of him. But in the government of provinces he acted with the virtue of ancient times” (ibid.).
Tacitus, rightfully so, speaks about “Provinces” in the plural form, being that Lucius Viltellius, awarded broad powers over all the East, journeyed twice to Jerusalem, in the Province of Judea, where, as we have already verified above, the leader resubjugated the “Holy City”, being that, as a result of the famine, it had rebelled against the dominion of Rome. Ergo … “he demonstrated the ability of the men of the past”: a positive historical judgement which, obviously, could not refer to a simple tax reduction on agricultural products in favour of the Jews.
As a result of the powers assigned to him by Tiberius over the eastern territories, the Legatus Augusti pro Praetore, L. Viltellius, had the right to mobilize, in addition to the four legions stationed in Antioch in Syria (one of which already deployed by Caesar Augustus in the district of Zeugma on the Euphrates), all the Legates of the eastern imperial legions, the Procurators, the Prefects, Tetrarchs, Ethnarchs and vassal Kings along with their respective armies.
We are dealing with a rapid reaction force, already deployed in time of peace, for a total of over forty thousand men, deployed in the eastern theatre of the Roman Empire, in defense of a limes that went from the Black Sea, Bithynia, Pontus, Armenia, the upper Euphrates, Palestine, all the way to Egypt; therefore … “In strategic areas of the Provinces there were allied triremes, cavalry units and auxiliary cohorts, for a total number of forces not much lower than that of the legions” (cfr Tacitus Ann. V). And, if necessary, as was many times the case, Roman military power was increased by means of other auxiliary forces and through the transfer of legions deployed in other territories.
Specifically, the armies of the Prefect Pontius Pilate and the Tetrarch Herod Antipas were in Palestine at this time.
The second grave error made by the spiritualist historian Garzetti regards his “evangelical hoax”, to be found on the first page of his study, where he starts by saying:
“And if we must judge by the fact that a few years later we find Damascus in the hands of the Nabateans, and that perhaps the city was the refined gift of Gaius (Caligula) to their king Aretas”.
Meditating between rosary beads, Albino G., from his “high” chair of Roman History just obtained at the Università del Sacro Cuore, adopted as a “heavenly historical source” the “Letter” of Saint Paul (Corinthians II 11.32) and “Acts of the Apostles” (IX 23/25) of Saint Luke, where the super Apostle “witnessed” the great rubbish:
“When I was in Damascus, the Governor who was under King Aretas put guards round Damascus city to catch me” (Cor. II 11,32).
Skimming through the “Acts of the Apostles”, the event took place prior to 40 A.D. (year of Aretas’s death), thus this monarch could have only been the Nabatean King Aretas IV of Petra, whose daughter married Herod Antipas IV the Tetrarch, but he demoted her after also marrying Herodiade, another Herodian princess, who wished to be Queen alongside an Antipas interested in becoming the “King of the Jews”.
But Herod Antipas’s father-in-law, Aretas IV, never reigned over Damascus because the city belonged to the Roman Province of Syria: if this had taken place, due to the importance of such information, all the imperial historians would have reported it. But there is no source which makes such a reference.
Instead, an ancestor of his, King Aretas III, reigned over Damascus over a century before Christ walked on the waters of Lake Tiberias.
On 85 B.C., Aretas III, King of the Nabatean Arabs, conquered Damascus where he reigned until 83 B.C., when Tigran II of Armenia, known as the Great,, conquered Syria and Aretas III was forced to abandon Damascus and take refuge in Petra.
The imperium of Tigran II was not long-lasting.The incessant advance of the power of Rome, personified by Pompeius Magnus and his legions, provoked the decline of the Eastern Kingdoms of the Mediterranean and Aretas III took advantage of these conflicts in order to extend once again the borders of Nabatean Arabia as far as Damascus. But in 64 B.C., the Proconsul Aemilius Scaurus (Bellum I 159; also cited on the scrolls of Qumran), Legate of Pompeius, forced Aretas III to withdraw from Damascus and retreat to Philadelphia and then even further south, to Petra, capital of Nabatean Arabia, where he was protected by an arid desert which forced the Roman legions led by the Roman commander to put an end to the endeavour due to the adversities of a territory accessible only by expert camel drivers who knew where water wells were located, therefore impassable for the Roman armies.
After Aretas III, Obodas II reigned over the Nabateans and was succeeded by Malichus I, followed by his son Obodas III, who was the father of Aretas IV. The latter reigned from 4 B.C. to 40 A.D., but never over Damascus: there is no historical, archeological or numismatic source that attests this. Whoever affirms the contrary must furnish all the necessary quotations. Albino Garzetti, who believes the world is full of simpletons, did not fulfill this obligation and intentionally hides the evidence that Saint Luke attached his “historical bait” to a misnumbered genealogical hook, confusing “Aretas IV” and “Aretas III”. Garzetti’s disdain for the cognizance of others can only result in the indignation of serious historians.
The third error (even more grave for it is of military relevance), committed by a university professor of Ancient Roman History like Garzetti, was to affirm that the Syrian city of Damascus had been “a refined gift of Gaius to Aretas, King of the Nabateans”.
This is absurd because, during the war between Rome and the Empire of the Parthians, after an initial crisis provoked by the intervention of Lucius Vitellius, which took place in the late autumn of 35, Artabanus, a few months later, retook control of the situation and began a counterattack. It was not until the summer of 36 A.D. that Aretas IV, taking advantage of the military situation favourable to the Parthians, managed to settle the score with the Jew Herod Antipas and get back at him for having married Herodiade due years earlier (34 A.D. cfr. Ant. XVIII 149), to the detriment of his daughter, and at the same time retake the district of Gabala*, which he claimed possession of from the distant past (Ant. XVIII 110/113).
Artetas’s only possibility to seize a territory under Roman rule (since the time of Pompeius Magnus in 63 B.C.) was when (36 A.D.) Artabanus was victorious, under the Consulate of Quintus Plautius and Sextus Papinius (Tacitus Ann. VI 44).
“Tiridates was a coward in the face of danger. But their retreat resembled a flight. The Arabs made a beginning, and then the rest went to their homes or to the camp of Artabanus, till Tiridates returned to Syria with a few followers”.
* Some Codes report "Gàmala", but this is a mistake to be charged to the Amanuine copyists because the district of Gàmala has never been assigned to Herod Antipa by any Roman emperor.
In fact, in the summer of 36 A.D.:
“There was also a fight (with the Arab Aretas IV),with regard to the district of Gabala, and on both sides there had been the inspection of the soldiers, and now they were at war …In the battle that followed the army of Herod (Antipas) was destroyed. Herod sent a report of the events to Tiberius, who, offended by the arrogance of Aretas, ordered Vitellius to march against him, send him back in chains, if he captured him alive, and, if dead, send him his head. These were the instructions that Tiberius sent the Governor of Syria” (Ant. XVIII 114).
After this “curriculum vitae” of Aretas IV against the territories under the control of Rome, Albino Garzetti, subjugating History to one’s own Creed, declares, with hypocritical self-conceit, that Gaius Caligula, after the death of Tiberius, “rewarded” the Nabatean monarch by offering him Damascus in Syria as a “refined gift” … so as to justify the blunder made by the Christian scribes in the name of a “Saint Paul” who never existed (see second study).
And, to top off such absurdity, such nonsense is still today fed to university students thanks to the conspiratorial silence of professors of History in their respective universities.
But Albinus G., in order to reach his objective – aimed at modifying the dating of the encounter on the Euphrates – found himself forced to reinterpret the written events, deviating his study in a way that would allow him to arrive at the desired conclusion, so arrogant as to think that no one would understand, while he is the one-and-only bearer of the truth and, as a result, sees it as his right to say such baloney.
E he does this by committing a fourth and very grave error: he does not realize that Tacitus’s quote recalled above (Annales VI 44) is the final one regarding the war between the Roman Empire and the Empire of the Parthians. As a result of this oversight Garzetti offers a misleading conclusive judgment because, from the beginning to the end of his analysis, he arrogantly recalls the “testimony” of the imperial chronicler but does not understand the Tacitean chronicle concerning the war between Rome and Parthia ended in 36 A.D.
As readers can verify, the important wartime event cited by Tacitus disorients those academics interested in his chronicles because at the end of the narration about the war between the two Empires Artabanus turns out to be the winner, not Lucius Vitellius.
Therefore a historian with a love for the glorious exploits of Ancient Rome has feelings of “emptiness” and “dearth” resulting from the contrast with premise of Tacitus praising Lucius Vitellius: “in the administration of the Provinces he demonstrated the ability of the men of the past”.
Indeed, we are find ourselves before a “gap in history”, perfectly aware that all the events of public interest were recorded by the chroniclers of the time, and the same goes for the memorials written by the direct protagonists, being that we are dealing with required institutional documents sent to the authorities in accordance with the appointment received, and we can be sure that Lucius Vitellius behaved accordingly.
“Acts of Vitellius” which the powerful Legate sent to Tiberius and to the Senate, authority which archived the documentation in the “Acts of the Senate” where detailed documents were kept, later consulted by Tacitus in order to write the events of the first century in the Annales. But, as we have just seen, the exploits of Vitellius were interrupted … or rather, were censored by the Christian scribes just like in the case of the famine described above. The purpose of such censorship (already observed) was caused by the armed intervention of the Roman leader in Jerusalem in order to crush the rebellion of a starving community: any trace of this account had to disappear.
Thanks to the “Acts of Lucius Vitellius” - in addition to the events which he reported in their entirety and passed on to us through the reading of Tacitus’s Annales - in the original Book VI were to be found the following accounts which currently are missing:
- the destitution of Pontius Pilate as Prefect of Judea, replaced by the new Prefect Marcellus. Friend of the Governor of Syria;
- the first intervention of Vitellius, who descended upon Jerusalem with his legions in 36 A.D. and his initiative, in contrast with the practice imposed by Rome, aimed at lowering taxes for the Jews who revolted due to the famine (Cfr Annales VI 41: here we discover that in the same year the Legate Marcus Trebellius, by order of Vitellius, forced other peoples to pay tributes through the use of force);
- the crucifixion of the Head of the Zealots, ally of Artabanus, proclaimed “King of the Jews” by the inhabitants of Jerusalem;
- the obligation imposed on Artabanus to arrive at negotiations, according to the directives of Tiberius. Otherwise, the legions of Rome, already deployed along the border, were ready to invade Parthia, there having been a strategic attack already carried out by Vitellius in the autumn of 35 (proof of this earlier event is furnished by Tacitus). In fact, in that moment, after crossing over the Euphrates and invading the Kingdom of the Parthians with his legions, it was enough for Vitellius “to have displayed Roman arms” (Annales VI 37).
- the subsequent strategy of the leader, so as to force Artabanus to negotiate, consisted in a “pincer movement” made by possible by the intervention of the Transcaucasian Barbarians – Iberi, Albani, Alani, Sarmati – passing through the “gates of the Caspian”, ready to strike from the far East the Parthian kingdom weakened by the internal divisions within the Satrapi, while from the West, the Roman army was already deployed and ready to cross over into Parthia once again;
- the report of the encounter which had taken place on the Euphrates, border between the two Empires, during which Artabanus gave his consent to the treaty forcing him to renounce all claims over Armenia; the Great King was also forced to honour the insignia of Tiberius and hand over, as a final guarantee, his son Darius as hostage of the Emperor;
- the liberation of the territories conquered by Aretas IV, and the start of the mission aimed at eliminating the Nabatean King, later interrupted by Vitellius because during the expedition he stopped a second time in Jerusalem, where he was delivered the news of Tiberius’s death.
A prolonged censorshp of Book VI of the Annales which, obviously, did not only regard the conduct of L. Vitellius, but carried on even afterwards, during the reign of Gaius Caligula and with a precise motive, resulting from the absence of Christians in that period, in contrast with a false presence of followers of Christ invented centuries later. The inexistence of Christians in 40 A.D., during the principate of Gaius, an Emperor convinced that he was God, is evident in the authentic “Testimonium Flavianum”, an act written by Josephus Flavius:
“While all the peoples, subjects of the Roman Empire, had dedicated altars and Temples to Gaius, and had given him, from all perspectives, the same attention they gave to the Gods, only the Jewish people refused to honour him with statues and vow in his name” (cfr Ant. XVIII 258).
By specifying “all the peoples venerated Gaius”, in contrast with “only the Jewish people refused to do so”, it is clear that the Jewish historian knew of no presence of Christians who, according to the factitious “Christian tradition”, were against, just like the Jews, the deification of anyone apart from Christ. When he wrote his entire work, Josephus could not have known that deceitful scribes, three centuries after his death, by order of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, interpolated in “Historia Ecclesiastica” (HEc. I,7/8) a phony “Testimonium Flavianum”, in which they have Josephus announce the Advent of a Jewish Messiah (Christ) by the name of “Jesus”, venerated as the true and only God “and to this day we have not lost the tribe made up of those who by Him are called Christians”. The phrase “to this day” attributed to Josephus is deliberately, and hypocritically, meant as the “present” of the Jewish historian, which he documented until the end of the first century. Proof of the falsification of the “Testimonium Flavianum” can be found in the sixth study.
First century “primitive Christianity” was made to appear, by apologetical fourth century writers, as having been widespread in the Empire already under Tiberius (so even prior to Gaius), and attested by Eusebius who, acting as a compulsive impostor, called in this Emperor to offer testimony to the presence of Jesus Christ, along with Tertullianus (cfr HEc. II 2).
A widespread Christianity, propagandized from the very beginning even in Gospels, which are also documents, as demonstrated in the sixth and eighth studies, dating back to the fourth century.
“Jesus went round the whole of Galilee teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and curing all kinds of disease and illness among the people. His fame spread throughout Syria, and those who were suffering from diseases and painful complaints of one kind or another, the possessed, epileptics, the paralyzed, were all brought to him, and he cured them. Large crowds followed him, coming from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judaea and Transjordan” (Mt 4,23/25).
A rampant Christianity in Syria, but unknown to Lucius Vitellius, who governed this province from 35 to 39, and present two times in Jerusalem during Passover (the cause of the nighmare of historians who recite the rosary), in absolute contrast with the forma mentis of Gaius. The latter was a mad Emperor who was convinced that he was God, demanded to be venerated by all the peoples and was about to wage war against the Jews if they had not recognized him as such (luckily, for the Jews, Caligula was eliminated just in time) … Who knows how many Jesuit Christians Gaius would have massacred if they had truly existed.
It was therefore the lack of Christians martyrized by the Emperor which forced the scribes - those who transcribed Cornelius Tacitus’s Annales in the eleventh century, one thousand years after the death of the imperial chronicler – to censor the biography of Gaius Caligula.
A purification of history carried out by the same scribes of God who, in “Codex Laurentianus Mediceus 68 II”, removed the Tacitean chronicle of the Annales two years after the fire of 64: from 66 A.D. onwards. The following years saw the war of the Jews against the Romans, which ended with the triumph of Titus, whose Arch (which still exists today) the great Roman historian passed under many times. Pieces of information which were eliminated for they compromised the false testimony, attributed to Tacitus, concerning the massacre of inexistent followers of Christ, a religious movement called “Christianity”, never mentioned before by the historian, apart from the sudden “burst of heat” resulting from a great number of Christian martyrs crucified by Nero, as if they were blazing torches … this fact was not recorded by Josephus, despite the fact that he was present at the imperial palace, guest of Poppaea (Nero’s wife) from the end of 63 to the middle of 65 A.D. A witness like Josephus, with his command of the Greek language, capable of fully understanding that “Christianity” (“Christianismus” in Latin, “Χριστιανισμός” in Greek) for he who spoke Aramaic meant “Messianism” (Italianized); who knows what sort of deposition Josephus would have given about the spectacular massacre of the followers of the divine Jewish Messiah who he too was awaiting.
With regard to the phony martyrdom of Christians under Nero see the twelfth study.
The “historical void” is confirmed, even if only indirectly, by Saint Jerome Sofronius (Christian historian who lived between the four and fifth century) in one of his works, “Commentarium in Zachariam” (3,14), which has reached us with the following testimony: “Cornelius Tacitus drew up thirty handwritten scrolls on the life of the Caesars, from the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian”. It must be specified that Jerome, and Eusebius prior to him, both know nothing about the Neronian martyrdom of Christians, despite having read the original scrolls of Tacitus.
With regard to the testimonies which the scribes “removed” from the works of past chroniclers, spiritualist historians affirm that “unfortunately they were lost” or “lack certain fragments”: “voids” and “losses” passed off as an impossible fortuity. Proof of this can be found in the precise aim of the scribes of God. Fact which we have repeatedly demonstrated through specific research thanks to reading of the Codexes, transcribed through the centuries, containing variants and contradictions about the lives of the mythological “martyrized holy Christians”, with regard to whom the scribes have committed very grave historical blunders when they blamed as their martyrizers famous Governors of the Roman Provinces, the same who, according to the epigraphs and historiography confirmed by archeology, were involved in completely different endeavors during the years indicated by the martyrologists of the so-called “Christian tradition”.
Going back to the “void in History” (after having ascertained the misdeed), in order to carry on with the analysis of the true events it is dutiful to follow another source, very well-informed, as the war waged by Artabanus against Rome involved Judea and had the outcome already mentioned above.
In “Contra Apione” (Book I par. 28 to 46) Josephus Flavius highlights the constant attention on the part of the Priests and High Priests of the Temple when drawing up:
“Annales worthy of faith for the transmission of public events of which my “Antiquities” are an accurate extract … and up to this day this custom has been observed”.
Josephus died in 105 A.D., but the Sanhedrin was banned by Vespasian at the end of the Jewish War resulting in the triumph of General Titus, son of Vespasian and future Emperor; while the Doctors of the law (Rabbis) and the Scribes continued to freely practice their profession of faith inside the Synagogues, never prohibited by the Roman Empire … but prohibited by the future Roman Catholic Empire, which got underway with the Edict of Thessaloniki in 380 A.D.
It is important to point out that in 70 A.D., before General Titus authorized his army to sack Jerusalem, the Roman leader allowed the Jewish historian to collect both the documents kept in the “public archives” and the “holy books” (cfr. Bios par. 1,6 and 418).
In “Autobiography” (par. 418) Titus invited Josephus to take whatever he wanted prior to the final destruction; the Jew refused but “being that there was nothing to keep that could offer comfort to my misfortunes, I asked for and obtained, thanks to the gratious concession of Titus, some holy books …”.
Nothing of material value, however precious it may have been, could be of compensation to him for the destruction of his “Holy City”, adorned with the most majestic Temple in the world. In those tragic moments, while death was still claiming its final victims, the only thing that could interest Josephus was not wealth, which had never been a problem for him, but memory.
Josephus, a Jewish priest – descending from the highest priestly class in Jerusalem, which for generations had taken part in the Grand Jewish Assembly – knew where the manuscripts of the Acts of the Sanhedrin were kept: the minutes of the Assembly, the last of which he had helped to draw up as Scribe of this body, starting in 56 A.D., under the High Priest “Ismael son of Fabi”.
They were “holy” documents” and, in that tragic moment, were of utmost value to him for they represented memory. The historical path of the people of Israel had to be preserved thanks to the Acts of the Sanhedrin: this was the source that he relied upon for his knowledge of past Jewish events. In these manuscripts, minutes of meetings which became longer and longer year after year, where he himself was able to read the recorded historical details concerning his land, the famous personalities who interacted with his people, the Jews, their enemies and …the wars.
It was then that Josephus collected all the handwritten scrolls lying in the Sanhedrin: he knew that they would have been indispensable in order to document his entire work written in Aramaic and Greek. A task which began right after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and lasted until almost end of the principate of Domitian. Whoever has read the “Jewish Antiquities” – after looking at the numerous and detailed events (dating from the third century B.C. to the end of the of the first century A.D.) along with their protagonists substantiated by numismatics and archeology, all of which are reported in detail by the Jewish historian – realizes that the information they are reading is drawn from a source comparable to the “Acts of the Senate” of Rome: the “Acts of the Sanhedrin” of Jerusalem.
After making the necessary preliminary remarks regarding the “Acts of the Sanhedrin”, thanks to these documents – used as a “holy source” by Josephus (his “Antiquities” begin with the Old Testament and flow into the real history of the third century B.C.), thus indispensable for guaranteeing correct historical knowledge – we have the possibility of precisely reconstructing the chronology of the events which took place during the war between the Roman Empire and the Parthian Empire, waged by the most powerful and determined enemy of Rome, Artabanus III, convinced to be emulating the deeds of Cyrus the Great and Darius I, founders of the Achemenide Empire of Ancient Persia, the greatest and most splendid known to history at that time.
And it is thanks to the annals transcribed by the Jewish scribes in the “Acts of the Sanhedrin” of Jerusalem that we have the possibility of filling the “void in History”, by completing our knowledge of past events and their exact sequence.
The initial act of force, the occupation of Armenia decided by Artabanus, took place in the summer of 34 A.D., immediately after the natural death of the Governor of Syria, L. Pomponius Flaccus. At the beginning of 35, just after receiving the declaration of war from the ambassadors of Artabanus, Tiberius appointed Vitellius who, due to the wartime emergency, left immediately with several ships of the imperial fleet and headed towards the Headquarters in Antioch, accompanied by the Legates of the legions, Generals of proven ability which he himself had chosen.
Within one month at the latest, several of Vitellius’s legates used ships belonging to the Pontica fleet in order to reach the territories of Caucasian Iberia in order to set up strategic accords with allied rulers and the Barbarians along their borders. The military intervention of these peoples, stationed along the far eastern border of the Empire, took place at the same time as the invasion of the Kingdom of the Parthians carried out by the Roman legions led by Lucius Vitellius. The joint action of the forces on the field brought about, in the late autumn of 35, the Roman reconquest of Armenia and the consequent defeat of Artabanus.
This first success, involving the violation of Parthia’s borders by the Roman forces was specified as such by Tacitus: “Vitelius, who thought it sufficient to have exhibited Roman arms … reenter Syria with his legions” (Cfr. Ann. VI 37) … in the winter quarters of Antioch, in the late autumn of 35 A.D.
We notice that, if for the Parthian dignitaries it was enough to simply see the “exhibition of Roman arms” in order to abandon Artabanus to his destiny, this confirms the massiveness of the Roman military formation ready to enter into action if the Parthians had not recognized Tiridates (ordered by Tiberius) as their “King of Kings”.
Just after arriving in Antioch with his army, Vitellius met a delegation of Samaritans who complained to his Tribunal of a massacre they had underwent due to the Prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. Moreover, couriers, who had left from Caesarea Maritima and sent by the Governor himself, were awaiting him, an event of extreme gravity; they delivered an envelope containing news about the fall of Jerusalem occupied by the Zealots in the late summer of 35, as a result the people had acclaimed their own “King of the Jews”.
Upon his arrival in Antioch with his army, Vitellius found a delegation of Samaritans who complained to his Tribunal about a massacre they had undergone due to the Prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. But, to make matters worse, couriers, who had left from Caesarea Maritima and had been sent by the Governor himself, were awaiting him; they had come to deliver an envelope containing the news that Jerusalem had fallen into the hands of the Zealots in the late summer of 35, and as a result the people had acclaimed their own “King of the Jews”.
Informed about the Jewish revolt in late 35, Vitellius, as his first act, appointed a new Prefect, Marcellus, a friend of equestrian order, and sent him to Caesarea Maritima with the order to remove Pontius Pilate from office and summon him before Tiberius in order to justify the loss of Jerusalem: injunction which Pilate was careful not to follow and who, instead, decided that it would be better for his health … to get out of the picture once and for all.
In compliance with Vitellius’s directives, the Prefect Marcellus went by sea to Caesarea Maritima with several ships of the imperial fleet transporting, among other things, logistical equipment essential to the installation of siegeworks to be positioned around the city of Jerusalem.
With regard to the “source” it is dutiful to start by saying that the chronicles of Tacitus, up until they were “censored”, proved to be the most accurate account of the events described, evidently taken from the “Acts of the Senate” in which the “Acts of Lucius Vitellius” are deposited.
But it is also true that, with regard to the narrated details, no imperial historian, neither Suetonius nor Cassius Dio, nor even Tacitus himself, managed to provide detailed documentary evidence of the premises and of what went on behind the scenes, directly linked to the encounter on the Euphrates, due to the fact that L. Vitellius himself could not have been aware of any of this.
Among the many details there is, above all, no explanation of how it was possible for Artabanus to once again become “King of Kings”, after having been, initially, abandoned to his fate by the “Great Satrapies” of the Parthian Empire. The precise piece of information comes from the “Acts of the Sanhedrin”, source of Josephus Flavius, according to which the promoter of Artabanus’s rehabilitaton was the Satrapi King, Izates of Adiabene: a protagonist which we have already mentione above and who, superfluous to say, was a Parthian who had converted to Judaism.
It was therefore for religious reasons that King Izates hosted the losing Artabanus, and went as far as to convince the other Satrapies to once again recognize and support the Great King in order to defeat the prominence of Rome (Ant. XX 54 and foll.).
Having embraced the Jewish faith, Izates favoured Artabanus because, in the event of his victory, the latter would have freed from Roman domination the “land promised” by Yahweh to the “chosen people”.
With regard to Izates’s intervention, it is important to observe the erroneous reference made by Tacitus (in the absence of the correct source just mentioned) where, after the initial defeat of the Great Parthian King, caused by the loss of Armenia, in the Annales (VI 36) we read that “Artabanus escaped hastily to the remote borders of Scythia”. This could have simply been an ironic “joke” made by the historian, enthusiastic about the victory, because Scythia was made up of a vast territory very far to the north of the Pontus Euxinus (today’s Black Sea), where, at the same time (beginning of 36 A.D.), Artabanus, according to the narration of Josephus, sought refuge at the court of King Izates, in Arbela, the capital of Ardiabene, south of Armenia already reconquered entirely by Rome in the late autumn of 35. We can imagine the reaction of the Chief of Staff, L. Vitellius, if he had been informed of the exact refuge of the defeated (at this moment) King: he would have immediately eliminated the runaway Artabanus and crucified Izates … thus making it impossible for there to be another “encounter on the Euphrates”…
Let’s return to the real encounter on the Euphrates between Vitellius and Artabanus. Thanks to the annales passed on by the “Acts of the Sanhedrin”, the historian Josephus, in his “Antiquities”, reports that Herod Antipas was an eyewitness to the event, being the latter extremely interested in retaking the territories lost after Aretas’s defeat, but only L. Vitellius had the strength needed to reconquer the district of Gabala, including the fortress Machaerus, and punish the Nabatean King: a task which, according to the orders of Tiberius, the Roman leader should have carried out only after the war against the Parthians had come to an end and an official peace treaty had been signed.
The Tetrarch Antipas, being that he was a Jew present at the accords, felt it his duty to report non only to Tiberius but also to the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem so that the Jewish scribes could record the event in their annales.
It is also important to specify that Herod Antipas had no authority or influence with regard to the drafting of the accords between the two Empires, therefore his presence had no justification other than that of “putting pressure” on Vitellius so that he would quickly punish Aretas and force him to hand over the occupied territories, already assigned by Caesar Augustus to the Tetrarch, son of Herod the Great. To make up for it and offer some sort of justification for his insignificant presence, Herod Antipas took it upon himself to build, at his expense, sumptuous pavilion and offer a regal banquet two the two Great men and their respective military escorts in order to celebrate the event (Ant. XVIII 101/103).
We have listed thus far a series of events and related considerations based on precise data which Albino Garzetti, although interested in becoming part of “History”, was not capable of examining. From his chair at university, he intentionally excluded the true probative documentation and decided to reinterpret the past events as the coda to the “supremacy of the Gospels over History” by setting the dating of the encounter between Artabanus and Vitellius under Gaius Caligula in the summer of 37 A.D.
Well-informed historical sources instead contain very precise details concerning endeavours, authors, localities and dates; therefore, in order to precisely set the true date of the famous encounter between these Great men on the Euphrates, thanks to these sources, we are forced to follow the movements of the main protagonist of the wartime events being discussed: Lucius Vitellius with his legions.
We know that Vitellius, Governor of the Province of Syria, was stationed in the anti-Parthian general headquarters located in Antioch, and from here he moved towards the point on the Euphrates where he chose (with the consent of the Parthian King) to have the meeting and build a bridge on the exact border between the two Empires. Of course the structure was built by Roman sappers, who were the best in the world at building bridges of boats, fastened onto rivers by means of a technique experimented by Julius Caesar. We must also take note that such an installation could not have been the bridge of Zeugma, which already existed; this city was the capital of a district “within”, not “on”, the Roman limes.
Above all, the place chosen by Vitellius had to be very menacing in the eyes of Artabanus (to convince him to accept the peace conditions imposed by Tiberius), hereby putting at risk, through a possible invasion, a great and fertile territory “that vast area which, delimited by the course of two very famous rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, took the name Mesopotamia” (Ann. VI 37).
All one needs to do is reread the Tacitus’s introductory chronicle (Ann. VI 36 and 37) containing a description of the implacable tactic of Lucius Vitellius against Artabanus, studied by the leader in the late autumn of 35 A.D.:
“Vitellius, his legions being concentrated and havingthe word been spread that he intended to invade Mesopotamia … At this point, the abandonment of Armenia sealed the fate of Artabanus, for Vitellius incited the Parthians to abandon a King cruel in time of peace and deleterious due to the upsets on the field … he led the core of his legions and his allies to the banks of the Euphrates … he built a bridge of boats and the army was able to cross over”.
In view of the imminent encounter on the Euphrates, Vitellius, leaving from Antioch, was forced to travel many miles at the head of his legions and could not foresee whether the conditions imposed upon the Parthian King would have been accepted by the latter or not, thus he marched with remarkable vigour, equal to that of the previous offensive, headed towards the same locality already known to him and built another a bridge of boats, the same as the first, at the exact point in which a possible second invasion (we know that Vitellius was not a bluffer and was ready to use his army in order to win) would have aimed directly at Mesopotamia, the same exact point from which, in the late autumn of 35 A.D., after the initial invasion carried out by the imperial Legate past the Euphrates, the Parthian Tiridates, chosen by Tiberius, marched on Ctesiphon, capital of the Parthian Kingdom, in Mesopotamia, where he was crowned “King of Kings” (cfr. Ann. VI 42).
The strategic position, which aimed at the heart of the Parthian Empire, was the only point in which the Euphrates crossed the border between Syria and the Kingdom of the Parthians, therefore it was in this locality that Vitellius forced Artabanus to come to terms: roughly three hundred kilometers east of Antioch, south of the Osrhoene and the future Roman city “Circesium”, in a straight line going towards the Parthian capital Ctesiphon in Mesopotamia.
It was not by chance if Antioch was chosen as the General Headquarters of the Roman legions, ready to intervene against the expansionist ambitions of the Parthians; it was built near the city, on the banks of a river near the delta, where there was a seaport which was important logistically for the army.
“There was also a fight (with the Arab Aretas IV),with regard to the district of Gabala, and on both sides there had been the inspection of the soldiers, and now they were at war …In the battle that followed the army of Herod (Antipas) was destroyed. Herod sent a report of the events to Tiberius, who, offended by the arrogance of Aretas, ordered Vitellius to march against him, send him back in chains, if he captured him alive, and, if dead, send him his head. These were the instructions that Tiberius sent the Governor of Syria” (Ant. XVIII 114).
After this “curriculum vitae” of Aretas IV against the territories under the control of Rome, Albino Garzetti, subjugating History to one’s own Creed, declares, with hypocritical self-conceit, that Gaius Caligula, after the death of Tiberius, “rewarded” the Nabatean monarch by offering him Damascus in Syria as a “refined gift” … so as to justify the blunder made by the Christian scribes in the name of a “Saint Paul” who never existed (see second study).
And, to top off such absurdity, such nonsense is still today fed to university students thanks to the conspiratorial silence of professors of History in their respective universities.
But Albinus G., in order to reach his objective – aimed at modifying the dating of the encounter on the Euphrates – found himself forced to reinterpret the written events, deviating his study in a way that would allow him to arrive at the desired conclusion, so arrogant as to think that no one would understand, while he is the one-and-only bearer of the truth and, as a result, sees it as his right to say such baloney.
E he does this by committing a fourth and very grave error: he does not realize that Tacitus’s quote recalled above (Annales VI 44) is the final one regarding the war between the Roman Empire and the Empire of the Parthians. As a result of this oversight Garzetti offers a misleading conclusive judgment because, from the beginning to the end of his analysis, he arrogantly recalls the “testimony” of the imperial chronicler but does not understand the Tacitean chronicle concerning the war between Rome and Parthia ended in 36 A.D.
As readers can verify, the important wartime event cited by Tacitus disorients those academics interested in his chronicles because at the end of the narration about the war between the two Empires Artabanus turns out to be the winner, not Lucius Vitellius.
Therefore a historian with a love for the glorious exploits of Ancient Rome has feelings of “emptiness” and “dearth” resulting from the contrast with premise of Tacitus praising Lucius Vitellius: “in the administration of the Provinces he demonstrated the ability of the men of the past”.
Indeed, we are find ourselves before a “gap in history”, perfectly aware that all the events of public interest were recorded by the chroniclers of the time, and the same goes for the memorials written by the direct protagonists, being that we are dealing with required institutional documents sent to the authorities in accordance with the appointment received, and we can be sure that Lucius Vitellius behaved accordingly.
“Acts of Vitellius” which the powerful Legate sent to Tiberius and to the Senate, authority which archived the documentation in the “Acts of the Senate” where detailed documents were kept, later consulted by Tacitus in order to write the events of the first century in the Annales. But, as we have just seen, the exploits of Vitellius were interrupted … or rather, were censored by the Christian scribes just like in the case of the famine described above. The purpose of such censorship (already observed) was caused by the armed intervention of the Roman leader in Jerusalem in order to crush the rebellion of a starving community: any trace of this account had to disappear.
Thanks to the “Acts of Lucius Vitellius” - in addition to the events which he reported in their entirety and passed on to us through the reading of Tacitus’s Annales - in the original Book VI were to be found the following accounts which currently are missing:
- the destitution of Pontius Pilate as Prefect of Judea, replaced by the new Prefect Marcellus. Friend of the Governor of Syria;
- the first intervention of Vitellius, who descended upon Jerusalem with his legions in 36 A.D. and his initiative, in contrast with the practice imposed by Rome, aimed at lowering taxes for the Jews who revolted due to the famine (Cfr Annales VI 41: here we discover that in the same year the Legate Marcus Trebellius, by order of Vitellius, forced other peoples to pay tributes through the use of force);
- the crucifixion of the Head of the Zealots, ally of Artabanus, proclaimed “King of the Jews” by the inhabitants of Jerusalem;
- the obligation imposed on Artabanus to arrive at negotiations, according to the directives of Tiberius. Otherwise, the legions of Rome, already deployed along the border, were ready to invade Parthia, there having been a strategic attack already carried out by Vitellius in the autumn of 35 (proof of this earlier event is furnished by Tacitus). In fact, in that moment, after crossing over the Euphrates and invading the Kingdom of the Parthians with his legions, it was enough for Vitellius “to have displayed Roman arms” (Annales VI 37).
- the subsequent strategy of the leader, so as to force Artabanus to negotiate, consisted in a “pincer movement” made by possible by the intervention of the Transcaucasian Barbarians – Iberi, Albani, Alani, Sarmati – passing through the “gates of the Caspian”, ready to strike from the far East the Parthian kingdom weakened by the internal divisions within the Satrapi, while from the West, the Roman army was already deployed and ready to cross over into Parthia once again;
- the report of the encounter which had taken place on the Euphrates, border between the two Empires, during which Artabanus gave his consent to the treaty forcing him to renounce all claims over Armenia; the Great King was also forced to honour the insignia of Tiberius and hand over, as a final guarantee, his son Darius as hostage of the Emperor;
- the liberation of the territories conquered by Aretas IV, and the start of the mission aimed at eliminating the Nabatean King, later interrupted by Vitellius because during the expedition he stopped a second time in Jerusalem, where he was delivered the news of Tiberius’s death.
A prolonged censorshp of Book VI of the Annales which, obviously, did not only regard the conduct of L. Vitellius, but carried on even afterwards, during the reign of Gaius Caligula and with a precise motive, resulting from the absence of Christians in that period, in contrast with a false presence of followers of Christ invented centuries later. The inexistence of Christians in 40 A.D., during the principate of Gaius, an Emperor convinced that he was God, is evident in the authentic “Testimonium Flavianum”, an act written by Josephus Flavius:
“While all the peoples, subjects of the Roman Empire, had dedicated altars and Temples to Gaius, and had given him, from all perspectives, the same attention they gave to the Gods, only the Jewish people refused to honour him with statues and vow in his name” (cfr Ant. XVIII 258).
By specifying “all the peoples venerated Gaius”, in contrast with “only the Jewish people refused to do so”, it is clear that the Jewish historian knew of no presence of Christians who, according to the factitious “Christian tradition”, were against, just like the Jews, the deification of anyone apart from Christ. When he wrote his entire work, Josephus could not have known that deceitful scribes, three centuries after his death, by order of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, interpolated in “Historia Ecclesiastica” (HEc. I,7/8) a phony “Testimonium Flavianum”, in which they have Josephus announce the Advent of a Jewish Messiah (Christ) by the name of “Jesus”, venerated as the true and only God “and to this day we have not lost the tribe made up of those who by Him are called Christians”. The phrase “to this day” attributed to Josephus is deliberately, and hypocritically, meant as the “present” of the Jewish historian, which he documented until the end of the first century. Proof of the falsification of the “Testimonium Flavianum” can be found in the sixth study.
First century “primitive Christianity” was made to appear, by apologetical fourth century writers, as having been widespread in the Empire already under Tiberius (so even prior to Gaius), and attested by Eusebius who, acting as a compulsive impostor, called in this Emperor to offer testimony to the presence of Jesus Christ, along with Tertullianus (cfr HEc. II 2).
A widespread Christianity, propagandized from the very beginning even in Gospels, which are also documents, as demonstrated in the sixth and eighth studies, dating back to the fourth century.
“Jesus went round the whole of Galilee teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and curing all kinds of disease and illness among the people. His fame spread throughout Syria, and those who were suffering from diseases and painful complaints of one kind or another, the possessed, epileptics, the paralyzed, were all brought to him, and he cured them. Large crowds followed him, coming from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judaea and Transjordan” (Mt 4,23/25).
A rampant Christianity in Syria, but unknown to Lucius Vitellius, who governed this province from 35 to 39, and present two times in Jerusalem during Passover (the cause of the nighmare of historians who recite the rosary), in absolute contrast with the forma mentis of Gaius. The latter was a mad Emperor who was convinced that he was God, demanded to be venerated by all the peoples and was about to wage war against the Jews if they had not recognized him as such (luckily, for the Jews, Caligula was eliminated just in time) … Who knows how many Jesuit Christians Gaius would have massacred if they had truly existed.
It was therefore the lack of Christians martyrized by the Emperor which forced the scribes - those who transcribed Cornelius Tacitus’s Annales in the eleventh century, one thousand years after the death of the imperial chronicler – to censor the biography of Gaius Caligula.
A purification of history carried out by the same scribes of God who, in “Codex Laurentianus Mediceus 68 II”, removed the Tacitean chronicle of the Annales two years after the fire of 64: from 66 A.D. onwards. The following years saw the war of the Jews against the Romans, which ended with the triumph of Titus, whose Arch (which still exists today) the great Roman historian passed under many times. Pieces of information which were eliminated for they compromised the false testimony, attributed to Tacitus, concerning the massacre of inexistent followers of Christ, a religious movement called “Christianity”, never mentioned before by the historian, apart from the sudden “burst of heat” resulting from a great number of Christian martyrs crucified by Nero, as if they were blazing torches … this fact was not recorded by Josephus, despite the fact that he was present at the imperial palace, guest of Poppaea (Nero’s wife) from the end of 63 to the middle of 65 A.D. A witness like Josephus, with his command of the Greek language, capable of fully understanding that “Christianity” (“Christianismus” in Latin, “Χριστιανισμός” in Greek) for he who spoke Aramaic meant “Messianism” (Italianized); who knows what sort of deposition Josephus would have given about the spectacular massacre of the followers of the divine Jewish Messiah who he too was awaiting.
With regard to the phony martyrdom of Christians under Nero see the twelfth study.
The “historical void” is confirmed, even if only indirectly, by Saint Jerome Sofronius (Christian historian who lived between the four and fifth century) in one of his works, “Commentarium in Zachariam” (3,14), which has reached us with the following testimony: “Cornelius Tacitus drew up thirty handwritten scrolls on the life of the Caesars, from the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian”. It must be specified that Jerome, and Eusebius prior to him, both know nothing about the Neronian martyrdom of Christians, despite having read the original scrolls of Tacitus.
With regard to the testimonies which the scribes “removed” from the works of past chroniclers, spiritualist historians affirm that “unfortunately they were lost” or “lack certain fragments”: “voids” and “losses” passed off as an impossible fortuity. Proof of this can be found in the precise aim of the scribes of God. Fact which we have repeatedly demonstrated through specific research thanks to reading of the Codexes, transcribed through the centuries, containing variants and contradictions about the lives of the mythological “martyrized holy Christians”, with regard to whom the scribes have committed very grave historical blunders when they blamed as their martyrizers famous Governors of the Roman Provinces, the same who, according to the epigraphs and historiography confirmed by archeology, were involved in completely different endeavors during the years indicated by the martyrologists of the so-called “Christian tradition”.
Going back to the “void in History” (after having ascertained the misdeed), in order to carry on with the analysis of the true events it is dutiful to follow another source, very well-informed, as the war waged by Artabanus against Rome involved Judea and had the outcome already mentioned above.
In “Contra Apione” (Book I par. 28 to 46) Josephus Flavius highlights the constant attention on the part of the Priests and High Priests of the Temple when drawing up:
“Annales worthy of faith for the transmission of public events of which my “Antiquities” are an accurate extract … and up to this day this custom has been observed”.
Josephus died in 105 A.D., but the Sanhedrin was banned by Vespasian at the end of the Jewish War resulting in the triumph of General Titus, son of Vespasian and future Emperor; while the Doctors of the law (Rabbis) and the Scribes continued to freely practice their profession of faith inside the Synagogues, never prohibited by the Roman Empire … but prohibited by the future Roman Catholic Empire, which got underway with the Edict of Thessaloniki in 380 A.D.
It is important to point out that in 70 A.D., before General Titus authorized his army to sack Jerusalem, the Roman leader allowed the Jewish historian to collect both the documents kept in the “public archives” and the “holy books” (cfr. Bios par. 1,6 and 418).
In “Autobiography” (par. 418) Titus invited Josephus to take whatever he wanted prior to the final destruction; the Jew refused but “being that there was nothing to keep that could offer comfort to my misfortunes, I asked for and obtained, thanks to the gratious concession of Titus, some holy books …”.
Nothing of material value, however precious it may have been, could be of compensation to him for the destruction of his “Holy City”, adorned with the most majestic Temple in the world. In those tragic moments, while death was still claiming its final victims, the only thing that could interest Josephus was not wealth, which had never been a problem for him, but memory.
Josephus, a Jewish priest – descending from the highest priestly class in Jerusalem, which for generations had taken part in the Grand Jewish Assembly – knew where the manuscripts of the Acts of the Sanhedrin were kept: the minutes of the Assembly, the last of which he had helped to draw up as Scribe of this body, starting in 56 A.D., under the High Priest “Ismael son of Fabi”.
They were “holy” documents” and, in that tragic moment, were of utmost value to him for they represented memory. The historical path of the people of Israel had to be preserved thanks to the Acts of the Sanhedrin: this was the source that he relied upon for his knowledge of past Jewish events. In these manuscripts, minutes of meetings which became longer and longer year after year, where he himself was able to read the recorded historical details concerning his land, the famous personalities who interacted with his people, the Jews, their enemies and …the wars.
It was then that Josephus collected all the handwritten scrolls lying in the Sanhedrin: he knew that they would have been indispensable in order to document his entire work written in Aramaic and Greek. A task which began right after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and lasted until almost end of the principate of Domitian. Whoever has read the “Jewish Antiquities” – after looking at the numerous and detailed events (dating from the third century B.C. to the end of the of the first century A.D.) along with their protagonists substantiated by numismatics and archeology, all of which are reported in detail by the Jewish historian – realizes that the information they are reading is drawn from a source comparable to the “Acts of the Senate” of Rome: the “Acts of the Sanhedrin” of Jerusalem.
After making the necessary preliminary remarks regarding the “Acts of the Sanhedrin”, thanks to these documents – used as a “holy source” by Josephus (his “Antiquities” begin with the Old Testament and flow into the real history of the third century B.C.), thus indispensable for guaranteeing correct historical knowledge – we have the possibility of precisely reconstructing the chronology of the events which took place during the war between the Roman Empire and the Parthian Empire, waged by the most powerful and determined enemy of Rome, Artabanus III, convinced to be emulating the deeds of Cyrus the Great and Darius I, founders of the Achemenide Empire of Ancient Persia, the greatest and most splendid known to history at that time.
And it is thanks to the annals transcribed by the Jewish scribes in the “Acts of the Sanhedrin” of Jerusalem that we have the possibility of filling the “void in History”, by completing our knowledge of past events and their exact sequence.
The initial act of force, the occupation of Armenia decided by Artabanus, took place in the summer of 34 A.D., immediately after the natural death of the Governor of Syria, L. Pomponius Flaccus. At the beginning of 35, just after receiving the declaration of war from the ambassadors of Artabanus, Tiberius appointed Vitellius who, due to the wartime emergency, left immediately with several ships of the imperial fleet and headed towards the Headquarters in Antioch, accompanied by the Legates of the legions, Generals of proven ability which he himself had chosen.
Within one month at the latest, several of Vitellius’s legates used ships belonging to the Pontica fleet in order to reach the territories of Caucasian Iberia in order to set up strategic accords with allied rulers and the Barbarians along their borders. The military intervention of these peoples, stationed along the far eastern border of the Empire, took place at the same time as the invasion of the Kingdom of the Parthians carried out by the Roman legions led by Lucius Vitellius. The joint action of the forces on the field brought about, in the late autumn of 35, the Roman reconquest of Armenia and the consequent defeat of Artabanus.
This first success, involving the violation of Parthia’s borders by the Roman forces was specified as such by Tacitus: “Vitelius, who thought it sufficient to have exhibited Roman arms … reenter Syria with his legions” (Cfr. Ann. VI 37) … in the winter quarters of Antioch, in the late autumn of 35 A.D.
We notice that, if for the Parthian dignitaries it was enough to simply see the “exhibition of Roman arms” in order to abandon Artabanus to his destiny, this confirms the massiveness of the Roman military formation ready to enter into action if the Parthians had not recognized Tiridates (ordered by Tiberius) as their “King of Kings”.
Just after arriving in Antioch with his army, Vitellius met a delegation of Samaritans who complained to his Tribunal of a massacre they had underwent due to the Prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. Moreover, couriers, who had left from Caesarea Maritima and sent by the Governor himself, were awaiting him, an event of extreme gravity; they delivered an envelope containing news about the fall of Jerusalem occupied by the Zealots in the late summer of 35, as a result the people had acclaimed their own “King of the Jews”.
Upon his arrival in Antioch with his army, Vitellius found a delegation of Samaritans who complained to his Tribunal about a massacre they had undergone due to the Prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. But, to make matters worse, couriers, who had left from Caesarea Maritima and had been sent by the Governor himself, were awaiting him; they had come to deliver an envelope containing the news that Jerusalem had fallen into the hands of the Zealots in the late summer of 35, and as a result the people had acclaimed their own “King of the Jews”.
Informed about the Jewish revolt in late 35, Vitellius, as his first act, appointed a new Prefect, Marcellus, a friend of equestrian order, and sent him to Caesarea Maritima with the order to remove Pontius Pilate from office and summon him before Tiberius in order to justify the loss of Jerusalem: injunction which Pilate was careful not to follow and who, instead, decided that it would be better for his health … to get out of the picture once and for all.
In compliance with Vitellius’s directives, the Prefect Marcellus went by sea to Caesarea Maritima with several ships of the imperial fleet transporting, among other things, logistical equipment essential to the installation of siegeworks to be positioned around the city of Jerusalem.
With regard to the “source” it is dutiful to start by saying that the chronicles of Tacitus, up until they were “censored”, proved to be the most accurate account of the events described, evidently taken from the “Acts of the Senate” in which the “Acts of Lucius Vitellius” are deposited.
But it is also true that, with regard to the narrated details, no imperial historian, neither Suetonius nor Cassius Dio, nor even Tacitus himself, managed to provide detailed documentary evidence of the premises and of what went on behind the scenes, directly linked to the encounter on the Euphrates, due to the fact that L. Vitellius himself could not have been aware of any of this.
Among the many details there is, above all, no explanation of how it was possible for Artabanus to once again become “King of Kings”, after having been, initially, abandoned to his fate by the “Great Satrapies” of the Parthian Empire. The precise piece of information comes from the “Acts of the Sanhedrin”, source of Josephus Flavius, according to which the promoter of Artabanus’s rehabilitaton was the Satrapi King, Izates of Adiabene: a protagonist which we have already mentione above and who, superfluous to say, was a Parthian who had converted to Judaism.
It was therefore for religious reasons that King Izates hosted the losing Artabanus, and went as far as to convince the other Satrapies to once again recognize and support the Great King in order to defeat the prominence of Rome (Ant. XX 54 and foll.).
Having embraced the Jewish faith, Izates favoured Artabanus because, in the event of his victory, the latter would have freed from Roman domination the “land promised” by Yahweh to the “chosen people”.
With regard to Izates’s intervention, it is important to observe the erroneous reference made by Tacitus (in the absence of the correct source just mentioned) where, after the initial defeat of the Great Parthian King, caused by the loss of Armenia, in the Annales (VI 36) we read that “Artabanus escaped hastily to the remote borders of Scythia”. This could have simply been an ironic “joke” made by the historian, enthusiastic about the victory, because Scythia was made up of a vast territory very far to the north of the Pontus Euxinus (today’s Black Sea), where, at the same time (beginning of 36 A.D.), Artabanus, according to the narration of Josephus, sought refuge at the court of King Izates, in Arbela, the capital of Ardiabene, south of Armenia already reconquered entirely by Rome in the late autumn of 35. We can imagine the reaction of the Chief of Staff, L. Vitellius, if he had been informed of the exact refuge of the defeated (at this moment) King: he would have immediately eliminated the runaway Artabanus and crucified Izates … thus making it impossible for there to be another “encounter on the Euphrates”…
Let’s return to the real encounter on the Euphrates between Vitellius and Artabanus. Thanks to the annales passed on by the “Acts of the Sanhedrin”, the historian Josephus, in his “Antiquities”, reports that Herod Antipas was an eyewitness to the event, being the latter extremely interested in retaking the territories lost after Aretas’s defeat, but only L. Vitellius had the strength needed to reconquer the district of Gabala, including the fortress Machaerus, and punish the Nabatean King: a task which, according to the orders of Tiberius, the Roman leader should have carried out only after the war against the Parthians had come to an end and an official peace treaty had been signed.
The Tetrarch Antipas, being that he was a Jew present at the accords, felt it his duty to report non only to Tiberius but also to the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem so that the Jewish scribes could record the event in their annales.
It is also important to specify that Herod Antipas had no authority or influence with regard to the drafting of the accords between the two Empires, therefore his presence had no justification other than that of “putting pressure” on Vitellius so that he would quickly punish Aretas and force him to hand over the occupied territories, already assigned by Caesar Augustus to the Tetrarch, son of Herod the Great. To make up for it and offer some sort of justification for his insignificant presence, Herod Antipas took it upon himself to build, at his expense, sumptuous pavilion and offer a regal banquet two the two Great men and their respective military escorts in order to celebrate the event (Ant. XVIII 101/103).
We have listed thus far a series of events and related considerations based on precise data which Albino Garzetti, although interested in becoming part of “History”, was not capable of examining. From his chair at university, he intentionally excluded the true probative documentation and decided to reinterpret the past events as the coda to the “supremacy of the Gospels over History” by setting the dating of the encounter between Artabanus and Vitellius under Gaius Caligula in the summer of 37 A.D.
Well-informed historical sources instead contain very precise details concerning endeavours, authors, localities and dates; therefore, in order to precisely set the true date of the famous encounter between these Great men on the Euphrates, thanks to these sources, we are forced to follow the movements of the main protagonist of the wartime events being discussed: Lucius Vitellius with his legions.
We know that Vitellius, Governor of the Province of Syria, was stationed in the anti-Parthian general headquarters located in Antioch, and from here he moved towards the point on the Euphrates where he chose (with the consent of the Parthian King) to have the meeting and build a bridge on the exact border between the two Empires. Of course the structure was built by Roman sappers, who were the best in the world at building bridges of boats, fastened onto rivers by means of a technique experimented by Julius Caesar. We must also take note that such an installation could not have been the bridge of Zeugma, which already existed; this city was the capital of a district “within”, not “on”, the Roman limes.
Above all, the place chosen by Vitellius had to be very menacing in the eyes of Artabanus (to convince him to accept the peace conditions imposed by Tiberius), hereby putting at risk, through a possible invasion, a great and fertile territory “that vast area which, delimited by the course of two very famous rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, took the name Mesopotamia” (Ann. VI 37).
All one needs to do is reread the Tacitus’s introductory chronicle (Ann. VI 36 and 37) containing a description of the implacable tactic of Lucius Vitellius against Artabanus, studied by the leader in the late autumn of 35 A.D.:
“Vitellius, his legions being concentrated and havingthe word been spread that he intended to invade Mesopotamia … At this point, the abandonment of Armenia sealed the fate of Artabanus, for Vitellius incited the Parthians to abandon a King cruel in time of peace and deleterious due to the upsets on the field … he led the core of his legions and his allies to the banks of the Euphrates … he built a bridge of boats and the army was able to cross over”.
In view of the imminent encounter on the Euphrates, Vitellius, leaving from Antioch, was forced to travel many miles at the head of his legions and could not foresee whether the conditions imposed upon the Parthian King would have been accepted by the latter or not, thus he marched with remarkable vigour, equal to that of the previous offensive, headed towards the same locality already known to him and built another a bridge of boats, the same as the first, at the exact point in which a possible second invasion (we know that Vitellius was not a bluffer and was ready to use his army in order to win) would have aimed directly at Mesopotamia, the same exact point from which, in the late autumn of 35 A.D., after the initial invasion carried out by the imperial Legate past the Euphrates, the Parthian Tiridates, chosen by Tiberius, marched on Ctesiphon, capital of the Parthian Kingdom, in Mesopotamia, where he was crowned “King of Kings” (cfr. Ann. VI 42).
The strategic position, which aimed at the heart of the Parthian Empire, was the only point in which the Euphrates crossed the border between Syria and the Kingdom of the Parthians, therefore it was in this locality that Vitellius forced Artabanus to come to terms: roughly three hundred kilometers east of Antioch, south of the Osrhoene and the future Roman city “Circesium”, in a straight line going towards the Parthian capital Ctesiphon in Mesopotamia.
It was not by chance if Antioch was chosen as the General Headquarters of the Roman legions, ready to intervene against the expansionist ambitions of the Parthians; it was built near the city, on the banks of a river near the delta, where there was a seaport which was important logistically for the army.
The historians of imperial Rome know that during the era of the Principality, whenever the Parthians tried to conquer Armenia, the counterattacks of the Roman Generals "punished" the Kings of the Parthians thus forcing their armies to escape into Mesopotamia.
Having considered it necessary to define the wartime context culminating in the accords signed by Vitellius and Artabanus on the Euphrates, the source of Josephus informs us that, in the summer of 36, Aretas IV defeated the army of Herod Antipas. A war won by Aretas and made possible thanks to the momentary comeback of Artabanus (already mentioned above) which occurred in the exact same year (Ann. VI 44), and as a result:
“Herod sent a report of these events to Tiberius, who, offended by the arrogance of Aretas, ordered Vitellius to march on him, send him back to him in chains, if captured alive, and, if dead, send him back his head. These were the instructions that Tiberius sent to the Governor of Syria” (Ant. XVIII 115).
Meanwhile Viltellius, who had just returned with his legions from the first mission aimed at resubjugating a Jerusalem that had risen up against the Empire (over six hundred kilometers south of Antioch), decided to have his troops rest in the winter quarters. It was only in early February of 37 A.D. that he once again began to march the three hundred km necessary to reach the point he had already got to know in 35. It was in this same locality on the Euphrates that, around the end of February of 37 A.D., a peace treaty was signed between Vitellius, Lieutenant of Tiberius, and Artabanus III.
As a preliminary act, the protocol saw the Great Parthian King – in the presence of his army and of the legions deployed by Vitellius – forced to honour Tiberius and the Roman emblems. After the inspection of the forces and the due reverence towards the valour of the defeated, the two Great men and their respective escorts entered a pavilion set upon a bridge, where Artabanus then signed the state protocol using the imperial seal and swore to renounce any right over Armenia and, finally, so as to guarantee the respect of his obligations, handed over his son Darius, sent to Tiberius as a hostage …
“But Herod (Antipas), desiring to be the first to inform Emperor Tiberius of the news that the hostages had been received, wrote a complete and accurate report, then sent couriers with letters to exactly inform him, and to the Governor left nothing new to communicate to the Emperor. Therefore, when he received the dispatch from Vitellius, the Emperor (Tiberius) informed him that he was already aware of the news, having already been informed by Herod. Vitellius was furious and for him the offense was greater than it truly was; yet he stifled his scorn until having taken revenge. And this occurred when Gaius (Caligula) was Emperor of the Romans.” (Ant. XVIII 104-105).
Herod Antipas acted hastily and informed, prior to Vitellius, Tiberius of the agreements accepted by Artabanus. Unfortunately the Tetrarch had to pay a very high price, as anticipated by Josephus: “eternal exile to Lyons, city in Gaul” (Ant. XVIII 252). It is to be observed, however, that the announcement of the agreement between Rome and Parthia, and the subsequent order to execute Aretas given to Vitellius by Tiberius, was also communicated to the Nabatean King through the same source of law (the majority of the Jews had been in favour of the success of Artabanus, who by this time had failed). Aretas understood that, after the submission of Artabanus, his only means of salvation was to flee to Petra and abandon the territories taken from Antipas (under Roman protectorate). It was the last chance that Aretas IV had to avoid the death penalty hanging over his head (see above Ant. XVIII 114).
After peace was established between the two Empires in late February of 37, Vitellius had two legions remain but sent back to Antioch the bulk of the army answering to the Legion Generals, whose responsibility it was to guard Darius, son of Artabanus, and send him to Tiberius in Rome by trireme.
Afterwards – in compliance with the Emperor’s directives aimed at executing Aretas IV for having appropriating himself of the district of Gabala and the Fortress Machaerus – Vitellius, accompanied by Herod Antipas, at the head of two legions moved towards Damascus, from there proceeded towards Ptolemais, then went up to the coast to Galilee, where he entered the Great Plain on his way to Jerusalem, where for the second time (after the celebration of 36), Passover was once again being celebrated (in 37 A.D.) … but the Roman leader had not been invited to admire the miracles that the Apostles, according to their “Acts” (5,12/16), were carrying out under and inexistent “Portico of Solomon”. Vitellius remained in the Holy City a few days as Antipas’s guest:
“Vitellius along with the Tetrarch Herod went to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to God during the traditional feast that the Jews were celebrating. Upon his arrival, he was greeted with special warmth by the Jewish multitude. He stayed here for three days … on the fourth he was delivered a letter announcing to him the death of Tiberius, and he (Vitellius) led the people to swear allegiance to Gaius” (Ant. XVIII 124).
The imperial Legate was obliged to follow the same custom with regard to Artabanus, since Vitellius had signed a peace treaty in name of Tiberius; as a result the Roman leader, after returning to the General Headquarters, forced the King of the Parthians to go to Antioch and honour Gaius and the imperial emblems, and reconfirm, at the same time, the validity of the agreements in respect to the new Princeps.
Meanwhile in Jerusalem, during the Passover * celebrations, Viltellius, having been informed of the death of Tiberius and no longer bound to the orders of the late Emperor, and aware of the difficulties encountered by his predecessor, Emilius Scaurus, prevented his legions from venturing into the arid desert as far as Petra.
* It is to be observed that the death of Tiberius took place on 16 March of 37 A.D. Considering that the letter containing the official announcement of his passing was sent by sea, from Rome to Caesarea Maritima, and then brought to Jerusalem by couriers on horses; and being that the delivery required about seven days, it can be affirmed that the Passover celebrations took place after 20 March of 37. Therefore forty days passed between the encounter on the Euphrates and Vitellius’s arrival in Jerusalem; while the previous year his journey had required fifty days.
In fact, the Roman leader – who went to Jerusalem to reconquer the city which had risen up against Roman domination – in early February of 36, at the head of his legions, from Antioch moved towards Ptolemais all the way to Caesarea Maritima, where the Prefect Marcellus reported to him on the situation of the Holy City strangled by a famine. The Prefect gave Vitellius the chariots having the equipment needed to build the siegeworks, then the leader advanced to Jerusalem during the Passover of 36. After besieging the city, he imposed his conditions upon the city and obtained its immediate surrender, by this time exhausted by the famine and no longer capable of resisting. Thus, as his first act, Vitellius crucified the self-styled “King of the Jews”, then freed the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the payment of taxes on agricultural products and led the people to swear allegiance to Tiberius.
Due to its historical importance, it is to be highlighted that L. Vitellius – during his first journey to Jerusalem, in 36 A.D., which also took place during Passover – he was neither accompanied nor hosted by Herod Antipas. This can be explained by the fact that the Tetrarch could not have been present in the Holy City because he would have been executed by the Zealots as a result of the Jewish rebellion which occurred in late summer early autumn (Feast of Tabernacles) of 35 A.D. There was therefore the risk of also involving in the revolt of the people of Jerusalem, starved by the famine, the Galileans, connoted by Josephus as being among “the most fanatical of nationalists”; thus Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, was forced by the wartime events to remain in Tiberias and prevent the imminent rebellion from spreading into his territory. This is the reason why Antipas had John the Baptist, the most fervent orator in Galilee, eliminated in late 35 early 36 A.D.:
“… When others crowded around him (John the Baptist) because his sermons had arrived at the highest of levels, Herod (Antipas) became alarmed. An eloquence, which had great effect upon men, could bring about any sort of sedition … Herod thus decided that it would have been much better to attack in advance and free himself of him before his actions could bring about an uprising. As a result of Herod’s suspicions he (John the Baptist) was brought to Machareus and here was put to death. But the verdict of the Jews was that the destruction of Herod’s army was John the Baptist’s vendetta, meaning that it was a good decision on God’s part to inflict such a calamity upon Herod” (Ant. XVIII 118).
The “destruction of Herod Antipas’s army” was caused by his defeat in a battle against his former father-in-law, battle which, as we have just seen above (Tacitus: Annales VI 44), took place in the summer of 36 A.D., when the Arabs became allies of Artabanus.
Now let’s go back to 37 A.D.
Upon the conclusion of his victorious mission against the Parthians, Vitellius maintained his role of Chief of Staff along with all the powers connected to this appointment; he remained in the General Headquarters in Antioch until 39 A.D., or rather … until Gaius Caligula was mentally sane.
After drawing the historical information from direct sources, handed down by the protagonists themselves and the eyewitness to the narrated events, at this point we have resolved the investigation concerning the war carried out by Artabanus against Rome; this conflict culminated in the defeat of the Parthian Empire thanks to the Roman leader Lucius Vitellius, when the powerful imperial Legate obliged the “King of Kings” to sign on the Euphrates, in late February of 37 A.D., a peace treaty that was advantageous to the Roman Empire.
Having specified this, the fact we have proven wrong the study written by Albino Garzetti forces us to demonstrate the other mistakes he made …
The positive opinion regarding the work of L. Vitellius is confirmed in “Roman History” by Cassius Dio, historian who could not have been aware of events unknown to the imperial Legate himself and, consequently, to the “Acts of the Senate”. Least of all, the famous third century chronicler carried out inevitable research on the accounts of Josephus Flavius, and proof of this is that even Cassius Dio, just like the other imperial historians, knew nothing about King Izates, supporter of the rebirth of Artabanus, nor was the historian aware of the “historical void” as he lacked knowledge of the chronicles written in the annales of the “Acts of the Sanhedrin” of Jerusalem.
“Lucius Vitellius was renowned for his governorship in Syria, during which, among other things, he obtained brilliant success, and had intimidated Artabanus, who was organizing an invasion of Syria … he had reached Artabanus when the latter was in the vicinity of the Euphrates, and after convincing him to negotiate had obliged him to sacrifice the images of Augustus and Gaius, imposing upon him an agreement advantageous to the Romans and taking his sons as hostages” (Op. cit. LIX 27,2/3).
Cassius Dio’s passage is invoked by Albino Garzetti as “witness” par excellence to the encounter on the Euphrates which took place under Gaius Caesar. According to the chronology of “Roman History” this passage dates back to 40 A.D., yet it is belied by the more direct, detailed sources prior to this date, those deriving from the legal source, which we urge be reread above in “Ant. XVIII 104-105”.
As can be verified, anyone can understand that Emperor Tiberius – having been informed through letters (by both Herod Antipas and Lucius Vitellius) of the treaty already stipulated by his Legate with Artabanus – just after receiving the missives, replied personally to both Antipas and Vitellius with other letters whose content, as we have read above, was reported by Josephus, thanks to the “Antipas → Sanhedrin” source.
Unchallengeable evidence which proves that he was still alive even after the event on the Euphrates arranged by the Great men.
Therefore, being that Tiberius died on 16 March of 37 A.D., this demonstrates that the meeting on the on the Euphrates between Vitellius and Artabanus took place prior to this date, within late February of 37 A.D., as we have demonstrated above: fact that is beyond dispute, understood by all … apart from those historians who have undergone a mystical crisis, as is the case for Albino Garzetti and his worthy “surrogates”.
In addition, the premises of the persistent power of Vitellius are reported by Cassius Dio, but let’s have a look at how he carries out the task:
“This Vitellius, therefore, is taken by Gaius so as to be put to death … Gaius, in fact, detested those who proved to be superior and was suspicious of the success of Vitellius because he considered them to be a threat to his position. Nevertheless he (Vitellius) saved himself by pretending, before the eyes of Gaius, to belong to an inferior rank; he threw himself upon the feet of the Emperor and cried hot tears and a the same time adored him as if he were a God. So he managed to gain the favour of Gaius who not only saved him, but included him among the close friends of the Emperor. And once, when Gaius said that he was having a conversation with the Moon and asked Vitellius if he saw the Goddess who he was having a meeting with, he (Vitellius), looking down at the ground, shaking as a result of the bewilderment, whispered: «Only you Gods, Lord, can rightfully look at one another!»” (Roman History LIX 27, 4/6).
The last phrase today could seem to be a funny joke, but historians are well aware that Gaius, after reigning wisely for two years (37 and 38 A.D.), his behaviour, it seems as a result of the after-effects of an illness, was characterized by a grave mental imbalance and the chroniclers of the period described him as a “bloody nut”. But let’s go back to the passage we have just read.
From the testimony “suspicious of the success of Vitellius” it is evident that Gaius played no part in the victory carried out by Vitellius against Artabanus, unlike Tiberius who had a direct role thanks to his directives which confirm that the Emperor was always a worthy strategist, and as alert as when he was young. In fact, Tiberius could have never been “suspicious of the success of Vitellius” simply because the victories obtained on the field were possible thanks to his direct orders (and to the capital he invested), even if by this time he was an old Emperor.
A series of mistakes – made by Albino Garzetti, who aimed at modifying the authentic date of the encounter on the Euphrates between Artabanus and Vitellius - resulting from a “selection of the sources”: a wrong method aimed at discarding a priori those pieces of information in contrast with his objective.
As in the case of the quotations taken from Suetonius:
“So Artabanus, who always proclaimed his hatred and disdain towards Tiberius, solicited spontaneously the friendship of Caligula, had a meeting with the consular lieutenants and, having crossed the Euphrates, paid homage to the Roman emblems and the paintings of the Caesars.” (Cal. 14,3).
We have already demonstrated above that Josephus’s source was the “Acts of the Sanhedrin”, perfectly aware of the event, of its objectives and of what went on behind the scenes: a source unknown to all the historians of imperial Rome. In fact, the information we have just read, which limits itself to reporting a general “meeting with the consular lieutenants” that took place during Gaius’s principate, says nothing concrete. Much later on, with regard to the biography of Aulus Vitellius, son of Lucius Vitellius, Suetonius reports:
“Lucius, having become governor of Syria, at the end of his consulate, with great skill, convinced Artabanus, King of the Parthians, not only to have a meeting with him, but also to pay homage to the emblems of the legions.” (Vitell. 2,4).
Vitellius’s consulate ended in 39 A.D., therefore under Gaius, but, as we are well aware, all of the information provided by the Roman chroniclers lack a direct source. In these two quotations, Suetonius makes no mention of the war between Rome and Parthia. A conflict preceded by a declaration of war which threatened the entire Eastern Empire, war which had already begun with the conquest of Armenia: this highlights the scarcity of sources on the part of Suetonius.
This grave omission is overlooked by Albino Garzetti, “specialized” in reading history through the deformed lens of his catechesis. And on page 228 (17th of his study), Albinus G. goes as far as to affirm:
“Observing finally that during the spectacular triumph of Baiae, celebrated in 39, Gaius had himself be accompanied in the cortège by the young Darius, son of Artabanus, sent as a hostage after the event on the Euphrate, thus highlighting him as an example of a tradition testifying his glory (of the Emperor Caligula) and not that of his predecessor”.
It is important to recall that the “Triumph” was decreed by the Senate and celebrated in Rome, where the Roman armies – victorious as a result of their superiority, courage and skill, demonstrated during the bloody conflict with the enemy – were allowed to parade from the imperial Forums to the Capitol. Triumph which was not due to Lucius Vitellius, because, as we have seen, all he had to do was invade the Kingdom of the Parthians and deploy the Roman legions, in order to convince the Satraps to give up the fight and abandon Artabanus to his fate; while the war, and the inevitable bloody clashes for the reconquest of Armenia, was carried out by the peoples of the Eastern Empire, allies of Rome, and not by the Roman forces.
Having said this, Garzetti’s excerpt which we have just read , acclaimed as further blatant proof, recalls Suetonius with regard to the life of Gaius Caligula: a passage “discovered” by the historian who, as a researcher undergoing a full-blown mystical crisis, did not understand, thus making a fool of himself, that the locality of “Baiae” (today’s Baia, near Naples) was the worthy location of the “triumph” of an insane Gaius … and so Suetonius, in his description of Caligula, specifies that “Until now we have spoken about the Princeps, now we are forced to speak about the monster”.
With regard to the fixation of the Emperor who wishes to appear as a great leader - we are in 39 A.D. with a Gaius irremediably out of his mind due to degenerative illness – in “Caligula 19” Suetonius “paints” Caligula as such (the passage is long but worth reading):
“Gaius excogitated also a kind of exhibition which was absolutely new and unprecedented. He built between Baia and the dam of Pozzuoli (near Naples), which separated an area of about three thousand six hundred paces, a bridge formed by cargo ships, attached on all sides and anchored in two rows; he then covered them with earth and gave it the appearance of the Appian Way. For two consecutive days he did not stop going back and forth over this bridge: on the first day he was seen on a horse wearing a luxurious harness, with an oak crown, a cithara, a sword and a garment with a golden brocade, the following day dressed up as a charioteer in a quadriga chariot, driven by two famous horses, preceded by the young Darius, one of the hostages handed over by the Parthians, and followed by a formation of praetorians and of vehicles with a group of friends on board. I know that Gaius had devised a bridge of this kind according to some so as to compete with Xerxes who, astonishingly, made one to cross the Hellespont, even if more modest, and according to others in order to scare, through the resonance of a gigantic work, Germanic and Breton peoples who were threatening to wage war. But during my childhood. I heard my grandfather say that, according to the secrets revealed by people close to his heart, the reason behind this undertaking can be found in the declaration made by the astrologist Trasilus to Tiberius, who suffered anguish with regard to his successor and was oriented towards his own nephew: «Gaius has as much chance of becoming Emperor as he has to cross the gulf of Baia on a horse»” (Suet. Cal. 19).
One the reasons behind the ridiculous “triumph” of the unbalanced Gaius is represented by the testimony given by Suetonius’s grandfather, according to whom Caligula aimed at belying Tiberius’s joke, in vogue when the old Emperor had to choose his successor but Garzetti convinced himself that this narration was the “testimony of his (Gaius’s) glory and not of his predecessor (Tiberius)”.
The data contained in this study, analyzed through simple historical rationalism, is enough to close once and for all the matter of the dating of the encounter on the Euphrates between Lucius Vitellius and Artabanus.
Detailed information, drawn from the direct sources, none excluded, the most important of which derive:
-from the accounts of Lucius Vitellius, sent to the Senate and there archived in the “Acts of the Senate”, consulted and adopted as a source by Cornelius Tacitus, but censored and interpolated in a targeted manner by the scribes who transcribed in the eleventh century the Codexes of his Annales, whose original title was “Ab excessu Divi Augusti”;
-from the Annales transcribed in the “Acts of the Sanhedrin” of Jerusalem, which have reached us through the “Jewish Antiquities” by Josephus, which were also censored and interpolated in a manner functional to the scribes of God who transcribed the latter work in the eleventh century “Codex Ambrosianus F 128”.
A long analysis which invalidates the totally erroneous conclusion excogitated by Professor Albino Garzetti, aimed at safeguarding the credibility of Christian creed, conclusion which is now in an irreversible coma, even if his epigones – university professors – insist on keeping it alive thanks to “thereapeutic persecution” supported by the “churchy” mass media “hooked” on Christianity and involved in concealing the definitive and penitential “De profundis” of this conclusion, already psalmodized by History.
Emilio Salsi
“This Vitellius, therefore, is taken by Gaius so as to be put to death … Gaius, in fact, detested those who proved to be superior and was suspicious of the success of Vitellius because he considered them to be a threat to his position. Nevertheless he (Vitellius) saved himself by pretending, before the eyes of Gaius, to belong to an inferior rank; he threw himself upon the feet of the Emperor and cried hot tears and a the same time adored him as if he were a God. So he managed to gain the favour of Gaius who not only saved him, but included him among the close friends of the Emperor. And once, when Gaius said that he was having a conversation with the Moon and asked Vitellius if he saw the Goddess who he was having a meeting with, he (Vitellius), looking down at the ground, shaking as a result of the bewilderment, whispered: «Only you Gods, Lord, can rightfully look at one another!»” (Roman History LIX 27, 4/6).
The last phrase today could seem to be a funny joke, but historians are well aware that Gaius, after reigning wisely for two years (37 and 38 A.D.), his behaviour, it seems as a result of the after-effects of an illness, was characterized by a grave mental imbalance and the chroniclers of the period described him as a “bloody nut”. But let’s go back to the passage we have just read.
From the testimony “suspicious of the success of Vitellius” it is evident that Gaius played no part in the victory carried out by Vitellius against Artabanus, unlike Tiberius who had a direct role thanks to his directives which confirm that the Emperor was always a worthy strategist, and as alert as when he was young. In fact, Tiberius could have never been “suspicious of the success of Vitellius” simply because the victories obtained on the field were possible thanks to his direct orders (and to the capital he invested), even if by this time he was an old Emperor.
A series of mistakes – made by Albino Garzetti, who aimed at modifying the authentic date of the encounter on the Euphrates between Artabanus and Vitellius - resulting from a “selection of the sources”: a wrong method aimed at discarding a priori those pieces of information in contrast with his objective.
As in the case of the quotations taken from Suetonius:
“So Artabanus, who always proclaimed his hatred and disdain towards Tiberius, solicited spontaneously the friendship of Caligula, had a meeting with the consular lieutenants and, having crossed the Euphrates, paid homage to the Roman emblems and the paintings of the Caesars.” (Cal. 14,3).
We have already demonstrated above that Josephus’s source was the “Acts of the Sanhedrin”, perfectly aware of the event, of its objectives and of what went on behind the scenes: a source unknown to all the historians of imperial Rome. In fact, the information we have just read, which limits itself to reporting a general “meeting with the consular lieutenants” that took place during Gaius’s principate, says nothing concrete. Much later on, with regard to the biography of Aulus Vitellius, son of Lucius Vitellius, Suetonius reports:
“Lucius, having become governor of Syria, at the end of his consulate, with great skill, convinced Artabanus, King of the Parthians, not only to have a meeting with him, but also to pay homage to the emblems of the legions.” (Vitell. 2,4).
Vitellius’s consulate ended in 39 A.D., therefore under Gaius, but, as we are well aware, all of the information provided by the Roman chroniclers lack a direct source. In these two quotations, Suetonius makes no mention of the war between Rome and Parthia. A conflict preceded by a declaration of war which threatened the entire Eastern Empire, war which had already begun with the conquest of Armenia: this highlights the scarcity of sources on the part of Suetonius.
This grave omission is overlooked by Albino Garzetti, “specialized” in reading history through the deformed lens of his catechesis. And on page 228 (17th of his study), Albinus G. goes as far as to affirm:
“Observing finally that during the spectacular triumph of Baiae, celebrated in 39, Gaius had himself be accompanied in the cortège by the young Darius, son of Artabanus, sent as a hostage after the event on the Euphrate, thus highlighting him as an example of a tradition testifying his glory (of the Emperor Caligula) and not that of his predecessor”.
It is important to recall that the “Triumph” was decreed by the Senate and celebrated in Rome, where the Roman armies – victorious as a result of their superiority, courage and skill, demonstrated during the bloody conflict with the enemy – were allowed to parade from the imperial Forums to the Capitol. Triumph which was not due to Lucius Vitellius, because, as we have seen, all he had to do was invade the Kingdom of the Parthians and deploy the Roman legions, in order to convince the Satraps to give up the fight and abandon Artabanus to his fate; while the war, and the inevitable bloody clashes for the reconquest of Armenia, was carried out by the peoples of the Eastern Empire, allies of Rome, and not by the Roman forces.
Having said this, Garzetti’s excerpt which we have just read , acclaimed as further blatant proof, recalls Suetonius with regard to the life of Gaius Caligula: a passage “discovered” by the historian who, as a researcher undergoing a full-blown mystical crisis, did not understand, thus making a fool of himself, that the locality of “Baiae” (today’s Baia, near Naples) was the worthy location of the “triumph” of an insane Gaius … and so Suetonius, in his description of Caligula, specifies that “Until now we have spoken about the Princeps, now we are forced to speak about the monster”.
With regard to the fixation of the Emperor who wishes to appear as a great leader - we are in 39 A.D. with a Gaius irremediably out of his mind due to degenerative illness – in “Caligula 19” Suetonius “paints” Caligula as such (the passage is long but worth reading):
“Gaius excogitated also a kind of exhibition which was absolutely new and unprecedented. He built between Baia and the dam of Pozzuoli (near Naples), which separated an area of about three thousand six hundred paces, a bridge formed by cargo ships, attached on all sides and anchored in two rows; he then covered them with earth and gave it the appearance of the Appian Way. For two consecutive days he did not stop going back and forth over this bridge: on the first day he was seen on a horse wearing a luxurious harness, with an oak crown, a cithara, a sword and a garment with a golden brocade, the following day dressed up as a charioteer in a quadriga chariot, driven by two famous horses, preceded by the young Darius, one of the hostages handed over by the Parthians, and followed by a formation of praetorians and of vehicles with a group of friends on board. I know that Gaius had devised a bridge of this kind according to some so as to compete with Xerxes who, astonishingly, made one to cross the Hellespont, even if more modest, and according to others in order to scare, through the resonance of a gigantic work, Germanic and Breton peoples who were threatening to wage war. But during my childhood. I heard my grandfather say that, according to the secrets revealed by people close to his heart, the reason behind this undertaking can be found in the declaration made by the astrologist Trasilus to Tiberius, who suffered anguish with regard to his successor and was oriented towards his own nephew: «Gaius has as much chance of becoming Emperor as he has to cross the gulf of Baia on a horse»” (Suet. Cal. 19).
One the reasons behind the ridiculous “triumph” of the unbalanced Gaius is represented by the testimony given by Suetonius’s grandfather, according to whom Caligula aimed at belying Tiberius’s joke, in vogue when the old Emperor had to choose his successor but Garzetti convinced himself that this narration was the “testimony of his (Gaius’s) glory and not of his predecessor (Tiberius)”.
The data contained in this study, analyzed through simple historical rationalism, is enough to close once and for all the matter of the dating of the encounter on the Euphrates between Lucius Vitellius and Artabanus.
Detailed information, drawn from the direct sources, none excluded, the most important of which derive:
-from the accounts of Lucius Vitellius, sent to the Senate and there archived in the “Acts of the Senate”, consulted and adopted as a source by Cornelius Tacitus, but censored and interpolated in a targeted manner by the scribes who transcribed in the eleventh century the Codexes of his Annales, whose original title was “Ab excessu Divi Augusti”;
-from the Annales transcribed in the “Acts of the Sanhedrin” of Jerusalem, which have reached us through the “Jewish Antiquities” by Josephus, which were also censored and interpolated in a manner functional to the scribes of God who transcribed the latter work in the eleventh century “Codex Ambrosianus F 128”.
A long analysis which invalidates the totally erroneous conclusion excogitated by Professor Albino Garzetti, aimed at safeguarding the credibility of Christian creed, conclusion which is now in an irreversible coma, even if his epigones – university professors – insist on keeping it alive thanks to “thereapeutic persecution” supported by the “churchy” mass media “hooked” on Christianity and involved in concealing the definitive and penitential “De profundis” of this conclusion, already psalmodized by History.
Emilio Salsi
[ go back ]