On the origins of Christianity

Jorma Jormakka

So many strange theories have been written of early Christianity that there hardly is any need for another one, but having been interested in this topic I have for a long time wanted to write an article summarizing my main arguments concerning early Christianity. I do not intend this article to be a research article in the normal sense where a researcher presents his findings to the research community and tries to convince the community of the validity of his results. Most of the material is in Christian texts and as a religion Christianity has the traditional interpretations of these texts. A view differing from the traditional interpretations is just another heretic view. There is no research community that could be convinced of what the true message of Jesus was, unless the interpretation is the traditional and widely accepted one. But that is not what I found. All I hope to do is to explain why I have come to my conclusions.     

            My views have been influenced by what I have read from many authors and little or nothing in them is so original as to say they are my ideas. Yet, I will not try to give due credit the people who have first invented some idea for two reasons. Firstly, the original inventors of an idea cannot be found: millions of people have studied the New Testament and other sources in the last two thousand years and very possibly every conceivable idea has been invented many times, but mostly not published as heretic views have been suppressed. The second reason is that I do not think finding the true meaning of the message of Jesus is a proper topic for gaining academic merits for personal advantages. It is a personal search for the truth and must have been so also for the earlier researchers who studied the topic before me. They hardly need to be credited for their ideas on this quest. I give references only to sources that are directly used in the text and cannot otherwise be easily found.

            After these initial comments, we can proceed. In Christianity, Jesus is both the Savior, who came to redeem the sins, and the king, who will come at the end of the times from heavens. Yet, this was not what Jews of Jesus’ time expected. In John 1:24 Pharisees are told to have expected three Messiah figures: the Messiah, Elijah and the Prophet. A sentence in Matt. 11:14 “If you are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come” is usually interpreted as Jesus telling that John the Baptist is Elijah, but as John the Baptist denies it in John 1:21, this is not the correct reading. The reading if Matt. 11:14 must therefore be that Jesus is Elijah told in Malachi 4:5, a miracle maker. John the Baptist made no miracles according to John. Therefore in Matt. 11:10 he must be the angel, who will prepare the way.

            Elijah of Mal. 4:5 is the Messiah. Jesus is the Christ, Messiah, as all Gospels confirm. Elijah is the man like Moses (Deut. 18:15), the Samaritan Taheb, the Suffering Servant of the Servant Songs of Isaiah, and the slain Messiah of Daniel 9:26. This character is the prophet Messiah, whom the Damascus Document calls the Messiah of Aaron. In the Damascus Document it is not clear if the Messiah of Aaron and Israel refers to one or two figures, but in the Qumran Manual of Discipline there are clearly two Messiahs.

            The concept of two Messiah figures can be found in Zechariah 6:12-13, where it refers to prince Zerubbabel and high-priest Joshua, but the Qumran sect saw it already in Balaam’s Star prophecy Num. 24:17 by interpreting the star of Jacob as the Messiah of Aaron and the scepter of Judah as the Messiah of Israel.

            The slain Messiah in Daniel 9:26 must have originally been the high priest Onias III, who was killed in 175 BC, but the sixty nine year weeks of Dan. 9:25 do not fit to Onias III: 69 year weeks is 483 years, Onias III died in 175 BC, thus the order to rebuild Jerusalem should have been before 658 BC, yet the Siege of Jerusalem was in 587 BC. Clearly, the verses Dan. 9:24-25 have been edited. In the original version it seems to have been 50 year weeks: 49 year weeks before 175 BC gives 518 BC, which is the year Darius gave the order to rebuild the temple according to Ezra 6:1-12. It is more natural in the context of Daniel that the order would have referred to rebuilding of the temple, not the city, as the present text says.

            An edition of Daniel’s book made much later shifted the coming of the Messiah to the future. The time of this editing can be deduced from Dan. 11:36-45. This paragraph does not describe what Antiochus IV Epiphanes did according to the history. Many researchers have concluded that the reason is that this part is a real prophecy, which failed, and the book of Daniel should be dated to 167-164 BC, but it may not be so. The text in Dan. 11:36-45 fits quite well to Octavian, who had a war against Anthony and Cleopatra, honored the new God Julius Caesar (the god of fortresses), and Romans did rule Judea from Caesarea, which was placed between Jerusalem and the sea (Dan. 11:45). This new edition moved the time for the prophet Messiah to 26-33 AD: the order to rebuild the city was given by Artaxerxes in 458 BC, adding seventy year weeks (490 years) gives the year 33 AD.

            The traditional year of crucifixion is 33 AD. It agrees with Josephus Flavius, who in Against Apion states that the construction of Solomon’s temple was started in 968 BC. There is exactly 1000 years from 968 BC to 33 AD, which fits to the six thousand year plan of Judaism: two thousand years before the law (up to the Deluge), two thousand years of the law (from the covenant of Noah to the Solomon temple there was the law of Noah), and two thousand years of the time of the Messiah (starting from the construction of the temple, Jesus appeared in the middle of this period). Today many Bible scholars prefer to date the crucifixion to the year 30 AD, but the reason for this is mainly that Herod the Great died in 4 BC and according to Matthew, Jesus was born when Herod was still alive. This new dating should be carefully considered, because there may in fact be two Messiah figures in the original sources and only the king Messiah was born in the time of Herod the Great.

            All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified in Friday. The resurrection happened on Sunday morning. As Jews counted partial days as full days and nights, the resurrection can be said to be three days and nights after the crucifixion.  John seems to be the most accurate Gospel informing that the date of the crucifixion was 14. Nisan. There are only three possible years in the range of interest when 14. Nisan was on Friday. The strong candidates are 6. April 30 AD and 1. April 33 AD. If the visibility was poor and for that reason the Passover was shifted, the year 34 AD may also be possible, but it is not considered a likely choice. Luke 3:1-2 gives the year 28/29 AD as the starting of the ministry of John the Baptist (15. year of Tiberius). John informs that Jesus’ ministry lasted (at least) four Passovers, that it, 3 years or more. Thus, Jesus’ crucifixion fits well to 33, but not to 30. Let us assume from now that the day of crucifixion was 1. April 33. Thus, the resurrection happened on Sunday, 3. April 33.

            It is interesting that there was a partial lunar eclipse on Sunday 3. April 33 AD. Peter in Acts 2:20, referring to Joel 2:31, tells that the sun darkens and the moon becomes blood when the Holy Spirit is given and it is before the Day of the Lord. Peter in Acts is referring to the first Pentecost and therefore not to the resurrection day, but John tells it differently. According to John, Jesus blew the Holy Sprit to the disciples on the day of resurrection (John. 20:22), thus the day of the blood Moon should be 3. April 33 AD. John is more correct in 14. Nisan, he may be more correct also in this place.

            The verses in Joel 2:31 and Act 2:20 may be read suggesting that there should be both a lunar and solar eclipse. This, however, is a physical impossibility. There cannot be a solar eclipse and a lunar eclipse in the same day, or close to the same time. Yet, this is not a major difficulty: a darkened sun can be caused simply by clouds. Close to the Passover in the year 30 there was no lunar or solar eclipse making this year less miraculous than the year 33 AD.

            It is possible that astrologers of the 1st century did manage to predict solar and lunar eclipses. Already some 500 BC a Babylonian astrologer calculated from observations that eclipses come in cycles of 6585 days. We also know that Jewish rabbis had learned of a star that appears every 70 years. That is the Halley Comet. Jews did not have advanced astrology of their own, but Matthew mentions the Magi of the East, Babylonian astrologers, who did have this knowledge, and in fact, the knowledge is incorrect: the cycle is 75.5 years.

            Predicting the blood moon was therefore at least theoretically quite possible, but predicting earthquakes was certainly not. Whether a coincidence or not, there were two earthquakes in Jerusalem around the time of crucifixion, evidenced by laminated mud in the Dead Sea. Josephus Flavius mentions one earthquake and dates it to 31. Physical evidence dates two earthquakes to 31 (±5 years).

            From these we can conclude that 33 AD was the year of crucifixion, then how to get the year of Jesus’ birth? Luke 3:23 tells that Jesus was about thirty when he was baptized. Assuming that his mission lasted 3.5 years and he was crucified in AD 33, this gives the birth of Jesus around 1 BC-1 AD. Yet, Matthew places the birth of Jesus to the time of Herod the Great. Herod the Great died in 4 CB. This is the reason why the birth of Jesus is usually placed to 5 BC.

            This year conflicts with Luke, who places the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius in 6 AD, but there is another explanation for the text in Luke. The census was the beginning of the Zealot movement: Judas of Galilee started a revolt at that time. It is said to have been because of the census, but there were more reasons: Herod Archelaus was dismissed in 6 BC and Judea, Idumea and Samaria become a ruled directly by Romans. Jews strongly objected to that. The Zealot movement led later to the uprising of 66 AD and as Zealots were so important for the Messianic hopes of this time, Luke may simply want to connect Jesus to Zealots. Indeed, Luke has another hint of Zealots: Luke addresses both the Gospel and Acts to Theophilus.

            It is not know who this Theophilus was, but a strong possibility is that he was one of the High Priests, Theophilus ben Ananus (37-41 AD) or Mattathias ben Theophilus (High Priest in 65-66 AD). I prefer the latter one, probably the son of the former, as Acts describes events up to 60 AD and could not in reality be addressed to Theophilus ben Ananus. The Gospel and Acts were written around 80-90 AD, but the content suggest that the author is Paul’s companion Luke. Paul’s friend Luke could well have sent the texts to the High Priest Mattathias ben Theophilus. He was pro-Roman and invited a rebel leader Simon bar Giora to Jerusalem to defeat the Zealots of John of Giscala, but Simon bar Giora, who also was a Zealot or close to them, executed Mattathias because of his Roman sympathies. This High Priest was against violent Zealots and must have been interested in the Messianic movement, which turned in his time to a war. We can dismiss Luke’s mention of the census as a guide for dating the birth of Jesus, but should notice that Luke connects Jesus to Zealots in some way. 

            The traditional dating of Jesus to the time of Herod the Great seems therefore be the only guide, but it is not so simple: Matthew may be referring to the birth of the king Messiah.

           We know that Jews waited for two Messiahs. In Luke 24:49 Jesus promises to send the one that has been promised. Does Luke mean a Sprit or the king Messiah? John talks of the Helper in several places and explains that He is a personalized Holy Spirit. In Luke 21:15 Jesus promises to give disciples the wisdom to talk, which corresponds to the Spirit promised in Joel 2:28, but does Luke mean the Spirit in Luke 24:49? The one who is promised in prophecies is usually the king Messiah. Indeed, if both Luke and John are correct, then Luke does not mean the Holy Spirit because according to John Jesus will blow the Holy Spirit to the disciples in the exact meeting Luke describes in Luke 24:49.

            Maybe this problem can be solved by the expected sign: the abomination of desolation. Jesus tells that there will be the abomination of desolation told by Daniel 11:31. In Daniel it is the statue of Jupiter that Antiochus IV Epiphanes placed in the temple. According to Jesus, this event happens again, yet, it did not happen before the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Titus did not enter the temple in 70 AD. Romans burned it, or it burned accidentally as according to Flavius Josephus the first fires in the temple area were started by the rebels. However, there was a time when Caligula tried to place his statue to the temple in 40 AD. Caligula had started referring to himself as god and Jupiter, thus the statue would have fitted the prophecy. Herod Agrippa I is said to have convinced Caligula to give up the statue idea, but one may wonder what actually happened. Agrippa’s brothers Aristobulus Minor and Herod Antipas did oppose the statue, but Herod Agrippa I was a know schemer. Herod Agrippa was a good friend of Caligula and quite familiar with Judaism, especially Messianic prophecies as he himself was born after a comet appeared and could claim being the king Messiah. I think it is very likely that Caligula’s idea of placing his statue to the temple followed a suggestion of Agrippa I. The reason why I think so is what Agrippa did a bit later.

            In 44 AD Herod Agrippa dressed in shiny silver clothes and apparently tried to declare himself as divine. Considering that he wanted to be a Jew to Jews, this can only mean that he tried to declare himself as the king Messiah. Herod died five days after this event as God’s punishment, probably as poisoned by Romans. Emperor Claudius was in friendly terms with a brother of Agrippa, Aristobulus Minor, who hated Agrippa and already before had informed Romans of Agrippa’s schemes. In the year 44 AD Agrippa was still constructing walls around Jerusalem, though Claudius had ordered him to stop the work. Apparently Claudius suspected that Agrippa intended to rebel against Rome and saw the walls as a part of the rebel plan. According to Josephus Flavius, only the death of Agrippa stopped the construction. These events demonstrate that Herod Agrippa I did plan of becoming the king Messiah, but how does this connect with the statue of Caligula?

            It does, because the abomination of desolation was a promised sign. Agrippa needed the statue in the temple before he could start the war against Rome. A telltale sign that Agrippa gave the idea of the statue to Caligula is the time from Caligula’s effort to place the statue to the temple to the effort of Agrippa to appear as a divine. Calculating this time from information given in Josephus gives about 1285 days. It is very close to 1290 days, which Dan. 12:11 gives as the time from the abomination of desolation to the appearance of the Messiah. This hardly can be a coincidence: Agrippa planned the fulfillment of the prophecy, yet it failed as the statue was finally not placed to the temple. We have a good candidate for the king Messiah: Herod Agrippa I.

            Herod Agrippa I was born in 11 BC. Halley’s Comet appeared in 12 BC and Agrippa’s birth was from the very beginning associated with this comet. A comet is usually considered a bad sign, but not in this particular time. It became a sign of a king in Rome after Caesar’s comet appeared soon after the death of Julius Caesar. Caesar adopted Octavian as his son in his testament. Octavian considered this as his second birth and he declared Julius Caesar as a god, so Augustus (Octavian) became the son of god. With a similar reasoning, Herod Agrippa could also claim divinity: a comet had announced his birth. Herod Agrippa was Hasmonean from his mother’s side, his grandmother was Mariamne I.

            Josephus tells a story of this Mariamne I. Herod the Great accused Mariamne of having an affair with Herod’s uncle Joseph. Herod the Great murdered several Hasmonean princes, including two sons of Mariamne I (Alexander II and Aristobulus IV), who were Herod’s favorites as heirs, and her brother Aristobulus III. Herod also murdered his eldest son Antipater II. Yet, Herod he spared his grandchildren by Mariamne I, one of whom was Herod Agrippa I. Mariamne I did not escape to Egypt with Joseph as Mary and Joseph do in Matthew, but she did apply to Cleopatra of Egypt in order to get her brother appointed as the high priest and Mariamne’s mother did arrange Herod the Great to be sent to Rome to be investigated of the murder of Aristobulus III. Thus, the story has quite a few elements in common with Matthew’s childhood story of Jesus. The most obvious similarity is the Star of Bethlehem, which could easily be explained by Halley’s Comet of October 12 BC.

            Interpreting the Star of Bethlehem of the king Messiah Herod Agrippa as Halley’s Comet of 12 BC does not in any way exclude there having been another Star of Bethlehem at the birth of the prophet Messiah Jesus. In face, Josephus mentions two signs in the sky in 66 AD. One is a comet, another is a star constellation. One likely candidate for the prophetic Star of Bethlehem are the three conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus in 3 BC and 2 BC or the conjunctions of Venus and Jupiter in 3 BC and 2 BC. Let us notice that Herod the Great was already dead in these years. There were three a triple conjunctions in 7 BC, but that year seems too early for Luke’s information that Jesus was about 30 in 28/29 AD. Two Messiahs and two Stars of Bethlehem fit well all requirements.

            There is also the genealogy of Jesus in Luke. As mentioned by Robert Eisenman [1], the genealogy has quite much similarity with the Hasmonean kings of Israel:

Luke                   Herod Agrippa I

…                       

Naahum

Aamos

Mattatias             Mattathias+sons (high priests, not kings)

Joseph                 Aristobulus I (king 104 – 103 BC)

Jannai                  Alexander Jannaeus (king 103 – 76 BC)

Melki                  Aristobulus II (king 66 – 63 BC)

Levi                     Hyrcanus II (king 67 BC)

Mattai                 Antigonus II Mattathias (king 40 – 37 BC)

Heli                     Herod the Great (king 37 – 4 BC)

Joseph                 Aristobulus IV (favorite prince, murdered 7 BC)

Jesus                   Herod Agrippa I           

Jannai is a common name for Alexander Jannaeus. It may be interesting that Herod Agrippa II is called Jannai in the Talmudic story of Martha Boethus. This suggests that Jannai can be used as a name for a Hasmonean king. According to the tradition, the father (or step father) of Jesus was Josef. It is interesting to notice that there are two kings with the name Aristobulus and two ancestors with the name Joseph and they match. Levi means priest, and Hyrcanus was the high priest (a Levite, not a Zadok) while Aristobulus II was the king. Melki means king. Before Mattatias the genealogy of Luke mentions small prophets, who, as all prophets, foretold the Messiah.

            Herod Agrippa I descended from Aristobulus II’s son Alexander of Judea, who was not a king. Mariamne I was the daughter of Alexander of Judea. Aristobulus IV was the oldest of Hasmoenan princes, though Herod the Great had older son Antipater II from another wife. If we assume that Luke’s genealogy corresponds to the kings of Israel and that Joseph, taken form the real name of Jesus’ father (or step father), corresponds to Aristobulus in the king list (Aristobulus I), then the second Joseph (Jesus’ father) must also correspond to some Aristobulus, and this can only be Aristobulus IV. The alternatives for the Messiah in the king list are limited to the sons of Aristobulus IV: Herod of Chalcia, Aristobulus Minor and Herod Agrippa I. Only Herod Agrippa ever became the king of Israel.

            Also daughters of Aristobulus IV play some role in the power plays of that time. He had two daughters: Mariamne III and Herodias. Herodias, a sister of Herod Agrippa, was the mother of Salome, who danced to Herod Antipas and wanted the head of John the Baptist. Salome’s father was Herod II, the son of Mariamne II Boethus, but Herodias divorced Herod II while he still lived (he lived in Rome up to his death in 33/34 AD as a private citizen, but once Herod II had been the crown prince of Herod the Great). Later Salome married Philip the Tetrarch, a son of Herod the Great. Mariamne III was married to Antipater II and after 4 BC, when Herod the Great executed Antipater II, Mariamne III may have been married to Herod Archelaus, another son of Herod the Great, a brother of Herod Antipater.

            What we can see is that the Edomite king Herod the Great tried to connect his sons to the lineage of Hasmonean kings. It shows that Hasmonean kings were seen by Jews as the legal king family, contradicting claims that Jews rejected Hasmoneans and required the king to be of Davidic lineage. It is more correct to say that for main stream Jews Hasmoneans were the new Davidic lineage, though some Pharisees may have still demanded Davidic kings. This has relevance to Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah. Bethlehem was the birthplace of king David, but in the prophecy of Mica 5:1 Bethlehem Ephrathah is small among the clans of Judea. It is not a city, it is a clan, and it well fits to Hasmoneas, who were a minor priestly family of Levites. Hasmoneas also fit to the prophecies of Daniel: Dan. 4:14 (God makes the king of the smallest of people, i.e., Hasmoneans) and 2:34 (the stone, which breaks the Hellenist empire, i.e., Hasmoneans). The Book of Daniel, edited in Hasmonean times, changes the promised king lineage from the Davidic descendants of Zerubbabel to Hasmoneans. Jesus himself states that the Messiah is not a son of David as David calls him his Lord. The Son of David did not anymore need to be a descendant of king David.     

            Herod Agrippa I died in 44 AD. After that time there were two incidences that might have been interpreted as abomination of desolation, but not by Christians. The first was the incidence around 58 AD when Jacob the Just asked Paul to take some Christians to the temple to fulfill their vow. Jews accused Paul of polluting the temple by bringing there Greeks, probably uncircumcised. Paul seems not to have been aware of it. Fortunately these Greeks did not declare Jesus as a God, which would have filled Jewish conditions for abomination. The second was when James the Just declared on the roof of the temple that Jesus sits on the right side of God. James was pushed down and battered to death. This may have happened in 62 AD, but according to Christian tradition it was just before Jerusalem fell, i.e., 70 AD. Simon, brother of James, led Christians to Pella. How they escaped from a city under a siege is not explained, but Josephus Flavius was there on the Roman side and Christians were not rebels against Rome, so maybe they could leave.

            However, before Jesus there was one incidence, which might have passed as the abomination of desolation. Pontius Pilate was the prefect from 26 to 36 AD. In the beginning of his rule he installed votive shields with the image of the divine Tiberius to the palace of Antonia, which is just next to the temple. Jews protested and Pilate had to withdraw the shields. The timing is interesting since 49 year weeks from the 458 BC order of to rebuild the city gives the year 27 AD, the year when Pilate most probably installed the shields. While there is no proof, this may again be a scheme of Agrippa I. He did not have any kingdom at this time, but he had a reason to expect that there might be a comet very soon. As said, Jewish rabbis knew of a star that appears every 70 years. Yet, their knowledge was from Babylonians and not precise. Agrippa I could have assumed that the comet of Caesar (44 BC) was this star. If so, it should appear in 27 AD. Judea, Edom and Samaria were under the unpopular Roman rule. Pilate, installing shields with idols, could have started an insurgency and Herod Agrippa wanted to be the king. But this may be speculation.

            Before Agrippa I died, he, according to Acts, executed James the Greater, i.e., James son of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter, who managed to escape. These must have happened after Herod Agrippa I become the king of Judea, that is, when Caligula was murdered in 41 AD. These incidences can be dated to 41-44 AD. The disciples of Jesus probably did not rebel against Rome or Herod Agrippa, so these incidences can be best explained as persecution of Jesus’ disciples: the time of persecution promised in prophecies. Caligula’s statue was not set to the temple, so Messianic Jews needed another abomination of desolation. A bit later there were efforts to make Paul and Jacob the Just such abominations. It is quite possible that when Claudius became Emperor, Herod Agrippa tried to make disciples of Jesus into abomination of desolation.

            Soon after the death of Herod Agrippa I there were two rebels against Rome. The first one was led by Theudas. Josephus places the rebel of Theudas to 45 AD. Theudas lead a group of people to the desert and tried to dry the water, so he played a man like Moses, a Messiah. This rebellion was crushed by Romans. But there was another rebel soon after Theudas. In Acts Gamaliel tells that first Theudas rebelled, then Judas of Galilee. Josephus tells of Judas of Galilee only in the connection of the tax revolt in 6 AD, but there is no good reason why Judas of Galilee could not have still rebelled in 46 AD. Assuming he was about 30 years old in 6 AD, he would have been about 70 years in 46 AD. While not leading the battles personally, he could have been the initiator. Two of Judas’ sons, Jacob and Simon, were captured and executed by Romans in 46 AD after the revolt. Nothing is told of Judas himself, but Zealots often committed a suicide if they were close to being captured as prisoners.

            This raises the question of who was Judas Iscariot. Gospels tell explicitly of selection of seven of the 12 disciples, Judas Iscariot is one of the five whose selection is not described. 

Judas is often pictured as older. Gospels tell that Judas Iscariot made a suicide, though in different ways in the two accounts, but it is not clear when this happened. I suggest he was Judas of Galilee and he committed suicide in 46 AD after an unsuccessful rebel.

            The reason for the rebels of Theudas and Judas of Galilee to happen just in this time was that Herod Agrippa I was to announce himself as the king Messiah in 44 AD, but Romans poisoned him. Frustrated rebels Theudas and Judas of Galilee were not willing to give up the plan of uprising, even though they did not have the resources Herod Agrippa I could supply. First tried Theudas/Thaddeus by appearing as a miracle making Prophet, but he lost. Then tried Judas of Galilee with a more traditional armed resistance, but he also lost. As a consequence, the uprising had to be moved further to the future. Jesus had told that the Day of the Lord would come soon, but to get the people involved, the rebels had to wait for the comet: there was to be the sign in the sky.

            The sign was the comet. As it was already clear that the star that appears every 70 years could not be the Caesar’s comet, it probably was expected to be the comet of October 12 BC, which actually was Halley’s comet. The estimated time for it to appear again was around 59 AD. Incidentally it is very close to the time when Paul was asked to take Greeks to the temple. But the cycle of Halley’s Comet is not 70 years. It is usually 75-76 years. It was delayed by just one year: the comet appeared in 66 AD. It was one of the signs that started the war. Josephus tells of another sign, a sword. That must be a star constellation. A sword is similar to a cross, so there were two signs: the cross of the prophet Messiah, who was sitting in the right side of God and would judge all people, and a comet, which was the sign of a human, yet divine in some sense, king Messiah.

            If Judas Iscariot was Judas of Galilee, we can maybe identify the other five disciples, whose selection is not told in the Gospels in any detail. Gospels tell of selection of seven disciples: Andreas and Peter sons of John, Jacob and John sons of Zebedee, Philip and Nathanael/Bartholomew and Matthias/Levi son of Alphaeus.

            Of the calling of the first four disciples there are two seemingly conflicting accounts. According to synaptic Gospels, Jesus first called Peter and Andreas in the morning after they had been fishing whole night, soon after that Jesus called the brothers of Zebedee, also in the same morning. John gives a different account: the first two disciples were Andreas and an unnamed disciple. They stayed the day with Jesus and Andreas took Peter to meet Jesus. Should these both accounts be correct, the events of John happen one day before the events described in the synaptic Gospels. Andreas called Peter in the previous day to meet Jesus and then the brothers went fishing in the night. Next morning Jesus called Andreas, Peter and their fishing partners Jacob and John as disciples after he had done a miracle that would convince these men to become his followers. This explanation fits both scenarios, but it leaves open the question who was the unnamed disciple in John.

            The most natural choice is that he was James the Just, brother of Jesus, the first bishop of Jerusalem. John tells that the mother and brothers of Jesus were in the wedding in Cana. Synaptic Gospels try to downplay the role of the family of Jesus, but even there the text does not directly claim that three brothers of Jesus were not among the original disciples, only that they once thought Jesus is mad. In John the brothers of Jesus suggest to him that he should go to Jerusalem to show himself there. The time was wrong for Jesus to announce himself, but he did go to Jerusalem disguised. Reading all places in the New Testament where the brothers are mentioned does not give the impression that they did not belong to the original disciples.

            The Gospels mention the disciple James the Less. Jesus told that who is the greatest should be the smallest, thus we may assume that James the Less was greater than James the Greater. This James the Less may well be James the Just. Indeed, among the 12 disciples there seem to be three brothers (or step brothers) of Jesus: James Alphaeus (James the Less), Simone Cananeus (probably Simon of Jerusalem, the second bishop of Jerusalem after James), and Judas, brother of Jacob. The Gospels do not tell much of how these disciples were selected, but if they were brothers of Jesus, they did not need to be selected.

            There is a special problem with Judas, not Iscariot, that is, Judas, brother of Jesus. He appears in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas as Judas Thomas, also called Judas the Twin. Some texts suggest that he was a twin of Jesus and that Thomas later preached in India and Jesus appeared in the body of Thomas. If this is the correct identification, then Thomas is Judas, Jude, brother of James, while Thaddeus also called Lebbeus is another person.

            We notice that James son of Alphaeus and Matthias may have the same father, but probably not the same mother. If so, Matthias was a cousin of Jesus. The sons of Zebedee may also have been cousins of Jesus because their mother was apparently the sister of Mary, mother of James and Jose, i.e., mother of Jesus if perpetual virginity of Mary is not assumed and she married Alphaeus, also called Clopas. Family relations of the disciples are rather difficult to solve, but there seems to be some close family relations.

            The beloved disciple of John would be Simon, brother of Jacob and Judas, the second bishop of Jerusalem. According to Eusebius Simon was executed by Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes, who was the legatus of Iudea 99/100-102/103 AD. This means Simon did not live up to 107 or 117 AD as Eusebius also states. The time 99-102 AD fits very well with the writing time of the Gospel of John, dated to about 100 AD. The beloved disciple is no longer alive but has given the information in the Gospel and has lived so long that he was believed not to die before Jesus returns. As Simon died around 102 AD, he must have been a teenager when Jesus preached and he fits well to a disciple, who set his head on Jesus’ lap in the last supper. Certainly a teenage brother fits better as the beloved disciple than John, son of Zebedee, who with his brother wanted to sit on the two sides of Jesus, which Jesus rejected, and were called Boanerges, though to be Bene-reges, sons of thunder. The other brothers of Jesus do not fit: James the Just did not live long and both Judas of Jacob and Thomas (assuming Thomas is Jude Thomas, the twin of Jesus) are mentioned explicitly in John.

            Concerning Thaddeus/Lebbeus, a natural guess is that he was Theudas, a miracle working rebel. The mission of Jesus was of interest to Zealots. It is natural that Theudas and Judas of Galilee were taken as disciples. The Gospels tell that Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas Iscariot would betray him and not be a real disciple. Nothing is said of Thaddeus not being a real disciple, but the situation changed when Herod Agrippa I died.  

            A common argument against an association between the Jesus movement and Zealots is that Zealots favored violent upraising while the Jesus movement was non-violent. This is true, but it does not imply that these movements are separated. The mission of the prophet Messiah was to bring salvation, redeem the sins. The people of Israel had sinned and for that reason they had lost their land to Romans. The sin was that they had not observed the law as it should be observed. Even Pharisees, who nominally carefully observed the law, did not observe it in the correct way according to Jesus. Indeed, had they observed the law correctly, there had not been Roman occupation. The correct way was to love God above all and your neighbor as yourself. The parable of the Good Samaritan defines your neighbor that you should love as anyone who helps a Jew, even if he is not a Jew himself. This follows the Scriptures: clearly, the harlot in the Book of Joshua, who opened the gates of her city to Israelites betraying her own people, became a neighbor of Israelites. The term neighbor is not extended to enemies. It is still only Jews, or possibly Samaritans, and some sparkles of light have spread to the nations of the world. It is according to the Scriptures that some pagans are called, but the main promise of the Old Testament is that God will crush the enemies of Israel.

            There is no contradiction between this and that Jesus told to love your enemy. Jesus just referred to Proverbs 25:21-22: doing good to your enemy you will pile hot coals on him while God will reward you. So, the enemy gets punished. Jesus also told not to judge in order not to be judged in the Judgment Day, but on that day Jesus and the 12 disciples will judge all people. So, this is also just a delayed judgment. But in fact Jesus did send disciples to announce the good news and if they were not received somewhere, to shake the dust of their shoes, which was a judgment. Jesus told not to worry of what to eat tomorrow, but he knew rich women, who had food to give. Finally he told not to oppose evil, and be perfect as God is perfect, and to follow him. As Jesus was to be crucified, he asked disciples to become martyrs, and also be tortured. A lamb to be sacrificed must be perfect and go to the death voluntarily, or else the smoke from their sacrifice does not rise to the nose of God as the pleasant odor. A goat of the Atonement Day is tortured for the sins of the people, though it is innocent. In the blood is the redemption of sins and without blood there is no redemption. As a repayment for this the disciples got a treasure in Heaven and they will judge the people with Jesus in the Day of the Lord. Paul extended this call to be disciples to pagans, which is according to the Scriptures: also some pagans are called to be a sacrifice. John of Patmos saw a large group of martyrs in the Revelation.   

            Fortunately not all are called to be disciples and can still go to Heaven. By following six commands of Moses a Jew could go to Heaven. This is reasonable since in a working society there must be judges, police, soldiers, and somebody has to work. Jesus asked the disciples for much more because they had a special task. Actually their sacrifice was not needed at all, the crucifixion of Jesus was enough, but they were needed for some symbolic reason. Early Christianity had the predetermination doctrine: only the chosen can be saved, but at least originally all saved were not required to follow Jesus to the cross. Some are chosen also among the nations as because of some cosmic error a few sparkles of light were dispersed to the nations, but most of the nations are not from the light: they are from the darkness and they will be burned in the Day of the Lord.

            This teaching of Second Temple Judaism fully agrees with the movement of Zealots: practically all Old Testament prophets tell of the final war where God destroys the enemies of the Promised People. In Matt. 10:34 Jesus tells that he brings the sword, not peace. In Mark 3:27 Jesus says “But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property without first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be plundered.” In Matt. 11:12 Jesus says that violent men will take the kingdom of Heaven by force. Luke 16:16 expresses it “Since that time, the gospel of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.” A simple explanation of these words is that violent men, Zealots, will take the kingdom by force, but first Jesus must tie the hands of the enemy (Romans) by the sacrifice, which will bring God on the Jewish side.   

            The Dead Sea Scrolls describe the Day of the Lord as:

            “[. . . ] [a spirit from God] rested upon him, he fell before the throne. [. . . O ki]ng, wrath is coming to the world, and your years [shall be shortened . . . such] is your vision, and all of it is about to come unto the world. [. . . Amid] great [signs], tribulation is coming upon the land. [. . . After much killing] and slaughter, a prince of nations [will arise . . .] the king of Assyria and Egypt [. . .] he will be ruler over the land [ . . .] will be subject to him and all will obey [him.] [Also his son] will be called The Great, and be designated his name.” (4Q246 column I)

            “He will be called the son of God, they will call him the son of the Most High. But like the meteors that you saw in your vision, so will be their kingdom. They will reign only a few years over the land, while people tramples people and nation tramples nation. Until the people of God arise; then all will have rest from warfare. Their kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all their paths will be righteous. They will judge the land justly, and all nations will make peace. Warfare will cease from the land, and all the nations shall do obeisance to them. The great God will be their help, He Himself will fight for them, putting peoples into their power, overthrowing them all before them. God’s rule will be an eternal rule and all the depths of  [the earth are His].” (4Q246 column II)

            This follows prophecies of the Bible: first there arises a king, who will cause a great suffering upon the land. Then the king is defeated by the people of God when God Himself will fight for them, and peace and an eternal kingdom of God follows. This peace is described in old prophecies: the riches of gentile nations are taken (Zech 14:14), all gentile nations have to pray for the God of Israel (Zech. 14:16), and those nations, which do not like the new order, are exterminated (as in Isaiah 34:2). If so, then naturally there is eternal peace. So, this is the promise in the prophecies and it was not changed by Jesus by one letter.

            It was later reformulated by Christians as Jews lost the war against Rome in 66-73 AD. Not only the temple and the city was destroyed and half of the city was taken to slavery, which they knew to expect as it is in Zechariah 13-14, but God did not join the war as Zech. 14:3 clearly promised. Thus, Christians concluded that the new Israel is the Church. Paul did not have this opinion. He was sure that the end comes soon and Jews will turn to Jesus. Today we can suspect that it will not happen, but there were other things that did not happen: there was no abomination of desolation before the temple was destroyed. It shows that we are not dealing with God’s promises but a human plan, notably a plan where Herod Agrippa I had a major role. All nonviolence and lovingkindness in the message of Jesus served the purpose of the redemption of sins in order to win a war.     

            Let us continue to the role of the prophet Messiah. The Dead Sea Scrolls say of it: “For the hea]vens and the earth shall listen to His Messiah … for He (i.e., God) will honor the pious upon the th[ro]ne of His eternal kingdom, setting prisoners free, opening the eyes of the blind, raising up those who are bo[wed down (Ps. 146:7–8) … For He shall heal the critically wounded, He shall revive the dead, He shall send good news to the afflicted (Isa 61:1), He shall sati[sfy the poo]r, He shall guide the uprooted, He shall make the hungry rich, and [ … ] disc[erning ones …] and all of them as the ho[ly ones …]” (4Q521).

            It is very similar as what John the Baptist expected the Messiah to do according to the New Testament: In Matt 11:4-6, Jesus replies: “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me”

            The prophet messiah was to suffer with hands and legs pierced for redemption of the sins of the people.  In John 1:29 John the baptist says of Jesus: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” This is a clear reference to a sacrifice and redemption. In John not only the sin of Jews are redempted, but those of the whole word, but it does not mean anything good: all gentile nations have sinned. As God is the only God, all other religions are sin and will be forbidden, gentile nations have to pray the God of Israel. In the Dead Sea Scrolls it is very clear, the Messiah will atone for the sins of Israel: “He will atone for all the children of his generation,and he will be sent to all the children of his people.” (4Q541).

            Paul Sumner in [2] (see also [3]) lists 16 Messianic documents in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jesus filled all these prophecies of the prophet Messiah. We certainly can conclude that he was the prophet Messiah. Herod Agrippa I most probably intended to be the king Messiah, but did not succeed. Nor did God rise to war in 66-73 AD. There is one sentence in [2]: “According to one Qumran specialist, they expected the Messiah to arrivesometime between 3 BC and AD 2.” This agrees with the birth time of Jesus as 3-2 BC and is not in contradiction with there being a separate king Messiah. 

\

            This article is unfinished. I will continue this article later explaining how the theology of John fits to Zohar, the ancient Israel religion and astrology and update it when there is some time.

References:

[1] Robert Eisenman, James, the brother of Jesus, part 1, faber and faber, 1997.

[2] Paul Sumner, “‘Messianic’ texts at Qumran”

http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/qumran/qumranmessiahs.pdf

[3] Florentino G. Martínez: Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu