Rome's Invention of Pauline Christianity and Its

ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY

Eric LAUPOT

ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY AND ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GREAT FIRE OF ROME IN 64 C.E., AS PART OF ITS BACKLASH AGAINST THE JEWISH GUERRILLA MOVEMENT OF JESUS AND THE NAZOREANS

RÉSUMÉ

Basée sur le travail antérieur de l’auteur, la présente étude esquisse un tracé précis du caractère du mouvement des Christiani/Nazoréens de Tacite dans sa totalité. On peut déduire que le prosélytisme massif des Christiani/Nazoréens visant les Gentils de Rome a été la cause première qui poussa Néron à ordonner le Grand Incendie de Rome en 64 ou à le laisser s’étendre aux quartiers de la Ville éternelle les plus tou- chés par leur prosélytisme. Il est démontré comment les exécutions publiques en masse des «guerilleros» nazoréens après le Grand Incendie parodient deux traditions juives: 1) celle d’un lien commun entre les Juifs et les Grecs, remontant au minimum à l’Exode et 2) celle de l’idée qu’ont les Nazoréens d’être une lumière pour les Gentils (Is 43, 6; 49, 6). Tacite (Annales 15, 44) – Matthieu 7, 6, et l’exhortation de Jésus contre les Romains dans le TB Abodah Zarah 17a font l’objet d’une analyse approfondie. Pour finir, le nœud gordien qui lie les Christiani de Ta- cite au Nouveau Testament est définitivement tranché: les livres du Nouveau Testa- ment se révèlent avoir probablement été des éléments de propagande romaine con- çus pour saper la résistance des Christiani de Tacite.

SUMMARY

Continuing to build on the author’s previous work in this area, the overall charac- ter of Tacitus’ Christiani/Nazorean movement is fully delineated in the present study. Nazorean mass proselytizing of Gentiles in Rome is inferred to have been the pivotal event causing Nero either to have set the Great Fire of Rome in 64 C.E. or to have permitted it to burn in areas of Rome most affected by the Christiani’s proselytizing. Nero’s mass public executions of the Nazorean guerrillas after the Great Fire are shown to have parodied two Jewish traditions: (1) that of a common bond between the Jews and the Greeks dating back at least to the Exodus, and (2) the Nazoreans’ conception of being a light unto the Gentiles (Isa 42.6, 49.6). Tacitus’ Annals 15.44, Matthew 7.6, and Jesus’ exhortation against the Romans in b. Abod. Zar. 17a are all thoroughly analyzed. Finally, the Gordian knot tying Tacitus’ Christiani to the New Testament is cut once and for all: The

Revue des Études juives, 164 (3-4), juillet-décembre 2005, pp. 415-448 416 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY books of the New Testament are shown to have been, more likely than not, Roman propaganda pieces designed to undermine the resistance movement of Tacitus’ Christiani.

[Artemis] covers [Actaeon’s] body with a spotted [deer] skin…. [Actaeon’s dogs] surround him on all sides and, pushing their muzzles into his body, tear their owner to pieces underneath the deceptive image of the deer. Ovid Metamorphoses 3.197, 249-250

I have made you a light for the Gentiles. Acts 13.47, influenced by Isaiah 42.6, 49.6; compare Luke 2.32; Acts 26.23; and Matthew 5.14a

To [the Christiani’s] executions [for allegedly setting the Great Fire, Nero] added parodies [Lat., ludibria]: The Christiani were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to pieces by dogs, or else crucified and after sunset burned to provide night light [for the largely Gentile audiences]1. Tacitus Annals 15.44.4

As suggested by the quotations above and as will be further supported in the course of this examination, Nero’s public executions of the Christiani in Rome in 64 C.E., described in Tacitus’ Annals 15.44.4, were apparently scripted by parodying: (1) the myth of Actaeon and Artemis, and (2) the Christiani’s teaching from Isa 42.6, 49.6, attributed to them in Acts 13.47.

1. et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent aut crucibus adfixi [aut flammandi atque], ubi defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. H. HEUBNER, ed., Ab excessu divi Augusti (vol. 1 of P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt; rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1994); and Franz RÖMER, ed., P. Corneli Taciti Annalium libri XV-XVI (Wiener StudienSup 6; Vienna: Böhlaus, 1976). Unless otherwise noted, all translations in this paper are the author’s. See also Kenneth WELLESLEY, ed., Ab excessu divi Augusti libri XI-XVI (vol. 1, pt. 2, of Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt; ed. S. BORZSÁK and Kenneth WELLESLEY; Leipzig: Teubner, 1986):… aut crucibus adfixi, ut flammandi, ubi defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur (“… or crucified to be set on fire and burned after sunset to provide night light”). The minor discrepancies between these editions are due to problems in reconstructing the underlying text, which appears to be mildly corrupt. Frank Burr MARSH and Harry J. LEON, eds., Tacitus: Selections from His Works (1936; repr., Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1963) 408: “The construction seems rather awkward; a verb may have dropped out. Various emendations have been proposed.” Regarding these, see Henry FURNEAUX, ed., Cornelii Taciti Annalium ab excessu divi Augusti libri [The Annals of Tacitus] (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1884-1891) 2:529-30 n.; Erich KOESTERMANN, ed., Cornelius Tacitus, Annalen (4 vols.; Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu griechischen und lateinischen Schriftstellern; Heidelberg: Winter, 1963-1968) 4.257-58; WELLESLEY, Ab excessu divi Augusti, 157-58 (Appendix critica); and RÖMER, Annalium libri XV-XVI, 67 n. Also, on the word “ludibria” used by Tacitus in the sense of parodies, farces, or shams, see Germania 37; Histories 1.2.1, 4.15.2; Ann. 1.10.5, 3.18.4, 16.11.3. ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 417

As reported in Annals 15.44.2, the Christiani had been charged by Nero with starting the Great Fire of Rome in 64. (It has been demonstrated elsewhere that the word “Christiani” was the general term in use among the Romans, not only for Pauline Christians, but especially for those Jewish-led forces in the vanguard of the first-century C.E. Jewish revolution against Rome.)2 In the excerpt above from Ann. 15.44.4, Tacitus describes Nero’s ludibria as added on (addita) to the Christiani’s deaths — presumably, that is, to three of the Roman capital punishments for arson: wild animals, cru- cifixion, and burning alive3. By process of elimination, the ludibria that were added on by Nero to these punishments appear, therefore, to have involved, specifically, the use of dogs tearing through animal hide and the utilization of the Christiani as human torches to provide night light. It has also been demonstrated elsewhere (see note 2 above) that Tacitus’ Chris- tiani almost certainly were, according to the second fragment of Tacitus’ Histories (= Tacitus’ fragment 2, preserved in Sulpicius Severus Chronica 2.30.6-7; for the text of which, see note 5 below), a Jewish group who followed an anti-Roman ideology (or superstitio; see note 5) and were major participants in the Jewish War against Rome of 66-73 C.E4. Had this not been the case, the Roman army would never have destroyed the Second Temple largely on account of the Christiani, as reported in Tacitus’ fragment 2.5 The word “Christiani” (= Heb., Netsarim [“Nazoreans”]) was in

2. Eric LAUPOT, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the Christiani and the Nazoreans,” Vigiliae Christianae 54, no. 3 (2000) 233-47, esp. 244, 245-46; repr., online: http://www.anzwers.org/free/elaupot/index.html (26 Apr 2004) and http://www. infidels.org/library/modern/eric_laupot/nazoreans.html (26 Apr 2004). See further, Eric LAUPOT, “The Christiani’s Rule over Israel during the Jewish War: Tacitus’ Fragment 2 and Histories 5.13, Suetonius Vespasian 4.5, and the Coins of the Jewish War,” Revue des études juives 162, nos. 1-2 (2003) 69-96. 3. On these as Roman penalties for arson, see Harald FUCHS, “Tacitus über die Christen,” VC 4 (1950) 65-93, esp. 67-68 n. 4; repr. in H. FUCHS, “Der Bericht über die Christen in den Annalen des Tacitus,” in Tacitus (ed. Viktor PÖSCHL, Wege der Forschung 97; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969) 558-604, esp. 562-63 n. 4, citing Gaius Digesta 47.9.9; Ulpianus Dig. 47.9.12; Callistratus Dig. 48.19.28.12; Julius Paulus Sententiae 5.3.6, 5.17.3; Juvenal Satirae 8.231-235; etc. See also, Martial Liber de spectaculis 9 (7). 4. LAUPOT, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2,” 233-34, 236-37, 245-47. On the meaning and etymol- ogy of the name “Christiani,” 245-46. 5. LAUPOT, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2,” 234-35, 236-37, 244, 245-46. Fragment 2 (= Severus Chron. 2.30.6-7) describes the council of war convened by Titus in 70 in Jerusalem near the end of the Jewish War for the purpose of deciding whether or not to destroy the Temple: fertur Titus adhibito consilio prius deliberasse, an templum tanti operis euerteret. etenim nonnullis uidebatur, aedem sacratam ultra omnia mortalia illustrem non oportere deleri, quae seruata modestiae Romanae testimonium, diruta perennem crudelitatis notam praeberet. at contra alii et Titus ipse euertendum in primis templum censebant, quo plenius Iudaeorum et Christianorum religio tolleretur: quippe has religiones, licet contrarias sibi, isdem tamen auctoribus profectas; Christianos ex Iudaeis extitisse: radice sublata stirpem facile perituram. (C. HALM, ed., Sulpicii Severi libri qui super- 418 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY fact the proper name of the Jewish resistance movement that ruled over the land of Israel during the years 66-70 C.E6. The Christiani were the ideological followers of the founder of their sect, whom Tacitus refers to in An- nals 15.44.3 as Christus (lit., “the anointed one,” or the king of Israel). Tacitus reports in Ann. 15.44.3 that Christus had been executed by Pontius Pilate. The reader is referred in particular to this author’s two previous studies on Tacitus’ Jewish-led Christiani (see note 2 above), since they provide the basis for the present examination. It may be noted here (and see above at note 2) that the words “Christiani” and “Nazoreans” (Nahw- ra⁄oi, from the Heb. Netsarim, meaning more precisely, “followers of the Davidic Branch [Heb., netser; see Isa 11.1] or king”) are used interchange- ably (both in this and the author’s two previous studies on the Christiani) to designate the Jewish-led ideological followers of Tacitus' Christus7. In contrast, the words “Christians,” “Christianity,” and “the Church” refer to Pauline Christians8. Tacitus’ Christiani were definitely not Christians. They were Jewish guerrillas and freedom fighters. This study adduces evidence in support of the hypothesis that Nero's executions of Tacitus’ Christiani in Rome in 64 included scripted ludibria that parodied the anti-Roman ideology of the Christiani perfectly, thus fit- ting the historical and political context surrounding the Christiani move-

sunt [1866; CSEL 1; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1983] 85; instead of religio, Tacitus would have used the classical word superstitio [“alien religious belief”], e.g., Ann. 15.44.3 [below at n. 11]). It is reported that Titus first deliberated, by summoning a council of war, as to whether to destroy a Temple of such workmanship. For it seemed proper to some that a conse- crated Temple, distinguished above all that is human, should not be destroyed, as it would serve as a witness to Roman moderation; whereas its destruction would represent a perpetual brand of cruelty. But others, on the contrary, disagreed — including Titus himself. They argued that the destruction of the Temple was a number one priority in order to destroy completely the alien religious belief [superstitio; see above, this note] of the Jews and the Christiani: For although these religious beliefs are conflicting, they nevertheless developed from the same origins. The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, the branch is easily killed. 6. LAUPOT, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 74-78. (The reader will further note that the first paragraph in sec. 2 [p. 72] should read profectas … ex Iudaeis [“from the Jews”] and the last words in sec. 2 [p. 74] should read: “Flavius Josephus, Titus’ aide.” In addition, a stronger argument for the relevance of Isa 11.1 to the coins of Israel during the Jewish War [see the reference in the next-to-last paragraph on p. 75 to the “solitary branch” on the coins as a possible symbol for Israel] is that, outside of the Old Testament [Isa 4.2, 60.21, 61.11, etc.], the solitary branch, per se, was apparently not used by Jews during the Greco-Roman period as a symbol for Israel. See Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Ro- man Period [13 vols.; Bollingen Foundation 37; {New York}: Pantheon, 1953-1968] 13.123, s.v. “Israel, symbolism.” Therefore the solitary branches on the coins most likely referred to Isa 11.1’s royal branch or line of Davidic kings — with a possible secondary reference, following Isa 4.2, 60.21, etc., to Israel.) 7. See LAUPOT, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2,” 234, 244, 245-46 passim. 8. LAUPOT, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2,” 233, 234, 238, 244, 245-46. ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 419 ment that has been ascertained elsewhere (see note 2 above). Nor have any other satisfactory explanations for Nero’s two ludibria yet been offered, beyond the suggestion that Tacitus uses the word “ludibria” in Ann. 15.44.4 loosely;9 therefore it seems reasonable to infer that these ludibria were in fact inspired by the passages quoted at the beginning of this paper. Let us now proceed by taking up the question of what it was that Nero, through his parodies, seems to have been communicating about his enemies, the Christiani — whom he had falsely charged with starting the Great Fire (Tacitus Ann. 15.44.2). Nero did this in an unsuccessful (see below) attempt to dispel the persistent rumor that he himself had set the Fire. In effect, he switched defendants (Ann. 15.44.2: subdidit reos). The Christiani, on the other hand, seem to have been vulnerable to a false charge of arson since they had been involved in burning villages in Judea10. In addition, as Tacitus reports in Ann. 15.44.3, the Christiani had been involved in successful mass proselytizing of Gentiles throughout Rome prior to the Great Fire: repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam (“suppressed for the time being, the deadly foreign religious belief broke out again, not only throughout Judea, the source of this evil, but also throughout Rome”)11. Doubtless the Nazoreans must have seen themselves as a “light unto the Gentiles.” Therefore, Nero’s second ludibrium in Ann. 15.44.4 can easily be understood as a parody of Isa 42.6, 49.6 (note also Acts 13.47): “I will make you a light unto the Gentiles.” This is also consistent with the fact that Titus and his Roman general staff parodied another

9. KOESTERMANN, Annalen, 4.257-58; also, FURNEAUX, Annalium, 2.529-30 n.: “[Nipper- dey believes] the deaths here spoken of involve no ‘ludibrium' (which is true, except that they are shown in [Ann. 15.44.5] to form part of the ‘spectaculum').” 10. Tacitus Ann. 12.54.3 (arsissetque bello prouincia) and, e.g., Josephus Bellum judai- cum 2.265, 7.254, Antiquitates judaicae 20.187, and esp. A.J. 20.185 (on events during the early sixties): “for the villages [throughout Judea] one and all were being set on fire and plundered” (Feldman, Loeb). Cf. the similar guerrilla tactics employed by the Maccabees (2 Macc 8.5-7). The word “guerrilla” here might seem an anachronism as applied to the Nazoreans and the Maccabees, but “guerrilla warfare is as old as the hills and predates regu- lar warfare…. The Bible mentions guerrilla leaders such as Jiftah and David [the model for both the Nazoreans and the Maccabees]… Typical guerrilla operations include harassment of the enemy, evasion of decisive battles, cutting lines of communications, carrying out surprise attacks…. The term ‘guerrilla’ was originally used to describe military operations carried out by irregulars against the rear of an enemy army or by local inhabitants against an occupying force.” Walter LAQUEUR, Guerrilla: A Hisorical and Critical Study (Boston: Little, Brown, 1976) viii, ix, 3 (italics added). 11. See further, Acts 15.1, 5-6, 13-21 (“the Jerusalem Assembly”); and note the parallel in Shlomo PINES, “The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968) 237-301, esp. 261-62. 420 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY

Isaian verse, Isa 11.1, in Tacitus’ fragment 2. As with Titus, it was not necessary that Nero himself have been a biblical scholar to have selected his parody — he could have delegated the choice and the research to his staff. Furthermore, to the best knowledge of the present author, Nero’s “ludibrium of light” is unique in recorded history. One does not find it any- where in pagan mythology or Roman law. Its uniqueness is another good reason to conclude that Nero did not simply reenact it from pagan mythology or any other source — but rather took it from the Christiani’s own teachings. All told, the best inference one can draw here is that Nero had been hostile towards the Christiani because of their mass recruitment of Gentiles in Rome into the Christiani’s seditious movement. Presumably these Gentiles recruited by the Nazoreans were, for the most part, among the most politically and economically disaffected, i.e., the have-nots — including slaves12. On the other hand, there appears to be a pagan (as opposed to Jewish) explanation for the first of Nero’s two ludibria mentioned by Tacitus in

12. Cf. Luke 6.20 and par. Matt 5.3; etc. See also, Tacitus Hist. 5.5.1: nam pessimus quisque spretis religionibus patriis tributa et stipes illuc gerebant, unde auctae Iudaeorum res… (“For the worst ones [i.e., the Gentile proselytes], disregarding the super- natural feelings of constraint held by their forefathers, send contributions and small offerings there [to the land of Israel], thus increasing the wealth of the Jews”). A word about Nazorean proselytizing methods is in order. It would seem that the Netsarim’s healing movement was in fact a means of proselytizing. The existence of a Nazorean healing movement is reported in both the New Testament (Matt 10.1-15 and pars. Mark 3.14-15 and 6.7-13; Luke 9.1-6, 10.1-14; also, Gos. Thom. 14b) and the rabbinic literature (b. Abod. Zar. 27b and pars. y. Abod. Zar. 2.2, t. Hul. 2.22-23, y. Sabb. 14.4, and Qoh. Rab. 1.8.3; y. Sabb. 14.4 [on the healing of R. Joshua b. Levi’s grandson]; b. Abod. Zar. 28a; see further, R. Travers HERFORD, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash [1903; repr., London: Williams & Norgate, 1989] 103-11). The purpose of these attempts at healing could best be explained as follows: In order to recruit new members into their sect, the anti-Roman (and thus outlawed by Rome; see further, below) Nazoreans could hardly have done so openly. Thus it was necessary for them to adopt some sort of cover as, say, itinerant Jewish healers. They seem to have recruited followers by discreetly entering a family’s home and remaining there until new members could be enlisted into their anti-Roman cause. Traveling around as Jewish healers would have provided a fair degree of cover. Nor is there any better way to explain why a sect of Jewish insurgents should have wished to attempt mass faith healings of non-members of their sect. This is especially true in view of the fact that their success rate must not have been very high: This is because successful faith healings, to the extent any exist, can now no longer be presumed to result largely from a placebo effect, since that phenomenon is currently believed either not to exist or to have a far weaker effect than previously thought. Asbjørn HRÓBJARTSSON and Peter C. GØTZSCHE, “Is the Placebo Powerless? An Analysis of Clinical Trials Comparing Placebo with No Treatment,” New England Journal of Medicine 344, no. 21 (2001) 1594-602; and John C. BAILAR III, “The Powerful Placebo and the Wizard of Oz” (editorial), N Eng J Med 344, no. 21 (2001) 1630-32. Therefore, it is not likely that the Nazoreans were terribly successful in their healings, which would imply, in turn, that healing was not their primary motive. ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 421

Ann. 15.44.4, in which the Christiani are first wrapped in animal skins, then devoured by dogs. One is strongly reminded here of the myth of Actaeon the hunter. In the most common version of this story, Actaeon is executed by Artemis (Diana), the virgin goddess of the hunt, for running across her bathing naked in the woods. In most versions, Actaeon either spies on her lasciviously or, in some cases, brags that he is a better hunter than she. As a result, he is then wrapped in the skin of a deer by Artemis and torn to pieces by his own dogs, who are thus misled into believing their master a deer. This parallels Nero’s ludibrium almost perfectly, and to the best knowledge of this author there are no other parallels in antiquity (see above and at note 9)13. Common to most forms of the Actaeon myth is the theme of Actaeon the hunter who incurs the displeasure of either Artemis or Zeus14, as the case may be, because of his arrogant behavior, voyeurism, covetousness, or boasting15. This also suggests a common theme of the hunter hunted. In most accounts, Actaeon was either lascivious — occasionally even covetous of Artemis, with whom he had fallen in love (compare Tacitus Hist. 5.5.2: proiectissima ad libidinem gens [“The Jewish people indulge in sexuality most impulsively”]) — or he was boastful (or threatening to be so)16. Nero thus seems to have been implying that the Christiani had been boastful (presumably about their God) and covetous (presumably about their own land, Israel, which is often depicted in Jewish tradition as a woman), thus incurring the wrath of Roman gods. (On “Israel” as a possible name for the Jewish state during the years of the Jewish War, see, Laupot, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 73 note 11). The Christiani had

13. These striking similarities with Ann. 15.44.4 are pointed out in Jona LENDERING, “Tacitus on the Christians: Cornelius Tacitus, Annals 15.44.2-4.” Livius. n.d. Online: http:// www.livius.org/cg-cm/christianity/tacitus.html (26 Apr 2004). This author would also like to thank drs. Jona Lendering, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, for his helpful critique of the present hypothesis. In addition, the story of Actaeon appears to have had ancient roots in West Semitic mythology. See n. 19 below. 14. On Zeus’ revenge against Actaeon, see esp. R. JANKO, “P. Oxy. 2509: Hesiod’s Cata- logue on the Death of Actaeon,” Phoenix 38, no. 4 (1984) 299-307, citing Apollodorus Bibliotheca 3.4.4, and Pausanias Graeciae description 9.2.3-4; also, Carl C. SCHLAM, “Diana and Actaeon: Metamorphoses of a Myth,” Classical Antiquity 3, no. 1 (1984) 82- 109. 15. John HEATH, Actaeon, the Unmannerly Intruder: The Myth and Its Meaning in Clas- sical Literature (Lang Classical Studies 3; New York: Peter Lang, 1992) 11, 15, 17 (“This survey of the literary evidence has shown that several motives were adduced to explain Actaeon’s destruction, all of which maintained that he was guilty of hubris in one form or another”). See also, SCHLAM, “Diana and Actaeon,” 83-87; and JANKO, “Death of Actaeon,” 299-307. 16. However, in two later versions he is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing: Callimachus Hymni 5, and Ovid Metam. 3.138-252. 422 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY also actively opposed the Roman state sanctioned by Rome’s gods (e.g., Virgil Aeneid 12.829-842). “Actaeon the hunter was a figure better known in the ancient world for his death than his life. Actaeon's grandfather Cadmus (Gr., Kadmos, Kadmon, or Kadmaion) may have been of Semitic origin.” He was thought to have been either an Egyptian or the king of Phoenicia, and was believed to have founded the Hellenic city of Thebes17. Cadmus is also thought to have sown from the teeth of a serpent in Thebes a race of warriors known as the Spartoí (Gk., lit., “sown men”; Lat., Spartoe). These Spartoi were frequently confused in the popular mind with the Spartans (Sparti¢tai; Lat., Spartiaci or Spartici) and were also mistaken by some for descendants of Cadmus18. Thus, for some there was a close connection between Actaeon (the descendant of Cadmus) and the Spartans. Likewise, there was also a well-known tradition that associated the Jews with both the Spartans (note the diplomatic correspondence in 1 Macc 12.1- 23 pars. Josephus A.J. 12.226-227, 13.163-170) and Cadmus: According to Hecataeos of Abdera, as preserved in Diodorus Siculus 40.3.2, this association of the Jews with the Spartans originated in a tradition of a common “Jewish Exodus [from Egypt] and… Greek migration of Danaos and Cadmos [from Egypt] as episodes of one and the same event — the expulsion of the [Semitic] Hyksos [Dynasty from Egypt] which [Hecataeos] described after the late Egyptian fabular versions. Thence the assertion — wherever it may have originated — that the Spartans (whose kings, through Heracles and Perseus, claimed descent from Danaos) are brothers of the Jews and descend from Abraham’s kindred.”19 It will be noted also that Cadmus, and hence Actaeon, were held to be immediate relatives of Danaos20.

17. Martin BERNAL, Black Athena (2 vols.; London: Free Association, 1987-1991) 1.109- 14, 2.16, 58-59, 79-80, 84, 151, 152, 497-507, citing Diodorus Siculus 1.9.5-6, 1.28-29, 5.57.1-5, 5.58.1-3, 40.3.2, Pausanias Descr. 2.30.5, 2.38.4, 4.35.2, 9.5.1-3, 9.12.1-4, Diogenes Laertius 7.2-3, 30; and Michael C. ASTOUR, Hellenosemitica (2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 97, 220-24. 18. Francis VIAN, Les origines de Thèbes: Cadmos et les Spartes (Études et commentar- ies 48; Paris: Klincksieck, 1963) 216-25. 19. ASTOUR, Hellenosemitica, 92-112, esp. 98. “For us, in this context, it is absolutely indifferent whether some tribes of the future Israelite confederation directly participated in the Hyksos invasion, or the Israelites adopted these reminiscences from the real participants, the Canaanites, or the Hyksos motifs were borrowed from the Egyptians themselves by Judaean settlers in Egypt since the VIIIth century — what interests us is the resemblance of the essential thematic skeletons.” ASTOUR, Hellenosemitica, 98. For a study of the similarities between Danaos and the Ugaritic Danel (= Daniel; see Ezek 14.14, 28:3), see ASTOUR, Hellenosemitica, 45-53, 69-80. On the proposed West Semitic origins of the Cadmus, Actaeon, and Semele traditions, ASTOUR, Hellenosemitica, 78, 147-59, 163-73, 220-24 passim. 20. BERNAL, Black Athena, 2:502-4. ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 423

That the Romans generally accepted this tradition about the close association between the Jews (including the Christiani) and the Greeks is borne out by the fact that of the four ludibria currently believed to have been used to execute the Christiani in Roman arenas (i.e., the two in Ann. 15.44.4, given above, and two others mentioned in 1 Clement 6.2 [see below]), three of these four, as will be seen, involve Hecateos of Abdera’s tradition in some form. This is hardly likely to be a coincidence and also provides us with an understanding of the ludibria mentioned in 1 Clem. 6.2, which are otherwise obscure. 1 Clement is an important letter written from the Pauline church in Rome to the church in Corinth, ca. 96 C.E21. In 1 Clem. 6.2 it is stated, “Women [presumably Jewish-led Christiani, as opposed to Pauline Christians: see note 24 below] were persecuted [in the Roman arenas] as Danaides and Dircai.“ The Danaides were the 50 daughters of the aforementioned Danaos, who “[i]n the later mythology… are represented as forever carrying water into a bottomless vessel, a punishment for having killed their hus- bands.”22 Dirce was the queen of Hellenic Thebes “who wanted to kill her niece Antiope by tying her to the horns of a wild bull, but instead herself perished such a death.”23 Thus the Danaides and Dircai also fit very much within the scope of this common Greek/Jewish tradition24. What importance did all this have for Nero? The answer seems to be given in Tacitus’ frag. 2 (see note 5 above): Through his mother, Autonoe, Actaeon represented one branch of the ill-fated, royal house of Cadmus. Actaeon’s first cousin, the god Dionysus (Liber), represented another branch of the family through Dionysus’ mother Semele (Actaeon’s aunt). Dionysus was the god of wine, biological son of father Zeus, and “conqueror of the East.” Some Romans believed Dionysus was also the god of the Jews, in part because one of the Jewish national symbols was the grapevine. See Num 13.1-29; 1 Kgs 4.25; Mic 4.4; Zech 3.10; Tacitus Hist. 5.5.5 (sed quia sacerdotes eorum tibia tympanisque concinebant, hedera

21. See also LAUPOT, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 94-95. 22. ASTOUR, Hellenosemitica, 73; also, 75, 77-78, 100. We may infer here that the pointlessness of the Danaides' activities reflects the pointlessness of the Nazorean movement, at least from the perspective of a militarily far stronger Rome. Note, for instance, the Roman judge's remark to Rabbi Eliezer in n. 49 below regarding the Nazorean movement as “pointless” or futile — and consider also the futility of Actaeon's interaction with Artemis. 23. ASTOUR, Hellenosemitica, 213. 24. For this reason, it is unlikely these women were Pauline Christians. Nor is there known to have been any general persecution of Pauline Christians by the central government in Rome until 250 C.E. See G.E.M. DE STE. CROIX, “Why Were the Early Christians Perse- cuted?” Past and Present 26 (1963) 6-38, esp. 6-7 (“[T]here was no general persecution until that of Decius [250-251 C.E.]…. [T]here were only isolated, local persecutions”); also, 15 (“it looks as if the great majority of governors did [follow Trajan’s rescript to Pliny; see Pliny Epistulae 10.97: Conquirendi non sunt {“The Christians are not being hunted down”}]). 424 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY uinciebantur uitisque aurea ‹in› templo reperta, Liberum patrem coli, domitorem Orientis, quidam arbitrati sunt… [“However, some have de- cided that {the Jews} worshipped father Liber, the conqueror of the East, since their priests played reed-pipes and drums and wore ivy wreaths, and because a golden grapevine was found in the Temple]); Isa 5.1-7 and pars. Matt 21.33-41, Mark 12.1-9, Luke 20.9-16, Gos. Thom. 65; Justin, 1 Apol. 54; etc. Indeed, in earlier versions of the Actaeon story, Zeus destroys Semele, the mother of his baby Dionysus, with a thunderbolt because of her affair with Actaeon, although the baby Dionysus survives (see further, note 14 above). This imagery, common to all versions of the Actaeon story, of Dionysus’ first cousin Actaeon (one branch of the house of Cadmus) being killed while the other branch, Dionysus, is spared, parallels that in Tacitus’ fragment 2 where the Christiani guerrillas are viewed as the expendable “branch” of the House of Israel. As Nero perceived Actaeon, therefore, so Rome presumably viewed the Christiani: Each as a “branch” to be destroyed, while the main “branch” of the House of Israel (comprising, from the Romans’ perspective at least, the more politically normative Jews [see frag. 2]) was to be spared. This Roman perception of a brotherhood between the Jews and the Greeks resulting from a common historical tradition is further supported by the famous reports in Tacitus (Ann. 15.39.3), Suetonius (Nero 38.2), and Dio 62.18.1 that during the Great Fire of Rome Nero sang of the sack of Troy. According to tradition (Virgil Aen. 1.7, 33, 257-296; Livy 1.1.1- 1.7.3; etc.), Troy’s survivors had founded Rome and fathered the Julian branch of kings from which Nero himself was widely believed to have been descended (e.g., Dio 62.18.4). By singing of the Trojan War, Nero was thus “comparing contemporary evils with ancient calamities” (praesentia mala uetustis cladibus adsimulantem: Tacitus Ann. 15.39.3). To carry this further, not only would both catastrophes (the fall of Troy and the Great Fire of Rome) have involved, in Nero’s view, Rome’s foreign enemies — the Greeks in the first case, the Nazoreans in the second — but both would sooner or later lead to the birth of a new, more secure Rome, reasonably free of foreign influence (whether Greek or Nazorean). This suggests that during the Fire Nero had already made his decision to liqui- date the Nazoreans in Rome (see further, below). While Nero’s singing may have had the effect of making him appear indifferent to the suffering of his subjects during the Fire, he may have intended it simply to remind them and himself that in the long run Rome would prevail against the Nazoreans, just as it had ultimately — long after the Trojan War and the founding of Rome — against the Hellenic city-states that took part in the Trojan War. ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 425

Nero’s song of Troy may also have been intended to emphasize the supe- riority of his own royal lineage over that of Christus (Tacitus Ann. 15.44.3) and his descendants. Note also, Tacitus’ Ann. 12.58.1: sedecim annos natus Nero…. causa Iliensium suscepta Romanum Troia demissum et Iuliae stir- pis auctorem Aeneam (“Nero, aged sixteen… took up the Trojan cause — the descent of Rome from Troy and Aeneas, the founder of [Nero’s] Julian line”). See also Suetonius Claudius 25.4, for what appears strongly to have been another comparison between the Emperor Claudius and a rival Nazorean king known as Chrestus (see discussion in Laupot, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 80-82). A third comparison of royal lineage is implicit in b. Git. 56b-57a (MS Munich), where Titus and Yeshu ha-Notseri (Jesus the Nazorean) are compared with respect to their attitudes towards Jews and -of Is (פשעי) Judaism: “Come and see the difference between the outlaws rael [including Jesus] and the prophets [including Titus] who worship idols”25 — in that Jesus wished to build up Israel and Titus to tear it down. Popular belief in Nero’s time in the existence of an ancient Greek/Jewish brotherhood and a relation between the Trojan and Jewish Wars also explains the recent discovery in the Gospels, particularly Mark, of myriads of literary parallels with Homer’s Odyssey. “Mark wrote a prose epic modeled largely after the Odyssey and the ending of the Iliad. Mark’s Jesus shares much with Hector and, even more so, with Odysseus.”26 The dogs Nero used to execute the Christiani in his Roman spectacles may have also reminded classical audiences of the Trojan dogs that devoured the slain warriors, both Greek and Trojan, on Troy’s fields of battle

25. All translations of the Babylonian Talmud in this paper are based on the Soncino edi- tion. 26. Dennis R. MACDONALD, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2000) 3. In addition, the Jesus of the New Testament also has something in common with Dionysus, in terms at least of their common sacrifice, rebirth, and mutual status as “son of the Father” and “Prince of Peace.” See, e.g., Arthur EVANS, The God of Ecstasy: Sex-Roles and the Madness of Dionysos (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988) 145-73. From the Jewish point of view, there is further evidence of a belief in this Jewish/Greek brotherhood. For instance, engraved on a frying pan belonging to Bar Kokhba’s soldiers, in what is today known as the Cave of Letters, is a scene describing the famous turning point in the Trojan War in which Achilles’ mother, Thetis, presents her son with a new suit of armor. Richard A. FREUND and Rami ARAV, “Return to the Cave of Letters: What Still Lies Bur- ied?” Biblical Archaeology Review 27, no. 1 (2001) 25-39, esp. 30, 38. Because this motif is Greek, its significance and relation to Judaism have not been previously understood. This design may have constituted a polemic, not against ancient Troy, which had long since ceased to exist — but against Rome, whose founders by tradition had haled from Troy. In addition, this tradition of a common origin of Greeks and Jews is consistent with, and seems to have been a contributing factor in, the Hellenization of Jews during Maccabean times. Elias BICKERMAN, The God of the Maccabees (trans. Horst R. Moehring; SJLA 32; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 83-88, esp. 86. 426 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY

(Homer Iliad 2.393, 8.379, 11.818, 17.127, 241, 255, 18.179, 271-272, 283, 22.339, 348, 354, 23.182-183, etc.; also, 8.338, 10.360, etc.)27. The fires that consumed the Nazoreans may also have reminded the crowds of the funeral pyres that cremated the slain soldiers at Troy (Homer Il. 1.52, 23.141, 161-183, 192, 210-211, etc.). A specific comparison between Achilles, a hero of the Trojan War (see note 26 above), and Jesus is attributed to a now-lost work of Porphyry of Tyre (third century C.E.) by Didymus the Blind (fourth century), in the latter’s Commentarii in Ecclesiasten 281.17-2428. According to Didymus, Poryphry compared (a) Achilles to Jesus and (b) Hector (= Rome?) to Sa- tan (on which, note Rev 2.9-10; also, Matt 4.1-11 and pars. Luke 4.1-13, Mark 1.12-13, and Pines, “Jewish Christians,” 288-89 [on which, see further, discussion in Laupot, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 91 note 59). It seems to this author probable that Porphyry’s allusions were not simply a result of random coincidence, but rather part of an early tradition of comparing the Jewish and Trojan Wars. The above examples provide the missing historical underpinnings to MacDonald’s theory. See above at note 26; and MacDonald, Homeric Ep- ics, 171: “Perhaps the single most important factor in the absence of Homer in New Testament interpretation is the huge disparity between two mundi significantes.” In fact, however, by the time of the writing of the Gospels, Jews and Romans had already been involved in a guerrilla war for over a century, and, as we have seen, Nero seems to have viewed the proselytizing Nazoreans and their superstitio as a sort of “Trojan horse” whose Jewish promoters had, like the Greeks in Homer’s Iliad, already incurred the wrath of the gods. Nevertheless, the crowds at the Christiani’s mass executions after the Great Fire probably had no doubts about Nero’s guilt in setting the blaze. During the Fire organized bands of men had both set individual conflagra- tions and prevented the people from putting them out: “Suetonius [Nero 38.1] says that consulares dared not stop Nero’s cubicularios on their property with torches. Ann. 15.38.8 reports torch throwers during the initial out- break who may have been acting under orders…. From the use of war ma- chines to knock buildings down before burning them (according to

27. The author wishes to thank David M. Pollio, doctoral candidate, Department of Greek and Latin, Bryn Mawr College, for this suggestion. 28. Michael GRONEWALD, ed., Kommentar zu Ecc. Kap. 9.8-10.20 (vol. 5 of Didymos der Blinde: Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes [Tura-Papyrus]; 6 vols.; Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 24; Bonn: Habelt, 1979) 38. See discussion and English translation in Philip SELLEW, “Achilles or Christ? Porphyry and Didymus in Debate Over Allegorical Interpreta- tion,” HTR 82, no. 1 (1989) 79-100, esp. 81-82. ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 427

Suetonius [Nero 38.1]) and from the involvement of stratiôtes and nuktophulakes (Dio 62.17.1) can be inferred a likelihood of imperial sanc- tion for the fire starters.”29 Dio 62.17.1 reads: “Many houses were set on fire by the very men who came to lend assistance; for the soldiers, including the night watch, with an eye to plunder (ârpagàv; see below), started new fires instead of putting the old ones out” (trans. based on Cary/Foster, Loeb). For these reasons, Nero’s audiences at the Christiani’s executions had every reason to believe he had set the Fire (see further, Laupot, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 93-94). This conclusion is also consistent with Nero’s choice of song and topic during the Fire, comparing the Fire to a war — i.e., the Trojan War (“ancient calamities”; see Ann. 15.39.3 above). This in turn makes it appear that Nero had already made the decision during the Fire, if not before, to cast the blame for it on the Nazoreans, since he was apparently already comparing them to the Greeks who had burned Troy. Nor is there any evidence that Nero or any other Roman official made the slightest attempt to put out the Fire, to prevent its spread, or even to arrest any suspects until the conflagration had already run its course. Dio also reports (62.16.2) that the Romans sent out men undercover (lit., “secretly”: láqraç … tinav) to set the Fire who may have been imitating characteristics and traits that, as we have seen, were popularly associated with the Nazoreans: These men acted “as if drunk” (Üv … meqúontav: see above on wine as the symbol of Israel; and compare especially Tacitus Hist. 5.5.5 above on the popular belief that the Jews were followers of Dionysus, the god of wine), and Nero’s agents engaged in antisocial behavior (kakourgoÕntáv: compare kakkáw, to defecate; see note 63 below on kakía and kakkáw, and further, below, on Jesus’ teaching in b. Abod. Zar. 17a; also, note 10 above, on Josephus A.J. 20.185, regarding events during the early sixties [“for the villages throughout Judea were one and all being set on fire and plundered”]30, and compare this to Dio 62.17.1 above on the plundering of the Roman soldiers setting new blazes during the Great Fire. Note generally Tacitus’ reference in Ann. 15.44.2 to the public’s hatred of the Christiani’s crimes (flagitia). Furthermore, the Great Fire raged during the first days of a full moon: Whoever set it must have wanted to be seen, presumably in the guise of Nazoreans31.

29. Robert K. BOHM, “Nero as Incendiary,” Classical World 79, no. 6 (1986) 400-401, esp. 401 n. 4. 30. It will be noted that guerrilla movements such as the one in question required money, hence the plundering in Judea — presumably of property belonging to Romans and their collaborators. 31. On the timing of the Fire right after a full moon, LAUPOT, “Christiani’s Rule over Is- rael,” 93 n. 64. 428 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY

In fact, the people had only to observe Nero at his spectacle to draw further conclusions (incorrectly however, as will be seen): they deduced that his burning of Rome and his scapegoating of the Christiani represented a mere personal vendetta on Nero’s part (Tacitus Ann. 15.44.5: “… the Nazoreans were being destroyed, not for the common good, but to satisfy the cruelty of one man[, Nero]”). It is true that the public did not believe the Nazoreans had set the Fire.32 Nor did the Nazoreans have a credible motive for arson: No insurrection is known to have taken place in Rome during the Fire, and otherwise it would hardly have been rational for the Christiani simply to have burned large numbers of their own proselytes out of their homes. The Romans, on the other hand, would have had a good motive for this, i.e., to stop the Nazorean mass proselytizing in Rome (Tacitus Ann. 15.44.3; see above at notes 11, 12). In fact, there can be little doubt that if Nero did start the Fire, he did so largely for practical (as opposed to merely personal or frivolous) reasons, i.e., to stop the Nazorean proselytizing. Nor is it even necessary to suppose that Nero had ordered the Fire set in the first place: it could have started by accident, after which the emperor reached the decision to allow it to con- tinue burning in those areas of Rome most affected by the Nazoreans’ re- cruiting (note that if the Romans had either started the Fire or allowed it to spread, then Nero and his intelligence agents,33 as opposed to the Roman public, must have been well aware of the actual extent of the Nazoreans’ proselytizing)34. Nero’s intent would have been either to kill large numbers of Nazorean recruits or to force them out of the capital permanently by destroying their homes and replacing these once and for all with public works projects — so the survivors could never return home again. It was generally important for Rome to warn people of the risks involved in resist- ing Roman power and to attempt to make sure that no group ever again tried to exploit the singular weakness of the classical system, namely, those large masses of people living at the bottom of society who were most vulnerable to agitation (Lat., impulsus — compare impulsor in Suetonius Clau-

32. LAUPOT, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 93-94. 33. To the best of our knowledge today, Rome’s intelligence agents were exclusively soldiers trained and employed by the Roman army. Francis DVORNIK, Origins of Intelligence Services: The Ancient Near East, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium, the Arab Muslim Em- pires, the Mongol Empire, China, Muscovy (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1974) 48-120, esp. 101-3, 108 34. The public may not, on the other hand, have been aware of the full extent of the Nazoreans’ anti-Roman proselytizing (which was largely secret; see note 12 above) or of the threat it had represented to Rome’s security. If so, the people of Rome did not realize that Nero had a practical motive for setting the Fire — to flush out the Nazoreans and their proselytes, who had represented a potential danger to Rome’s security. ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 429 dius 25.4)35. In the view of the present author, had Nero’s reasons for starting the Great Fire been frivolous, he, like Caligula before him, would likely have been assassinated by Roman soldiers. As we have seen, however, the reverse is the case: It is more likely that the army conspired with Nero in setting the blaze, on grounds of state security. In any event, Nero’s attempt at “public relations” at his spectacle was a dismal failure (see above at note 32). This may account for the numerous civilian, as opposed to military, attempts to assassinate him after the Fire (e.g., the Piso conspiracy). These civilian attempts were motivated by Nero’s increased paranoia after the Fire, a paranoia apparently fueled in turn by the widespread public misperception that Nero had burned Rome largely for selfish reasons (see note 34 above), including personal gain from the inevitable rebuilding contracts to follow the Fire. There also appears to be a secondary explanation involving a Jewish, as opposed to pagan, tradition for the “Actaeon ludibrium” in Ann. 15.44.4. As we have seen, this ludibrium entailed the use of dogs to execute the Jewish-led Nazoreans. Compare Matt 7.6: “Do not give what is holy to dogs… or… they will turn and tear you to pieces.“36 It is well known that in the rabbinic literature (see also, Mark 7.27-28 and par. Matt 15.26-27) the word “dogs” sometimes referred to Gentiles37. Did either the “Actaeon ludibrium” or the teaching attributed to Jesus in Matt 7.6 imply that the Nazoreans thought of their movement largely in terms of a conflict between Jew and Gentile? This seems unlikely since the Nazoreans had been proselytizing Gentiles, who in reality would hardly have been disposed to join a movement directed against themselves38.

35. On Claudius 25.4, see discussion in LAUPOT, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 80-82. 36. On the current interpretations of Matt 7.6, see Craig S. KEENER, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 242-44, esp. 242 (“Its meaning is unfor- tunately less clear than its authenticity”); Donald A. HAGNER, Matthew 1-13 (WBC 33A; Dallas: Word, 1993) 170-72, esp. 171 (“[Matt 7.6] is very obscure as it presently stands” and “[dogs and swine]… are among the most derogatory [words] in the Jewish vocabulary“); W.D. DAVIES and Dale C. ALLISON, Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988-1997) 1.674-77; Hans Dieter BETZ, The Sermon on the Mount (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 493- 500 (“The saying in 7:6 has always been known for its obscurity…. there is at present no consensus about the original text, the original meaning, the source, and the origins of the later interpretations given to the saying” [pp. 493, 494]); Robert H. GUNDRY, Matthew: A Com- mentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 122-23; Ulrich LUZ, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (vol. 1 of Matthew: A Commentary; 2 vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 418-20 (“The logion is a riddle. Nei- ther [a] its origin nor [b] its original meaning nor [c] its meaning in the Matthean context can be completely made clear”), trans. of Mt 1-7 (vol. 1 of Das Evangelium nach Matthäus; EKKNT; Zurich: Benziger, 1985); Samuel Tobias LACHS, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1987) 138- 430 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY

One clue, however, to an understanding both of this ludibrium and Matt 7.6 is that the word “dogs” was occasionally used in the Psalms to refer to the enemies of the Davidic monarchy and, by extension, the Israelites39. Further, in the rabbinic literature “dogs” was used in five instances to represent, more specifically, the Romans and, in particular, the Roman estab- lishment: (1, 2, 3) In three cases, the emperor and/or government of Rome is represented as a dog: b. ‘Abod. Zar. 54b-55a par. Yal. Shimoni 288; Midr. Tanh. Exod 25.2.3; and Qoh. Rab. 9.4.1.40 (4) “Esau-Edom in rabbinic literature stands for Rome — and [in Gen. Rab. 65.1] he is compared to a dog.“41 (5) Jesus himself is attributed with referring to the Romans indirectly, by reference to Deut 23.19 and Mic 1.7, as both dogs and human excrement42.

40; Stephen LLEWELYN, “Mt 7:6A: Mistranslation or Interpretation?” Novum Testamentum 31, no. 2 (1989) 97-103; Neil J. MCELENEY, “The Unity and Theme of Matthew 7:1-12,” CBQ 56, no. 3 (1994) 490-500, esp. 493-98; Thomas J. BENNETT, “Matthew 7:6–A New In- terpretation,” WTJ 49, no. 2 (1987) 371-86, esp. 371-82; etc. 37. LACHS, Rabbinic Commentary, 139 n. 9, citing b. Yoma 29a and Panim Aherim 71; see also, b. Sabb. 19a. In Pauline Christian literature, “dogs” generally denote non-(Pauline) Christians (see n. 40 below). 38. Note also the scriptural prohibitions to an anti-Gentile movement implicit in Exod 22.20, 23:9; Lev 19.10, 33-34, 24.22; Num 15.15-16, 29; Deut 1.16, 14.29, 24.17, 26.12-13; Jer 7.6, 22.3; Ezek 22.7; Ps 146.9; Zech 7.10; Mal 3.5; etc. 39. Ps 22.17, 21, 59.7, 15. 40. The first two examples are cited in Samuel KRAUSS, Persia and Rome in Talmud and Midrash (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1948) 67-68. For a recent English translation of Midrash Tanhuma, see Samuel A. BERMAN, Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1996). See further, Zvi YAVETZ, “Reflections on Titus and Josephus,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 16, no. 4 (1975) 411-32, esp. 412 (“[In the rabbinic literature] Rome is compared with a pig, the Roman emperor is usually depicted as a dog — not congenial animals in Jewish tradition”); also, Rev 17, in which the Roman Empire is frequently compared to a beast and a prostitute; and Rev 22.15 (on “dogs”). References to dogs elsewhere in Christian literature, however, are entirely Pauline and refer only to non- (Pauline) Christians: Phil 3.2; 2 Pet 2.22; Didache 9.5; Ignatius Eph. 7.1; etc. On dogs gen- JE, 4.630-32, esp. 4.630: “The dog referred to ”,(כלב) erally, see Kaufmann KOHLER, “Dog in the Bible is the semisavage species seen throughout the East, held in contempt for its fierce, unsympathetic habits, and not yet recognized for his nobler qualities as the faithful companion of man.” 41. LACHS, Rabbinic Commentary, 139. On Esau-Edom as a symbol for Rome, b. Mak. 12a; b. Git. 56a, b, 57b; etc. 42. See esp. b. Abod. Zar. 16b-17a (MS Munich), a baraita; also, Qoh. Rab. 1.8.3; t. Hul. 2.24; Yal. Shimoni on Prov 5.8; Yal. Shimoni 551 on Mic 1; and English translations/com- mentaries in Asher FINKEL, “Yavneh’s Liturgy and Early Christianity,” Journal of Ecumeni- cal Studies 18, no. 2 (1981) 231-50, esp. 247-50; Jacob NEUSNER, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man (2 vols.; SJLA 3-4; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 1.400-403, 2.199-204, 2:202 (“[The narrative] seem[s] of considerable historical interest”), 2.366-67; Lawrence H. SCHIFF- ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 431

His statement was reportedly offered in response to a question based on Deut 23.19 as to what to do with both the earnings of (female) prostitutes and the “price of dogs” (regardless of what the latter may once have meant in its original, Deuteronomic context)43 since these could not legally be in- troduced into the Temple to pay vows (Deut 23.19). Jesus’ suggestion (given in full only in b. Abod. Zar. 17a [see MS Munich]; this and the parallel accounts in the other rabbinic sources listed in note 42 above are all in Hebrew) was to use these funds to build for the (Roman-installed) Temple high priest an outhouse or privy (Heb., bet ha-kise — literally and ironi- cally, “house of the seat of honor,” with implicit reference to a king’s throne or [more likely in this case] the seat of honor of a high priest)44. Then Jesus added: “For from the pay of a prostitute has she gathered them, and to the pay of a prostitute shall they return [Mic 1.7]. As they [i.e., the they should go ,[הטנופת] Romans (see below)] came from a filthy place [back] to a filthy place.” Note the parallel, both to this and to Matt 7.6, in Gos. Thom. 93: “Jesus said, ‘Do not give what is holy to dogs, lest they throw them on the dung heap.’”45 In Aramaic the words for “goes out,”

MAN, Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish Christian Schism (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1985) 71-73; and HERFORD, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, 137- 45. Note esp. discussion in Robert EISLER, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist (trans. Alexander Haggerty Krappe; London: Methuen, 1931) 593-94, trans. of IJSOUS BASI- LEUS OU BASILEUSAS (German) (2 vols.; Religionswissenschaftliche 9; Heidelberg: Winters, 1929-1930); also, Morton SMITH, Jesus the Magician (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978) 46, 178; Joachim JEREMIAS, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (London: SPCK, 1958) 10-12, trans. of Unbekannte Jesusworte (2nd ed.; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1951); Joseph KLAUSNER, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching (trans. Herbert Danby; New York: Macmillan Co., 1925) 37-44; Daniel BOYARIN, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1999) 97-101; Jacob Z. LAUTERBACH, Rabbinic Essays (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1951) 559, 563; Morris GOLDSTEIN, Jesus and the Jewish Tradition (New York: Macmillan Co., 1950) 39-51; and additional bibliography in [Efraim Elimelech URBACH, Yeshayahu LEIBOWITZ, and Joseph DAN], “Jesus: In Talmud and Midrash,” EncJud, 10.14-17, esp. 10.17. 43. See discussion in Jeffrey H. TIGAY, ed., Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996) 215-16, 480-81. and 1 Sam 1.9, 4.13, 18. The implicit ;”כסה ,כסא“ .BDB, s.v ;”כסא“ .JASTROW, s.v .44 reference here seems to be to the high priest’s Temple seat, that is to say, Jesus’ “bet ha- kise” represents a kind of polluted pseudo-“Temple” for the high priest. On the Temple priests as Roman appointees and collaborators, Richard A. HORSLEY, “High Priests and the Politics of Roman Palestine: A Contextual Analysis of the Evidence in Josephus,” JSJ 17, no. 1 (1986) 23-55. At another level, the bet ha-kise, in the alternative sense of “house of the king's throne,” may perhaps have suggested Jesus' own view of the illegitimacy of the claims of Rome’s puppets to the throne of Israel, as opposed to his own. 45. All translations of the Gospel of Thomas in this paper are based on Thomas O. LAMBDIN, trans., “The Gospel According to Thomas,” in Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7 (ed. Bentley LAYTON; 2 vols.; NHS 20-21; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 1.52-93. 432 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY

“female prostitute,” “excrement,” and “male prostitute” (the last with bar) .46נפק[א] [בר{א}] ,are all translated by the same expression Jesus’ remark about the high priest’s outhouse was ostensibly directed against the Temple priests, who however had most likely been installed by the Romans (note 44 above). By the end of the first century the Romans apparently still considered Jesus’ comment so subversive that they are reported to have arrested Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus in Galilee for simply uttering it out loud to himself in public47. Following his arrest, R. Eliezer was reported to have been acquitted by the Roman judge, although the rabbinic accounts (see notes 42 and 47 above) of R. Eliezer's trial by the Romans never explicitly state precisely why he was acquitted. The earliest account is in t. Îul. 2.24, dating from “not later than the beginning of the third century”:48 Once R. Eliezer was arrested for Minuth [i.e., for being a member of the Nazorean movement (see below)], and he was brought up to the tribunal for judgment. The governor [acting as judge — probably Q. Pompeius Falco according to Lieberman] said to him: “Does an old man like you occupy himself with such things?”49 He replied: “I rely upon the judge.”50 The governor supposed that he said this of him, but R. Eliezer had in mind only his Father in heaven. The governor said to him: “Since you relied upon me, I indeed thought, ‘Is it possible that these grey hairs [of mine] will err in things?'

,This Aramaic phrase ”.נפק[א]“ .FINKEL, “Yahvne’s Liturgy,” 248; and JASTROW, s.v .46 -female prostitutes”), is found in three Targumim to Deut 23.19: Neofiti; Pseudo“) נפקת ברא Jonathan; and the Fragmentary Targum. 47. On Eliezer’s arrest and trial, note the rabbinic sources cited in n. 42 above. In addition, see esp. Saul LIEBERMAN, “Roman Legal Institutions in Early Rabbinics and in the Acta Martyrum,” Jewish Quarterly Review 35, no. 1 (1944) 1-57, esp. 19-28, 20 n. 126 (“The original source was most probably contemporary with the event”), 21 (“[a] very important and authentic text”), 34; also, NEUSNER, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, 2.367 (“It is the first narrative about something Eliezer has done, not merely a chriic setting for an important saying of his”) and A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things (6 vols.; SJLA 30; Leiden: Brill, 1978-1980) 3.41-42; SMITH, Jesus the Magician, 178 (“The story is in the main credible; rabbinic tradition would never have invented such a tale about Eliezer had there been no basis for it“); SCHIFFMAN, Who Was a Jew?, 71-73, esp. 73 (“It seems to us then to be probable, although not certain, that the events described in our account did occur”); and BOYARIN, Dying for God, 20, 26-41. 48. LIEBERMAN, “Roman Legal Institutions,” 20 n. 126. ”,things [בטלים] b. Abod. Zar. 16b-17a and Qoh. Rab. 1.8.3 both read “such pointless .49 implying that Nazorean resistance to Rome was futile. The governor also seems to have been suggesting that old men did not typically join the Nazorean movement. Nazoreans thus tended to be younger, more physically able, and more willing to act on their beliefs. Cf. Josephus A.J. 18.10: “[T]he religious fervor that they [i.e., Judah and Zadok] inspired in the younger generation meant the ruin of the cause.” See further, Martin HENGEL, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989; repr., 1997) 336 n. 123 (“Young men in particular were at- tracted by [Judah’s movement]”), citing also, A.J. 18.315; B.J. 2.225, 346, 4.128; Vita 185; etc.; trans. of Die Zeloten (2nd ed.; AGJU 1; Leiden: Brill, 1976). ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 433

Dimissus, see, you are released.” (trans. based on Lieberman, “Roman Legal Institutions,” 20 [MS Vienna]) At first glance it seems that the judge released Eliezer because he felt flattered by the prisoner’s trust in him. However, this almost certainly could not have been the case. Roman judges in Israel then could not have af- forded to be softhearted with suspected insurgents. Criminal trials routinely involved torturing the prisoner to obtain a confession, frequently in pub- lic51; in Israel in particular the judge would presumably have had a reputa- tion for firmness to uphold. The only logical reason therefore for dismissing the case must have been that Eliezer gave every appearance of openly acknowledging his trust in a Roman governor. This presumably no Nazorean would ever have done since it would have violated a basic tenet of Josephus’ Fourth Philosophy of the Jewish guerrilla movement, that one cannot serve two kings — God and Caesar (Josephus, A.J. 18.23; B.J. 2.118, 433); and, as has already been shown, the Nazorean’s superstitio (Tacitus’ frag. 2; note 5 above) seems to have been identical to the Fourth Philosophy52. Therefore, the judge real- ized clearly that Eliezer could not have been a Nazorean (i.e., a Min): he quickly dismissed the charge against him, which must consequently have involved being a Nazorean (i.e., belonging to a subversive movement), not simply repeating a seditious Nazorean slogan in public53. Thus it will be noted that at the end of the first century the Nazorean movement was apparently still outlawed in the Land of Israel by the Romans54 — long after the

50. Lit., “I accept the judge as trustworthy.” LIEBERMAN, “Roman Legal Institutions,” 20 n. 136. 51. LIEBERMAN, “Roman Legal Institutions,” 14-17. 52. See discussion in LAUPOT, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 74-78, esp. 78; and nn. 49 above and 54, 55 below; also, Gos. Thom. 47b and pars. Matt 6.24, Luke 16.13 (in the last two the word “mammon” instead of “Caesar” appears to be a redaction made, presumably, for political reasons). The scriptural bases of the Fourth Philosophy seem to have been the First Commandment and the Shema (Deut 6.4 and Mark 12.29 [= LXX Deut 6.4]: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One”; see also, Matt 23.9 and n. 66 below), which go to the core of Jewish monotheism. HENGEL, Zealots, 98-99, 139, 144-45, 227 nn. 407, 408. 53. On this conclusion and the legal theory behind Eliezer’s charge and acquittal, see further, Adalberto GIOVANNINI, “L'interdit contre les chrétiens: Raison d’état ou mesure de po- lice?” Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 7 (1996) 103-34, esp. 129-34. 54. In the same category as the story about Eliezer falls the well-known parallel attributed to R. Yohanan ben Zakkai in b. Git. 56a-b; Lam. Rab. 1.5.31; ADRN (A) 4.22-24; and ADRN (B) 6.19. Yohanan is said to have misled Vespasian into thinking that he believed Vespasian to be a “mighty king” (quite likely, the “Branch of David” from Isa 11.1; see LAUPOT, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 71-78). In fact, by addressing the general as king, the rabbi was actually referring to Isa 10.34, where the “mighty King” (i.e., God) would some day destroy the Temple (lit., “Lebanon”). What Yohanan meant was that Vespasian would become God’s agent in destroying the Temple. Note R. Eliezer’s parallel comparison 434 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY movement had been similarly suppressed, according to Tacitus (Ann. 15.44.3; see above at note 11), following the death of Christus at the hands of Pontius Pilate55. above of a Roman judge with the Supreme Judge. In both cases the idea was evidently to es- cape Roman justice by convincing the relevant Roman authority figure that the suspected Jewish rebel was loyal to him and to Rome and served only one master, Caesar — not God. This insincere flattery served to “demonstrate” to the Romans that the rebel did not espouse Josephus’ Fourth Philosophy (= the superstitio of the Christiani; see above at n. 52). This therefore shows that the criminal charge in both cases (or potential charge with respect to R. Yohanan) was not merely repeating a subversive Nazorean statement in public, but rather belonging to a subversive organization, the Netsarim. The wordplay served to deflect any suspicion that the speaker could have been a Nazorean. On the applicable Roman law, see GIOVANNINI, “L’interdit,” 129-34. 55. This suppression of the Christiani following the death of Christus gives a further reason for believing that the Christiani’s superstitio mentioned in frag. 2 was identical to Josephus’ Fourth Philosophy. This is because Josephus’ total silence at the same point in his narratives following the death of Christus is suggestive of the same Roman suppression of the insurgents’ activities during this period, i.e., from Pilate until the death of Agrippa I: “Jo- sephus is also silent about the activity of the Zealots in this period.” HENGEL, Zealots, 341. In addition, this is apparently the same Roman suppression of the Nazoreans referred to in Acts 8.1-3, 9.1-2, 11.19, 22.4-5, 26.9-11; 1 Cor 15.9; Gal 1.13, 23; Phil 3.6 (see below at n. 58). A further reason to believe that the Fourth Philosophy was in fact the superstitio of the Christiani is that, while Josephus does not directly state that Judah of Galilee (the founder of the Fourth Philosophy) had been a king, he nevertheless makes several references to Judah’s male descendants leading Israel during the Jewish War as “kings,” “wearing royal robes,” and “men of power [or influence]”: Josephus, B.J. 2.434, 444, 7.253, respectively. See further, HENGEL, Zealots, 332; also, 83, 293-97, 331, 362, 364, 391, 399-400, etc. In fact, in A.J. 18.4, 9, Josephus seems to imply that Judah had been a Davidic king since he states that Judah selected as his partner or close associate a man with the name of “Zadok” — which happens to have been the name of David’s high priest. Note further one of several important remarks attributed to R. Yohanan ben Zakkai in t. B. Qam. 7:5, that the reason for Israel’s exile after the destruction of the Temple was “because Israel [lit., ‘the ear’] gave up the To- rah [lit., ‘threw off the yoke of Heaven’] and put itself under the yoke of a king of flesh and blood.” In frag. 2 Tacitus portrays the religious beliefs of the Christiani and the Jews as “conflicting” (contrariae). Likewise, in B.J. 2.118, 7.252-258; and A.J. 18.4-10, 23-25, 20.102, 185- 187 Josephus describes the Fourth Philosophy as one that was so qualitatively different from the other three main varieties of first-century Judaism that one would naturally expect it to conflict with them. For instance, in A.J. 18.23 Josephus states, “This school agrees in all other respects with the opinions of the Pharisees, except that they have a passion for liberty [with respect, certainly, to Rome] that is almost unconquerable” (Feldman, Loeb). In fact, this is no minor distinction: In B.J. 2.118, Josephus states bluntly that the Fourth Philosophy has “nothing in common” with the other three sects. Presumably, the sources of this sharp ideological conflict between the insurgents and other Jews involved the interrelated issues of (1) the degree of independence to assume with respect to Rome and (2) whether or not to attempt to reestablish a Davidic kingdom in the Land of Israel by force (see frag. 2). Since the movement of the Christiani and that based on Josephus’ Fourth Philosophy were most likely the same, we may further note that this movement’s founder was named, as the case may be: (1) Christus, according to Tacitus (Ann. 15.44.3), (2) Judah of Galilee, according to Josephus (B.J. 2.118, 433, 7.253; A.J. 18.4, 9.23, 20.102), (3) Jesus Christos of Galilee, according to the New Testament, and (4) Yeshu ha-Notseri, according to the rabbinic literature (e.g., see below at n. 71 on b. Git. 57a, in which Yeshu ha-Notseri appears to be personally blamed for ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 435

Rome’s long-term suppression of the Nazoreans may explain why the earliest account of Rabbi Eliezer’s trial, in t. Hul. 2.24 (see above), contains no explicit mention of Jesus' midrash on Mic 1.7 and Deut 23.19 that led to Eliezer’s arrest. Perhaps the compilers of the Tosefta, living in Israel under Roman rule, had not wished to share Eliezer’s fate. It is this long-term repression of the Nazorean movement (together with its ideology) that would account, at least in part, for the lack of accurate references to this sect in ancient literature, including the New Testament. “[T]he limitation of anti-Roman polemic in what was to become New Tes- tament documents to subtle cryptograms [i.e., derogatory code words for the Roman authorities] that only alert and informed readers will recognize testifies unambiguously to the awesome power of the Roman State… to exert that power over the lives of the early Christians.”56 This repression would also best explain Josephus’ total silence on the proper name of his Fourth Philosophy57. This kind of censorship generally is what one would expect from an authoritarian political regime such as Rome during the course of a protracted guerrilla conflict against a strongly opposing ideology. In turn, however, it is the existence of this drawn out guerrilla war that helps one identify the authors of the New Testament. For instance, almost no one would have deliberately chosen a guerrilla leader such as Jesus (see, for example, note 55 above) as a model for a Christian religion of love and peace — not, at any rate, without an ulterior motive. This is because the historical Jesus was not exactly the ideal model of love and tolerance. It is clear, therefore, that whoever founded Pauline Christianity most likely had an ulterior motive for selecting Jesus as an exemplification of this new religion’s values: It was almost certainly no accident that the founders of Christianity selected a guerrilla leader as their role model for pacifism. In the destruction of the Temple). There seem to be three possible reasons here for the discrep- ancy between the name given in Josephus and that in the other three sources: (a) Josephus is mistaken about the founder’s name, which was therefore not Judah of Galilee but Jesus Christos (= Tacitus’ Christus = Yeshu ha-Notseri) of Galilee, (b) Josephus is correct, but Judah was also known by the nom de guerre of Yeshu (i.e., Joshua or Jesus, a previous libera- tor of the Land of Israel; compare Bar Kokhba’s nom de guerre with his real name, Bar Kosiba), or (c) Jesus was a successor Nazorean king to Judah, perhaps his son, and the description of Jesus in the Gospels represents a conflation of father and son. At present, there seems to be no way of choosing between alternatives (a), (b), and (c) given Josephus’ uncer- tain reliability. In any event, however, the present difficulty in reconciling Josephus with the other sources will not affect the overall argument presented in this paper. For the sake of economy, the founder of the Nazorean movement will be referred to herein as Jesus. 56. Norman A. BECK, Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament: Symbolic Mes- sages of Hope and Liberation (Westminster College Library of Biblical Symbolism 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1997) 93. 57. E.g., Josephus B.J. 2.118; and A.J. 18.9, 23. 436 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY light of everything, their reason most likely was that they were as much in- terested in twisting and depoliticizing Jesus’ anti-Roman message as they were in fostering love and cooperation. Furthermore, the New Testament is extremely sophisticated (e.g., see discussion below [and above at note 26] on Mark 5.1-20, which simultaneously draws on both Jewish traditions and Homer); and in the NT, Nazorean teachings are routinely and artfully twisted to Rome’s political advantage. It is further obvious that Paul could not have both (1) participated in the wholesale liquidation of the Nazorean guerrillas58 and (2) later been accepted by them as their “apostle to the Gentiles.” Since Paul probably did not, therefore, work for the Nazoreans, he most likely continued working for Rome (see note 58 above) even after his alleged conversion to Nazorean Judaism. In any event, having violently persecuted the Nazoreans, he almost certainly would have needed Rome’s protection to travel around the Empire pretending to be one of them while at the same time twisting their message. Given Paul’s behavior in liquidating the Nazoreans, he most likely would never have lived long enough to complete his travels had he not received protection from the Roman army. Theoretically, perhaps, it is possible that a wealthy private citizen or landlord, within his own limited part of the Empire, might have offered to try and protect Paul by bankrolling a small militia to do it. However, who, other than the Roman army, could have, or would have, protected Paul from the Nazoreans throughout the vast scope of Paul’s travels? More importantly, Paul’s claim to be a Nazorean is completely implau- sible on another count: Given the violent Roman reaction to Rabbi Elie- zer’s pro-Nazorean remarks and to the Nazoreans in general, only someone suicidal would have openly broadcast in his correspondence to various churches that he, Paul (and, in effect, the members of these churches as well), were all Nazoreans — not, at the very least, without advance permis- sion from Rome. Since Paul lived to tell about these literary indiscretions of his and, indeed, probably received protection from the Roman army on his overall mission (see above), then most likely he worked for Rome. Q.E.D. It is significant that Christian proselytizing among Gentiles seems to have begun with Paul during the reign of Claudius — right after, and presumably in response to, the start of Nazorean proselytizing among Gentiles (see above, notes 11, 12). These observations demonstrate that Paul, the putative founder of Chris- tianity, was most likely a Roman agent. Paul did not fear Rome: he did not

58. Acts 8.1-3, 9.1-2, 11.19, 22.4-5, 26.9-11; 1 Cor 15.9; Gal 1.13, 23; Phil 3.6 (see further, note 55, par. 1, above) — which he did on behalf of the Temple high priest and thus, by extension, Rome (see note 44 above). ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 437 spiritualize and depoliticize Nazorean ideology in his letters because he feared Roman power, but rather to further Rome’s propaganda backlash against the Nazoreans. Nor does it seem likely that those who followed him as leaders of the Church (together with the authors of the Gospels) were any different: Without advance approval from Rome, no one would have dared be openly in charge of a sect (Christianity) claiming to be a branch of the outlawed Nazorean guerrilla movement. Rome had good reasons (see below) for founding Christianity, and it is likely that for these same reasons Rome continued to run the Church over time (see Laupot, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 94-96). Further demonstration of this hypothesis is found in the very content of the NT, in which the first Christians are consistently portrayed as Nazo- reans — supposed products of Paul’s “Nazorean mission to the Gentiles.” This, however, presents the reader with a serious paradox (to which, as will be seen below, there appears to be but a single best solution): If the first Christians really believed that they were more or less openly joining the Nazorean guerrilla movement, few would have done so because, as we have seen, the Nazoreans were outlawed by Rome and to be caught joining them most likely meant a death sentence. Therefore, the first Christians must have been aware that (1) they were not really Nazoreans and (2) Rome itself was aware of this too. These converts must have known that to become a Christian was in fact reasonably safe (information which ultimately could only have been communicated, somehow, by the Roman authorities themselves through Rome’s actions; see below, and further, note 24 above), or they would not have joined the Church. Indeed, the very content of the NT strongly supports this hypothesis because the NT is filled with suggestions (direct and indirect) indicating that its authors wanted the first Christians to know that their leaders, especially Paul, had powerful ties to Rome and that it was therefore reasonably safe for them to become Christians. In particular, the works of Robert Eisenman and Robin Lane Fox show this literary pattern quite clearly.59 Nor is it relevant in this con-

59. Robert EISENMAN, “Paul as Herodian,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Chris- tians: Essays and Translations (ed. Robert Eisenman; Shaftesbury, U.K.: Element, 1996) 226-46; Robin LANE FOX, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (Lon- don: Viking, 1991) 307, 458, citing Acts 13.4-12, 14-52. See further, PINES, “Jewish Chris- tians,” 250-60, 271-73, 300-301, and discussion in LAUPOT, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 91 n. 59. Furthermore, references in the New Testament to Roman army officers, particularly the centurions (Matthew 8.5-13 and par. Luke 7.1-10; Mark 15.39 and pars. Matt 27.54 and Luke 23.47; and Acts 10), are quite positive and reasonably frequent. See further, T.R. HOBBS, “Soldiers in the Gospels: A Neglected Agent,” in Social Scientific Models for Interpreting the Bible (ed. John J. PILCH; Biblical Interpretation Series 53; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 328-48, esp. 328-34, 343-48. 438 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY nection whether these specific ties to Rome given in the NT were genuine or were in fact invented by the NT’s authors (who may nevertheless have been aware that people such as Paul had other, more secret ties to Rome through its intelligence community — see above). Rather, it is the existence of these suggestions in the New Testament that is of interest. These frequent signs of Roman backing of Christianity in the NT are not likely to be a coincidence; their existence can best be accounted for by concluding that the NT’s authors worked for Rome, attempting to reassure converts to Pauline Christianity that they were safe from Roman retaliation as “Nazoreans.” This seems to be the single best solution, mentioned above, to this paradox of Pauline Christians “joining” an outlawed Nazorean guerrilla movement. This inconsistency is especially pronounced for the very first Christians, during Paul’s time, when the strong, long-term pattern of neutrality towards Christians (as opposed to Nazoreans; see note 24 above) on the part of the central government in Rome might not yet have been obvious to Christian converts. These first Christians needed to know that Rome was not going to treat them as it did the Nazoreans. Otherwise, the NT’s strong literary and political tilt towards Rome would not even have been necessary. The NT, therefore, most likely consisted of a series of Roman propaganda pieces. The books of the NT were apparently designed as Roman disinformation tools to counter Nazorean mass proselytizing. This explains their inordinate amount of anti-Semitism (e.g., Matt 27.25 and par. Acts 5.28; John 8.44), their direct appeal to slaves, women, and the lower classes (probable targets of Nazorean proselytizing), as well as their literary sophistication and many pagan and Roman elements. All this demonstrates the difference between the accomplishment of the Pharisees and the accomplishment of the Nazoreans. The Pharisees, as a sect, believed that a war against Rome could not be won and should not be fought (see below at note 68). The Nazoreans, on the other hand, believed that a war against Rome had to be fought. The result was that it was through Nazorean pressure that the Romans were driven to create Christi- anity, thus changing the course of world history forever. The Nazoreans did not know beforehand what the results of their pressure would be. They did, however, know that Rome was sufficiently vulnerable that if they went for its “soft underbelly” (the oppressed slaves, women, and lower classes), something was bound to give way. Specific changes were thus forced — intentionally or otherwise — on the Roman Empire’s religious system by the Nazoreans. These Christian changes encouraged slaves and other exploited out-groups to forgive their ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 439 exploiters repeatedly, providing a “politically correct” alternative to the Nazorean option and a permanent solution to Rome’s vulnerability to subversive agitation among these out-groups. Christianity was desirable for Rome because this vulnerability — due to Rome’s exploitation of various populations (slaves, women, etc.) — resulted from the existence of what was virtually an empire-wide, Roman caste system, i.e., this vulnerability constituted in certain respects a permanent potential weakness for Rome. Note Spartacus’ first-century B.C.E. rebellion of slaves and the lower classes in Italy. All this would explain, for instance, Christianity’s unusual emphasis on forgiving one’s enemy, turning the other cheek, becoming a slave, etc. (particularly peculiar ideas, to say the least, coming from a Jew- ish guerrilla leader such as Jesus). In the NT, however, Rome permitted some anti-Roman Nazorean material to remain (typically out of context, however, and in disguised form), in order to lend these writings a bit of pseudo-authenticity. From Rome’s point of view almost any amount of anti-Roman sentiment in Pauline Christianity would have been preferable to the uncontrolled spread of the real Fourth Philosophy throughout the Empire. Rome’s vulnerability to subversive agitation among the slaves and lower classes would also account for its apparent willingness to overcome bureau- cratic inertia in establishing a relatively monotheistic religion (Pauline Christianity) that was in some ways antithetical to the official state pagan- ism already in place. Christian religious propaganda provided an ideal and inexpensive barrier to the spread of the Nazoreans’ propaganda “plague” (on which, see further, Laupot, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 88 at note 51). It was far better, if possible, for Rome to indoctrinate large numbers of slaves in Christian thinking than to kill them, since the slaves were valuable property whose financial loss would be deeply felt by their wealthy masters (a circumstance of which the Nazoreans were also doubtless well aware). Rome had at least three major reasons therefore for founding Christian- ity, all of which appear to have been consistent with her national interests: (a) To twist and depoliticize the Nazorean message, so the Empire’s disaffected would be misled and confused into ignoring it; (b) To set up, on a long-term basis, a politically acceptable alternative to the Fourth Philosophy that would meet people’s psychological needs and, at the same time, teach the exploited to live with their condition and co-exist with their exploiters; (c) To keep the troublesome Jews (both “normative” and guerrillas) in their places — by denigrating and virtually demonizing Jews, Ju- 440 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY

daism, and the movement for a politically independent Israel (note frag. 2: “… in order to destroy completely the alien religious belief of the Jews and the Christiani”). In the opinion of the present author, this anti-Semitic tradition reached its apex in John’s Gospel and represented one facet of Rome’s overall “divide and conquer” strat- egy — specifically, in this instance, by pitting Gentiles against Jews.

Rome’s national interests were thus the driving force behind her propaganda backlash against the Nazoreans (see further, discussion in Laupot, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 94-96). Finally, returning to Jesus' suggestion to use money from prostitution to buy an outhouse for Rome’s high priest, one is also reminded strongly here of the destruction of the pagan temple and sacred stone of Baal (2 Kgs 10.27) by the Davidic King Yehu (or Jehu), who during the first century C.E. was widely considered to have been one of Jesus' royal ancestors.60 According to 2 Kgs 10.27, the ruins of Baal’s temple were used by the Isra- elites for many centuries after it’s destruction as toilet seats (lit., “places excrement: 2 Kgs 18.27 and =] חראים after ,מחראות :”where one defecates Isa 36.12]). The Nazoreans themselves, on the other hand, were very closely identified with the Jewish Temple61. Jesus' remarks also remind one strongly of the account in 2 Kgs 9.10, 36-37 of the destruction of the pagan sorceress Jezebel, enemy of God and His Davidic monarchy, whose corpse became “like dung” and was “eaten by dogs” (see also above at note 45 on Gos. Thom. 93, in which the Coptic word for “dung heap,” etkopria, is a loan word based in part on the Greek kopría [“dung”], which in turn was used to describe Jezebel's corpse in LXX 2 Kgdms 9.37). Jesus’ remarks further suggest the descriptions of the corpses of Kings Naboth and Ahab, also opponents of the Davidic monarchy, in 1 Kgs 21.19 (= 3 Kgdms 20.19) and 22.38 (= 3 Kgdms 22.38), respectively, whose blood was licked by dogs (and pigs in the LXX — to which compare both Matt 7.6 and P.Oxy. 840 [see below])62. Note further, 1 Kgs 14.11, 16.4, 21.23, 24;

60. On Jesus’ ancestors, LAUPOT, “Fragment 2,” 238, 242-43, 244, 245-46, 247. 61. Tacitus’ frag. 2 and LAUPOT, “Fragment 2,” 233-37, 245, 246. 62. Those unfit to serve in the Israelite army are compared with dogs in Judg 7.5. See also, b. Hul. 142a on the death of Rabbi Hutspith the Interpreter during the Hadrianic persecutions, whose severed tongue is described as “lying on a dunghill.” In b. Qidd. 39b his tongue is “dragged along by a pig,” presumably a reference to the Romans (see below at n. 76). King Darius’ decree in Ezra 6.11 (MT) also seems germane. It states that the house of anyone caught modifying Darius’ prior decree promoting the construction of the Second However, there is some disagreement as to the .(נולי) Temple would be turned into a dunghill ,נולי and נולו ,in Ezra 6.11 (MT), despite the fact that its Aramaic cognates נולי meaning of cf., however, LXX Ezra 6.11 and ;(”נולי ,נולו“ .also translate as “dunghill” (Jastrow, s.v 1 Esd 6.32. See generally, H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco: Word, 1985) 69, 72 n. 11c. ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 441

2 Kgs 9.10; and Ps 68.24. In 3 Kgdms 20.19 God tells Elijah to prophecy that not only dogs but swine and prostitutes (compare parallels in both b. Abod. Zar. 17a above and P.Oxy. 840 below) will wash themselves in King Ahab's blood after his death. Jesus’ midrash also brings to mind the scene in P.Oxy. 840 in which Je- sus is attributed with (1) accusing a high Pharisaic official in the Temple of having ritually purified himself “in running water in which dogs and pigs have wallowed night and day” (to⁄v xeoménoiv À[d]asin ên oﬁv kúnev kaì xo⁄roi bébljn[tai] nuktòv kaì ™mérav), (2) likening this water to that used by prostitutes to bathe their clients (compare 3 Kgdms 20.19 above), and (3) comparing the Temple official to a prostitute whose insides are “full of scorpions and all sorts of evil” ([pepl]ßrwtai skorpíwn kaì [pásjv ka]kíav [to which compare kakkáw, to defecate]).“63 It will be noted also that the Second Temple was defiled by Gentile prostitutes and by the sacrifice of pigs and other ritually unclean animals during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 1.47; 2 Macc 6.4-5)64; and see Gos. Thom. 105:”Jesus said, ‘He who knows [his] father and [his] mother will be called the son of a whore [compare John 8.41, 44].’”65

63. Bernard P. GRENFELL and Arthur S. HUNT, eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (vol. 5; London, 1908) 1-10, esp. 7-8, including their additions; but cf. Bonaccorsi’s reconstruction of [… ]kíav as [âdi]kíav (“unrighteous”) in Giuseppe BONACCORSI, ed., Vangeli apocrifi (Florence: Fiorentina, 1948) 37-39, esp. 38. JEREMIAS, Unknown Sayings, 17-18, 36-49, ar- gues that P.Oxy. 840 represents “a valuable tradition, with sound local colour” (p. 47), citing particularly what appears to be the rabbinic response to it in t. Kelim B. Qam. 1.6 (pp. 46-47), on which see also NEUSNER, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, 1.388-89. However, cf. François BOVON, “Fragment Oxyrhynchus 840, Fragment of a Lost Gospel, Witness of an Early Christian Con- troversy over Purity,” JBL 119, no. 4 (2000) 705-28 (including an extensive survey of previous scholarship on P.Oxy. 840). Kakía apparently derives from kakkáw. E.g., Stuart E. MANN, An Indo-European Comparative Dictionary (2 vols.: Hamburg: Buske, 1984- 1987) 1.461, s.v. “kak (kakk-).” 64. Note further, b. Git. 56b (and par. Qoh. Rab. 5.8.5): “This was the wicked Titus who blasphemed and insulted Heaven… [and]… took a prostitute by the hand and entered the Holy of Holies.“ 65. This is the opposite of what one would expect: the “son of a prostitute,” i.e., a bastard, in fact does not know who both his parents are, particularly his father. Jesus thus implies humorously that anyone who knows both his parents is a “bastard” and unfit to be a Nazorean — presumably because he might follow his parents and not the Nazoreans. See further, Gos. Thom. 55a and par. Gos. Thom. 101a and pars. Matt 10.37, 19.29, Mark 10.29-30, and Luke 14.26, 18.29-30; Gos. Thom. 99 and pars. Matt 7.21, 12.46-50, Mark 3.31-35, and Luke 8.19-21; also, Tacitus Hist. 5.5.2: transgressi in morem eorum… prius imbuuntur… parentes liberos fratres uilia habere (“From the first, proselytes to Judaism… are taught to… devalue their parents, children, and brothers”). Evidently they were taught to put God before their relatives: note, e.g., Josephus’ A.J. 18.23 (“they call no man Lord”); Matt 23.9 (“Do not call [anyone] on earth your Father, for your heavenly Father is One”); and Matt 6.24 and pars. Gos. Thom. 47b and Luke 16.13 (“No one can serve two Lords,” etc.); but cf. the con- tradiction implicit in Mark 7.9-13 and par. Matt 15.3-9. 442 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY

Thus, in his brief exegesis of Mic 1.7, Deut 23.19, and 2 Kgs 10.27 as reported in the rabbinic literature, Jesus is attributed with insulting the Ro- mans in a number of ways. He calls them or implies that they are prostitutes, excrement, idolators, dogs, false claimants to power (see note 44 above), enemies of God and the Davidic monarchy, and implicitly worthy of death66. All of this would help explain the particular use of “boiling excrement” in b. Git. 57a with which to punish Jesus in the afterlife: Just as Bar Kokhba would lose his war with Rome and subsequently receive, in b. Sanh. 93b, a symbolic “execution” by the disillusioned rabbis, so too had Jesus and his followers lost their war, for which Jesus seems also to have received, in b. Git. 57a, a similarly appropriate punishment — in boiling excrement. The Babylonian Talmud goes on to explain why Jesus was being penalized despite his strong support for the Jewish people (note the remark attributed to him in b. Git. 57a: “Seek [Israel’s] good, not their harm. Whoever harms them harms the pupil of his own eye67 [influenced by Deut 32.10 pars.; Zech 2.12; Ps 17.8; and Prov 7.2],” i.e., the person in question can no longer see the light: compare Nero’s use, described above, of the Christiani as night light). According to the Talmud, Jesus was being pun- ished in boiling excrement because he had ridiculed the teachings of the Pharisees. Compare P.Oxy. 840 and Matthew 23 and pars., including Gos. Thom. 102: “Woe to the Pharisees, for they are like a dog [see above on the comparison of the Romans with dogs; and note 68 below on the de facto neutrality of the Pharisaic party towards Rome — a neutrality that seems to have infuriated the Nazoreans] sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he [let] the oxen eat.” Note also, Matt 23.13: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, since you shut out men from the kingdom of God [i.e., the Davidic kingdom of the Land of Israel; see below at note 82, citing 1 Chr 28.5 and esp. the very forceful speech of the Davidic King Abiya in 2 Chr 13.8], in that you yourselves do not enter [the Land of Israel to liberate it], nor do you permit those entering [it for the same reason] to do so.” This is about a clear a statement as one could hope

66. It may be noted that these remarks attributed to Jesus meet all five primary criteria for historicity listed in John P. MEIER, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (3 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991-2001) 1.167-77: (1) Embarrassment, (2) Discontinuity, (3) Multiple Attestation, (4) Coherence, and (5) Rejection/Execution. On these criteria, see further, Mark Allan POWELL, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) 46-50; John S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN, “The Life and Sayings of Jesus,” in The New Testament Today (ed. Mark Allan POWELL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999) 10-30, esp. 15-18; etc. 67. Note also in b. Git. 57a Titus’ contrasting advice to attack the Jewish people. ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 443 for regarding the political/military differences between the Nazorean and Pharisaic sects68. From the rabbis’ point of view in b. Git. 57a, Jesus’ shaming of the Pharisees was so blatant that it caused a split in the Jewish ranks, resulting eventually in the destruction of the Temple and presumably the loss of the Jewish War. This is explained in b. Git. 57a, which concludes with the statement (presumably still referring, inter alia, to Jesus): “Rabbi Eliezer said, ‘Come and see how great is the power of shame, for God assisted Bar Khamtsa [apparently a Jewish sect that supported Rome: note the parable in b. Git. 55b-56a on Bar Khamtsa’s shaming]69 and destroyed His House

68. On the political attitude of the Pharisaic party towards Rome, see, e.g., Gedalyah Allon, “The Attitude of the Pharisees to the Roman Government and the House of Herod,” in Studies in History (ed. Alexander FUKS and Israel HALPERN; ScrHier 7; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961) 53-78. 69. On b. Git. 55b-56a, see esp. Jeffrey L. RUBINSTEIN, “Bavli Gittin 55b-56b: An Aggadic Narrative in its Halakhic Context,” Hebrew Studies 38 (1997) 21-45, esp. 22-25, 28, 32, 36; also, LAUTERBACH, Rabbinic Essays, 501-3; HERFORD, Christianity, 67-71; and KLAUSNER, Jesus of Nazareth, 33-34. In b. Git. 55b-56a there are two would-be dinner guests named Khamtsa and Bar Khamtsa connected with the banquet given by a certain man. This host seems to represent a Nazorean king because: (1) like Jesus (b. Git. 57a above), the man also shames Bar Khamtsa, (2) there are frequent references in the Babylonian Talmud (MS Munich) to Jesus as “ha-Notseri,” that is to say, “the branch of David” or the “Davidic/ Nazorean king,” and (3) there is an apparent parallel to b. Git. 55b-56a in Matt 22.1-14 (and esp. 22.11-14) and pars. Luke 14.16-24, Gos. Thom. 64, with the allusions in these sources evidently to a war with Rome. Note, for instance, the legal excuses (cf. Deut 20.1-8, 24.5) used by the civilians in Matt 22.1-14 and pars. to be exempted from “attending the messianic banquet,” i.e., from serving in a Nazorean army led by the Branch of David; see also, Judg 7.2-8 and below, this note. The martial nature of b. Git. 55b-56a is further borne out by the fact that “[Khamtsa] means ‘locust’ in Aramaic, rendering the two characters [in b. Git. 55b-56a] Locust and Son of Locust or Mr. Locust and Locust Junior.” Rubenstein, “Bavli Gittin 55b-56a,” 24. These “locusts” were harbingers of war with Rome. Rubenstein, “Bavli Gittin 55b-56a,” 24-25. See also Exod 10.1-20 on the Eighth Plague of locusts unleashed against the Egyptians; and below for other examples in Jewish literature of Rome compared with Egypt. In b. Git. 55b Khamtsa is described as a friend of the dinner host. Thus, he seems to represent a Jewish sect vehemently opposed to Rome and loyal to the royal host. Khamtsa had originally been the only guest invited to the banquet but then, by a twist of fate, he never actually received the invitation. Bar Khamtsa, on the other hand, is described as an enemy of the dinner host, one who had been invited by mistake to the banquet and then refused to leave when asked. Indeed, he offered to pay his way rather than go. Nonetheless, the host ejected him. Cf. Matt 22.11-14, in which the uninvited guest at the messianic banquet is similarly expelled by the host; and further, Samuel Tobias LACHS, “Studies in the Semitic Background to the Gospel of Matthew,” JQR 67, no. 4 (1977) 195-217, esp. 215 n. 98: “[W]e posit a Semitic original [for Matt 22.11-14]… without equivocation.” Thus, both Bar Khamtsa (invited by mistake) and the unwelcome guest in Matt 22.11-14 appear to symbolize a Jewish sect opposed to the insur- gency — a sect which, according to b. Git. 57a, eventually allied itself more firmly with Rome because of its embarrassment by one who appears to have been a Davidic king. In retaliation for his embarrassment, Bar Khamtsa defects to Rome and tilts the balance of power in Rome’s favor. This leads ultimately to Israel’s defeat and the destruction of the Temple. 444 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY and burned His Temple.’“70 The point of this rabbinic teaching is that Je- sus’ embarrassment of another Jewish sect that may not have been sufficiently committed to the anti-Roman cause resulted in a splitting of the anti-Roman coalition and the loss of the war against Rome. Thus, the Tal- mud parallels Tacitus’ fragment 2 in blaming (though for different reasons) the Nazoreans for the destruction of the Temple71. In addition to the rabbinic literature, there is another clue to the significance of the dogs in both Nero’s “Actaeon ludibrium” (Ann. 15.44.4) and Matt 7.6: While these dogs might not have symbolized Gentiles per se (see above at note 37), it is well known that the expression “the Gentiles” was routinely used by Israel’s soldiers under Bar (הגואים ,.Aram/הגוים ,.Heb) Kokhba (and employed in the Synoptic Gospels as well) to mean “the Ro- mans.”72 Thus, it is possible, for instance, that the dogs in Nero's executions alluded first, implicitly, to “the Gentiles” and then, by extension, to “the Romans.” Such an implicit reference to Gentiles would at the same time have paralleled Nero’s other ludibrium involving, apparently, “a light unto the Gentiles.” All told then did the dogs in Nero’s executions represent, in a secondary sense, the Romans? Indeed, since (1) the Christiani were vehemently anti- Roman, (2) Nero was the political head of the empire whose capital city, 70. In general, the events surrounding the destruction of the Second Temple were so important in ancient Judaism that they could scarcely have been forgotten by the rabbis — in part, also, because their literary enterprise was largely collective. See, e.g., N. SUBRAH- MANIAN, Historical Research Methodology (Madurai, India: Ennes, 1980) 169: The scholar will deal with legends, anecdotes, proverbs and anonymous statements with especial care. There are special reasons without which anonymous statements are not to be accepted: 1. That falsehood is improbable because a) the fact is opposed to the interest or vanity of the author, b) the fact is generally known, c) the author is indifferent to the fact; 2. error is improbable because fact is too big to mistake or conceal (italics added). 71. All this would help explain the otherwise obscure rabbinical allegory in b. Git. 57a involving the Jewish resistance leader Bar Daroma (lit., “Son of the South [of Israel]”) who went into an outhouse (Heb., bet ha-kise — see above), saw a snake enter, and then died. The insurgents, represented by Bar Daroma, appear to be characterized here as dying in the attempt to “expel” the Romans (= fecal matter) from the polluted Temple (= the outhouse; cf. b. Abod. Zar. 17a). The attempt failed and the rebels died, presumably because of their own sins (= the snake) and the consequent withdrawal of God’s blessing from their cause. Note the parallel, applied to Rome as opposed to the Jewish resistance, in Qoh. Rab. 5.8.5. 72. Max WILCOX, “The Aramaic Background of the New Testament,” in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (ed. D. R. G. BEATTIE and M. J. MCNAMARA; JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994) 362-78, esp. 372-73, citing Y[igael] YADIN, “Expedition D,” IEJ 11, nos. 1-2 (1961) 36-52, esp. 46 (“the Bar Kokhba documents… gen- Mur 42.5 (P. BENOIT, J.T. MILIK, and R. DE VAUX, Les grottes ;(”הגואים erally used the term de Murabba'at [2 vols.; DJD 2; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961] 1.155-59, esp. 1.156-57 [“were the Gentiles not approaching us, I should have gone up“]); and Luke 21.24. See also, Matt 18.17, 20.19 pars., etc. ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 445

Rome, this militant Jewish sect was accused of having severely burned, and (3) these were executions designed by Nero to appeal to Roman audiences, it would appear that we have found the right answer. This, then, seems to be a plausible secondary explanation for this ludibrium, not only because it harmonizes with Tacitus' fragment 2 (indeed, with Nero’s other ludibrium in Ann. 15.44.4 as well) in terms of a historically consistent, anti-Roman Nazorean ideology, but also because it produces an overall effect that maxi- mizes its entertainment value to a Roman audience — and if there is one thing we can be sure of about Nero it is that he loved to entertain Roman audiences. These particular audiences consisted mainly of those who had survived the Great Fire, including many who had just lost homes or loved ones or both. Many would have been intent on revenge, and in such an atmosphere Nero had every incentive to attempt to persuade the crowds of his own in- nocence by emphasizing the Christiani's anti-Roman ideology as the real cause of the Fire. With regard to the parallel Matt 7.6 (“Do not give that which is holy to dogs… ”), “that which is holy” in Matt 7.6a reads tò †gion (singular)73. In Greek, tó †giov (“the holy place”) generally meant “temple,”74 with particular reference in the LXX and Josephus, as Bickerman and Llewelyn have pointed out, to the Tabernacle and the First and Second Temples (e.g., Josephus B.J. 5.194; A.J. 3.125, 12.413; etc.).75 Therefore, Matt 7.6a appears originally to have meant, “Do not give the Temple to the Romans…” Note also the implied connection here once again (see above) between the dogs, the Romans, the Temple, and Deut 23.19: Do not give the “price of dogs” to the Temple (Deut 23.19); do not give the Temple to “dogs” (Matt 7.6a). We need only compare this interpretation of tò †gion as “the Tem- ple” with the text of Tacitus' fragment 2 regarding Rome’s destruction of it (see note 5 above), as well as with the rest of Matt 7.6 (see below), to note immediately the strong ideological correspondence.

73. In this respect, the version in Gos. Thom. 93 (see above at n. 45) contains a contradic- tion. It refers first to a singular object, then a plural. 74. LSJ, s.v. “†giov.” 75. Elias J. BICKERMAN, “The Warning Inscriptions of Herod’s Temple,” JQR 37 (1947) 387-405, esp. 388-89; repr. in Studies in Jewish and Christian History (3 vols.; AGJU 9; Leiden: Brill, 1976-1986) 2.210-24, esp. 2.211; and LLEWELYN, “Mt 7:6A,” 97-103, esp. 100 (“[T]here is a possible reference failure in the use of tò †gion. A review of LXX usage, assuming that it is the proper place to look in order to define the semantic range of the term, shows that tò †gion would usually be understood to refer to the tabernacle or temple. Only occasionally does the singular †gion refer to sacrificial food [Lev 2.3; Ezra 2.63 and par. Neh 7.65; Lev 22.14] and then with the article tó only once,” etc.); also, Edwin A. HATCH and Henry A. REDPATH, eds., A Concordance to the Septuagint (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), s.v. “†giov.” 446 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY

Matt 7.6 reads in full: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them with their feet and, turning, tear you to pieces.” It may be remarked that in both Ps 80.14 and the rabbinic literature the pig, including the “wild boar from the forest,” represents the enemies of the Davidic monarchy and/or the Jewish people (see also, note 62 above)76. Psalm 80 seems in fact to have been a favorite of the Nazoreans since its language appears with reasonable frequency throughout the New Testament: e.g., “branches,” “saved,” “vine,” “flock,” “Egypt,” “grapes,” “burned with fire,” “shepherd,” and “son of man” (the last two denoting God and Israel, respectively, but apparently also containing implicit references to the Davidic king — thus providing a tentative solution to the “son of man” controversy)77. In fact, because of their trampling activity the pigs in Matt 7.6 much more closely resemble the wild boar in Ps 80.14 than they do domesticated animals78. In addition, because “trampling” was a common synonym in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and, less com- monly, Latin (conculcare) for military conquest and oppression, it thus appears once again that it is the Romans who are being characterized in Matt 7.6 by the Nazoreans. This interpretation is also consistent with what appears to be a political allegory in Mark 5.1-20 and pars., in which Jesus exorcises from a possessed man a multitude of “demons,” collectively named “Legion,” by ex- pelling them into a herd of pigs (see further discussion in Laupot, Chris- tiani’s Rule over Israel,” 82-83 n. 36, 83, citing, inter alia, the parallels Matt 12.43-45 and Luke 11.24-26; on the numerous parallels between Mark 5.1-20 and Homer Od. 9 and 10, see MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 63-

76. B. Qidd. 39b; Gen. Rab. 63.8, 65.1; Esth. Rab. 4.5; b. Pesah. 118b; Lev. Rab. 13.5; Midr. Psalms 80.6; Cant. Rab. 3.4.2 (the last four commenting on Ps 80.14); see also, HENGEL, Zealots, 303 n. 403, 308 n. 427; and YAVETZ, “Titus and Josephus,” 412. 77. David had been a shepherd (1 Sam 17.15, 34; Mic 5.3; etc.; cf. Ps 80.2), and the Davidic king sat at God’s right hand (Ps 110.1). Cf. Ps 80.18, in which the word “son” (Heb., ben, referring to the “son of man” at God’s right hand) also refers to “descendant(s)” or, metaphorically, a “branch” (see Gen 49.22; and note esp. Ps 80.16, in which “son” does appear to have this same sense of “branch,” in contrast to the word “root” used there in the same verse). It is easy to see how, in the political turmoil of the first century, the Nazoreans could have drawn the comparison between the “son of man” sitting at the right hand of God in Ps 80.18 and netser (of David) in Isa 11.1 — particularly if they were searching the Scrip- tures for evidence of divine support for their mission. Like Isa 11.1, they most likely would have found Ps 80.16, 18 very reassuring because it would have seemed to them to relate directly to their own name and function as followers of the Branch of David. The Davidic king may thus have been known to the Nazoreans as the “son of man.” See further, Marvin E. TATE, Psalms 51-100 (WBC 20; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990; repr., 2003) 316; Mitchell DAHOOD, Psalms II: 51-100 (AB 17; Garden City: Doubleday, 1968) 260, citing a parallel in Ps 89.22; etc. 78. See also, Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 140 n. 18. ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY 447

74 — although Mark 5.1-20 has also been heavily influenced by the Jewish sources mentioned below). For reasons given presently, this possessed man in Mark appears to represent the nation of Israel, which had been “driven mad” by foreign conquerors and which had, more than once according to the Hebrew Bible and the four books of the Maccabees, broken the shackles of oppression with which the Jewish people had been bound. This herd of pigs then ran into the Sea of Galilee and drowned. It may be inferred that these pigs symbolized the Roman legions then occupying Israel because of the following parallels with: (1) the drowning of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea (Exod 14.13-15.21; and Deut 11.4), (2) the anticipated expulsion of the Roman army from Israel into the Mediterranean Sea by Jewish forces under the command of Isa 11.1’s “Branch of David” (see 4Q285), (3) an angel of God described as throwing Satan (= Rome) into the sea,79 (4) the reference in b. Git. 56b to the near drowning of Titus’ legions in the Medi- terranean, and (5) the remark attributed to Jesus in the rabbinic literature that “as [the Romans] came from a filthy place, they should go [back] to a filthy place” (see above), apparently anticipating an expulsion of Roman forces from Israel.80 In any event, the interpretation of Matt 7.6 given above is further supported by the reference to pearls in Matt 13.45-4681 (par. Gos. Thom. 76a) which, besides Matt 7.6, contains the only mention of pearls in the canoni- cal Gospels. In 13.45-46 the “very expensive [polútimov] pearl” that the merchant gives everything he has to obtain represents the “kingdom of God” (lit., “kingdom of Heaven”). However, what might the expression “kingdom of God” have meant to the Nazoreans? In the Hebrew Bible this phrase (lit., “kingdom of YHWH”) is used only twice (1 Chr 28.5 and 2 Chr 13.8) and has but one meaning: the Davidic kingdom of the Land of Israel82. This expression appears in the Hebrew Bible only in the mouths of David’s royal descendants, who in the first century were widely considered

79. LAUPOT, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 91-92 n. 59, citing PINES, Jewish Chris- tians,” 289. 80. On Mark 5.1-20, see esp. C.H. CAVE, “The Obedience of Unclean Spirits,” New Tes- tament Studies 11, no. 1 (1964) 93-97; and Robert W. FUNK et al., The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus ([San Francisco]: Harper San Francisco, 1998) 77- 79, 181, 296-98. 81. See HAGNER, Matthew 1-13, 171; also, LACHS, Rabbinic Commentary, 228-29 (“There are no parallels in rabbinic literature to [Matt 13.44-46]”). 82. “For the Chronicler the kingdom of David was the kingdom of God; that kingdom was forever to be in the hands of David’s descendants. For the post-exile audience to which he wrote, an audience living without a Davidic king, this speech must have expressed their hopes and aspirations…. Israel as the Kingdom of Yahweh is one of the Chronicler’s favorite themes (1 Chr 17:14; 28:5; 29:11, 23; 2 Chr 9:8).” Raymond B. DILLARD, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco: Word, 1987) 108. 448 ROME'S INVENTION OF PAULINE CHRISTIANITY to have been the royal ancestors of Jesus the Nazorean. Thus it may be inferred that the “pearls” in Matt 7.6 that the Christiani believed should not be thrown to the Roman”pigs“represented for the Nazoreans the “kingdom of Heaven,” i.e., an eagerly awaited and prosperous Davidic kingdom of the Land of Israel (see Laupot, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 74-76, 77, on the symbols of prosperity on Israel’s coins during the Jewish War); and any pro-Roman assimilationists who wished to “throw” Israel to Caesar were being warned by the Nazoreans that Israel was only going to be tram- pled on as a result and the assimilationists themselves torn to pieces by the very Roman “dogs” they had trusted. This parallels the interpretation of Matt 7.6a given above: “Do not give the Temple to the Romans.”83 Matt 7.6 may now be understood as follows: “Give neither the Temple nor the land of Israel to Caesar, or else the Romans, having conquered Is- rael, will turn on their collaborators and tear them to pieces.” This catastro- phe would undoubtedly be sanctioned by the same Entity that in ancient times had allowed the temple of Baal to be turned into an open-air outhouse and caused the dogs to be loosed on Jezebel and Kings Naboth and Ahab. After all, it was His House and His kingdom that were being thrown away.

In conclusion, this study has brought Tacitus’ Christiani into full focus as a revolutionary force in the ancient world. As a result, the knot connect- ing Tacitus’ Christiani with both the New Testament and other Christian literature has been irrevocably cut. This new perception allows one to view both the founding of Pauline Christianity and Nero’s sanctioning of the Great Fire in Rome as two aspects of the same phenomenon: Rome’s backlash against the Nazorean movement.

83. Cf., however, the ambiguous response attributed to Jesus in Mark 12.17a and pars. Matt 22.21, Luke 20.25, and Gos. Thom. 100: “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.” Note further, Josephus A.J. 18.4-10, 23-24 on the Jewish bid for independence from Rome. The Nazoreans’ apparent conception of the “kingdom of God” as referring to the Davidic kingdom of the Land of Israel has been almost completely depo- liticized and spiritualized in the New Testament. Ellis E. JENSEN, “The First Century Contro- versy over Jesus as a Revolutionary Figure,” JBL 60, no. 3 (1941) 261-72, esp. 264-5, 267- 72, citing Matt 4.8-10 (and par. Luke 4.5-8), 5.3-9, 25.34, 40; Luke 17.21, 23.42-43; John 6.14-15, 18.36-37 (“My kingdom is not of this world”); 1 Cor 15.50; etc. See also, Acts 1.6- 11. It is not the opinion of the present author that the word “pearls” in Matt 7.6 is necessarily authentic to the Nazoreans: pigs do not eat pearls, and the plural word “pearls” in Matt 7.6 does not match the singular form in Matt 13.45-46. A better choice for a reconstruction of Matt 7.6 may be “berries” (Lat., bacae = “berries,” “pearls,” etc.), and in this context berries suggest the produce of the Land of Israel, as described on the coins of the Jewish War of 66-73. See LAUPOT, “Christiani’s Rule over Israel,” 74-76, 77. However, such a reconstruction would change the meaning of Matt 7.6 very little; a full discussion of this point unfortu- nately lies beyond the scope of the present work.