Article 15 - summary of evidence for mutual parodies, and the Flavian Secrecy Cult (ignoring the APTVS pattern) 

Evidence for the Gospels and Jewish War being mutual parodies of each other, as Flavian Secrecy Cult literature, but ignoring the APTVS pattern (Article 15)

Introduction

Some scholars theorize that the Gospel of Luke is derivative of (or even parodies) Josephus’ history “Jewish War”. A minority view is that Jewish War might is derivative of (or parodies) the Gospel story. 

Both scenarios conflict with faith in Jesus; the former would be blasphemy to Christians, and the latter is very difficult for those Christians who like to highlight the text of Jewish War as the only ‘independent’ evidence from that era that Jesus actually existed. 

A third viewpoint – the mainstream one – is that the two documents merely draw on a common stock of general knowledge and literature. Indeed the mainstream view could hardly be any other way, since for much of the past 1700 years anyone with a different opinion faced exclusion from society.

My work has identified that, very unexpectedly, there is a fourth plausible scenario, which is remarkably well aligned with the available evidence, and involves both stories mutually parodying each other. 

The Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis

This fourth scenario is that Luke and Jewish War were written together under the direction of a Roman Emperor in the Flavian era (probably Vespasian: 69-79 AD), and written to mutually parody each other as part of a plan to promote worship of the Emperor: 

Stage 1. The first stage was to draw in Jews and Legionaries to follow the very attractive story of Jesus the peace-loving prophet and miracle-worker, using several written accounts that would seem convincingly independent, despite being conveniently anonymous. 

Stage 2. The second stage was to convince them to accept Jesus as the son of god i.e. a god (easily done thanks to how many hints are provided in the text to that effect).

Stage 3. The third stage was to reveal (under oath of secrecy) that Jesus’ story is consistently parallel with the story of the Emperor’s victory over Judea (in the official roman account – Jewish War), to such an extent that a priest could lead followers to conclude that the Emperor must be the eagerly awaited 2nd coming of Jesus - and thus to worship the Flavian Emperor as god. 

Stage 4. The final stage was reserved for followers who had become hooked on worshipping the Emperor. These Emperor worshippers could be shown the evidence that Luke mutually parodies the roman government’s account of the War, and thus logically must have the same origin.

As a result the followers would abandon faith in Jesus as anything other than a parable about their godly Emperor. The Emperor’s goal would have been achieved – converting Jews and Legionaries to PURE Flavian worship.

Why? Vespasian’s reign (and thus life) depended on preventing the Jewish War and Civil War that he had just won, from reigniting, and so it was a life-or-death priority for him to try to drive loyalty among those two audiences – Jews and Legionaries.

This is the basic idea. It is both the only plausible scenario that fits with Jewish War and Luke mutually parodying each other, and the only one that explains why they needed to.

The bigger picture 

Secrecy cult formation wasn’t exclusive to the Flavians, and they sit in the middle of a series of Emperors who sought to direct the cults towards worship of themselves. This bigger picture is below:

1. Augustus and Pre-Flavian Foundations: Augustus pioneered the divine imperial cult by promoting his own deification and endorsing secrecy mystery cults like Mithras, laying groundwork for emperors as semi-divine figures. Hadrian later referenced Augustus as a key origin for divine emperors, thus framing subsequent emperors as inheritors of an Augustan tradition of divine rulership maintained through ritual secrecy and mystery.
2. Vespasian’s Innovation: As the first Flavian, Vespasian adapted this tradition for post-Jewish War stabilization. Using pre-existing Pauline literature’s ‘Christos’ concept linked to mystery cult motifs (notably Mithras), Vespasian orchestrated a narrative placing Jesus’ birth in Augustus’ time to align sacred history with Roman authority. Vespasian positioned himself as a ‘second coming’ figure, targeting Jews and legionaries to secure postwar loyalty. It’s possible the first Gospel was Mark noting that it has more parallels with Vespasian’s military campaign, whereas Luke predominantly parallels Titus’ military campaign.
3. Titus as ‘the Son’ of God: Titus appears to have continued shaping the narrative, issuing the Gospel of Luke, along with an updated second version of Jewish War in a form that remained a mutual parody with Jesus’ story, but adjusting the details to make himself the focus of worship with his father as a two-fold godhead. As a result the surviving version of Jewish War seems to connect most strongly with Luke.
4. Domitian as the third God: Domitian extended this by commissioning John’s Gospel and Acts, embedding a triangle-number based puzzle to promote himself as the third aspect of God.
5. Trajan and Hadrian: These emperors fostered their integration into the divine imperial lineage. By continuing Flavian-style deification practices, promoting imperial cult temples, and encouraging public honors, they projected legitimate sacred continuity from Augustus through the Flavians to themselves. Simultaneously their reigns produced a volume of literature (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Trajan, Hadrian) distancing Rome from Christianity’s origins (e.g. claiming Christian persecutions under Nero) thereby preventing people from realising the Flavian’s role in Christianity’s origins.
6. Constantine’s Paradigm Shift: Constantine appropriated the lineage and authority of the Flavians but dispensed with secrecy cult practices and hidden meaning (sweeping Mithras to extinction at the same time). He emphasized a historical Jesus and openly endorsed Christianity as empire religion, authorizing Eusebian histories that further distanced the faith from Roman conspiracy. This cemented a new public identity for Christianity while removing possible imperial culpability. 
7. Post-Constantinian Continuity: Subsequent emperors perpetuated Constantine’s state religion, inheriting a Christianity framed as divine and imperial but distinctly independent from prior Roman mystery cult origins, ensuring sociopolitical cohesion under a unified religious-political order. 

This hypothesis is evidenced by a wealth of textual, historical and even archaeological information, consistently pointing to deliberate cross‑design. 

What this article adds

Most of my papers are structured around the APTVS pattern, which my readers will know as a pattern that specific coherent sequences of parallels (the mutual parodies between Luke and Jewish War) preferentially adhere to. 

This has left a misconception that the APTVS pattern is the key evidence for mutual parodies, and for readers might be tempted to dismiss it as ‘finding patterns in noise’ that misconception is dangerous.

This article will show that even if the APTVS pattern is ignored, the remaining evidence is robust, indeed arguably overwhelming, but at the very least deserving of much more attention. 

Section 1. Specific examples of evidence of interdependence between Luke and Jewish War 

Without further ado I will launch into several specific examples of textual interdependence – as follows:

1.1 A remarkable example where Titus on Galilee (JW) is parodied by Jesus on Galilee (Luke) which in turn is parodied right back by Josephus on Galilee (JW again).

This first example of mutual parody is so intensely detailed that I will use color to highlight links mainly in the 1st and 2nd stories, with capitals to highlight links between the 2nd and 3rd stories.

Step 1 – Jewish War describes Titus ‘fishing’ for men at Lake Galilee:

Jewish War 3.9.7-8, 3.10.2-10: Jewish War describes how Jews were ‘perverted/sick’, and proceeds to in modern terms, ethnically cleanse the Jews. He confronts a leader called Jesus and makes him depart. The city opened their gates/doors to him, crying out proclaiming him their savior, and he returns it to a “quiet” state (made them be quiet). On arrival he marched/walked the shore of Galilee, and ‘presented himself’ there to the enemy. He then sent the good news (using the word Evangelistai) to his father. Jews escaped in fishing vessels. He pursues them with a second group of fishing vessels, and his first attempt at dawn failed. During the daytime battle, the Jews jump from their ships into Lake Galilee. In the daytime attempt Titus’ men “enclose many” Jewish boats, with many of the boats sinking, and 6500 killed (implicitly an astonishing number taken). Notably, in a story set in the future relative to 30 AD we see that on Lake Galilee Titus has his men ‘catch men out of the water’, and cut their heads off (in a manner evoking catching fish). They brought their ships to the shore, and laid what they had caught there. The previous day, Jewish War records Titus urging his men to ‘fear not’. Titus caught many, and game some of those he had caught as a gift (to Agrippa as slaves). Implicitly the Jews sought to fight (make physical contact with) him, but were captured or ‘ethnically cleansed’ doing so. Implicitly the Jews were defeated. Then his father went (across or around the lake) to Tarichee and held council, and ends up effectively suggesting he might forgive their sins, buthis friends suggested this was wrong, and instead suggested something wrong/evil (to do what is profitable not what is right), so he gave them an ‘ambiguous liberty to leave’ and they went with their effects, only to be slaughtered on arrival at Tiberias (implicitly causing amazement and fear)

Step 2 – Luke presents Jesus at Lake Galilee, but it is a parody of Titus in Jewish War:

Luke 4-5 (with Matt, Mark, John): The sick Jews came to be healed by Jesus… Devils came out calling him son of god (equivalent to savior) and he made them depart. And the city was gathered at the gate/door, but he made the demons stop speaking (made them quiet). And Jesus told he would preach the good news (using the word Evangelistai). On arrival he walked the shore of LAKE GALILEE, and showed/presented himself in this way. And Jesus saw two fishing vessels - BOATS ON LAKE GALILEE, with fishermen“making a haul” (A GREAT MANY WERE CAUGHT USING THE BOATS). They had taken nothing the previous night (failed attempt at/before dawn), and ‘had no meat’. In the daytime HE ENTERED A BOAT and asked them to thrust out, TO STAY A SUITABLE DISTANCE FROM THE SHORE, and taught the people out of the boat – i.e. FROM THE BOATS HE INSTRUCTED THOSE ON THE SHORE, and they enclosed many fish and THE SHIPS BEGAN TO SINK LOWER IN THE WATER. A jew (SIMON) fell down at Jesus’ feet (metaphor for defeat) WANTING HIM TO DEPART and cast himself into Lake Galilee (LEAP OUT OF THE BOAT INTO LAKE GALILEE), astonished at how many they had taken. Jesus tells his men that in the future relative to 30 AD, he will make his men ‘become fishers of men’ and ‘catchers of men’ (or as the Marcion version puts it ‘taking men alive’) and that ‘you will catch men’ (using a Greek word which has connotations of catching prisoners as slaves). There were FOUR MEN IN THE BOAT and Jesus said “Fear not”, and they brought their ships to the shore, and laid what they had caught there.  Jesus gave some of what had been caught (as a gift). The Jews were continually trying to touch his robe (make physical contact), and all who did so were ‘made perfectly whole’. Then Jesus WENT OVER THE LAKE TO ANOTHER SIDE and held council. Jesus said ‘your sins be forgiven’ but others said what Jesus was doing was wrong, and Jesus commented this was evil. Jesus askedif it is easier to say your sins are forgiven or ‘arise and walk’ (an ambiguous liberty to leave)… take your effects and go… and they were amazed and filled with fear. 

Luke 6:6-11 continues: And ON THE SABBATH, Jesus taught: and there was A MAN WHOSE ‘RIGHT’ HAND WAS WITHERED. Jesus told him to rise and stand forth. And Jesus asked… “Is it lawful.. to save life, OR TO DESTROY LIFE? And Jesus told the man: STRETCH FORTH YOUR HAND, AND HE DID SO AND THE HAND WAS RESTORED AS THE OTHER. And THEY WERE VERY ANGRY and discussed what they might do to Jesus. To which the Gospel of John adds “BUT THE PEOPLE ON THE SHORE SAW ONLY THE BOATS WITH THE DISCIPLES. ‘HOW WAS IT THAT OTHER BOATS CAME FROM TIBERIUS?’””

Step 3. – Jewish War then presents Josephus at Lake Galilee, that is a subtler parody of Jesus at Lake Galilee:

Jewish War 2.21.8-10: After he had captured SIMON and the other three commanders, Josephus got 230 boats, i.e. many BOATS ON LAKE GALILEE. But in each boat he put no more than FOUR MEN IN THE BOAT and had them stay TO STAY A SUITABLE DISTANCE FROM THE SHORE so as to falsely appear to be full (i.e. THE PEOPLE ON THE SHORE ONLY SAW THE BOATS) to those on the SHORE OF LAKE GALILEE… And HE ENTERED A BOAT and WENT OVER THE LAKE TO ANOTHER SIDE to threaten Tiberias [and implicitly Tiberias was WANTING HIM TO DEPART]. The city via signals sought to surrender to the boats (implicitly FROM THE BOATS HE INSTRUCTED THOSE ON THE SHORE to surrender). And he took 7 guards, and arrested men of Tiberias in batches, first ten, then fifty, and eventually 600 of their senate and 'about' 2000 of the populace, meaning that A GREAT MANY WERE CAUGHT USING THE BOATS – and at nearly 10 extra men per boat it is at least implicit that THE SHIPS BEGAN TO SINK LOWER IN THE WATER, and then his boats LEFT TIBERIUS and WENT OVER THE LAKE TO ANOTHER SIDE to Taricheae. The citizens declared the uprising of Josephus so he tried to send ‘Levius’ (mirroring John Levi) to cut his hands off although he was afraid to go. Clitus was also too terrified to come forwards. And Josephus was in such passion he was ready to LEAP OUT OF THE BOAT INTO LAKE GALILEE to punish John himself. And once the 2000 men had been taken, the people blamed Clitus for the revolt against Josephus, asking him to ‘SPEND HIS ANGER ON HIM. But Josephus ‘wanted to slay nobody’ (I.e., DIDN’T WANT TO DESTROY LIFE), so he planned to cut both off Clitus’ hands off. But Josephus agreed that if Clitus cut one hand off himself, he would only need to lose one hand. So Clitus cut his left hand off with his own sword. So IN EFFECT JOSEPHUS SAVED ‘CLITUS’ RIGHT HAND FROM BEING LOST.(Jewish War 361 indicates these events happened ON THE SABBATH).

If we compare the 1st and 2nd stories, so many conceptually matching motifs occur in just one paragraph of Jewish War and a compact section of Luke, that they clearly read as intentionally parallel stories. 

If we compare the 2nd and 3rd stories, there are also a remarkable density of parallels, and given the obviously intentional links between the 1st and 2nd it is clear that the 3rd story is intentionally parallel too.

The obvious next question is: Which document is parodying which?

Firstly observe that Titus’ story is not only corroborated historically in broad terms, but is presented as a dry, plausible, magic-free historical description, and by contrast Jesus’ story is a magical one involving miracle (fish catching) and prophecy (prediction of the ‘men catching men on the Lake’ events in Jewish War). Notice also that when Jesus says ‘you will catch men’ he uses the rare verb “ζωγρέω” which has explicit wartime connotations in Greek literature, as meaning to catch prisoners as slaves. So Luke is a parody, referencing the military events in Jewish War.

Next observe the two-to-one nature of the parody. If Luke is parodying JW twice, this struggles to explain why JW has two stories with such similarities as to enable them to be linked to by Jesus’ single Galilee story (e.g. both involve a leader having men catch men on Galilee in boats). Notice also that Josephus’ story uses cryptic clues – for example where Jesus restores the right hand of the man, Josephus agrees to a compromise where instead of losing his right, hand Clitus would cut off his left hand, thereby saving the right hand. It requires lateral thinking, which means it is hidden. The text that is hiding clues is the one doing the parodying.

Upshot: Josephus on Galilee (JW) is parodying Jesus on Galilee (Luke), which in turn is parodying Titus on Galilee (JW again). It’s a remarkable example the stories mutual parodying each other.

1.2 Jesus parodies Titus’ Triumph in Jewish War, and four General in Jewish War parody Jesus’ Jesus’ execution – they parody each other as listed below:

A) Jesus parodies Titus’ Triumph in Jewish War 

• In Jewish War, Titus’s triumph is a public spectacle: purple robes, clowns of leaves (laurel), and the procession of spoils past the Temple, with Simon forced to go there to the execution atCapitoline hill, a hill site whose name is the Latin word for head (Capit), and which is recorded by Suetonius as being a place named after a skull. He is proffered wine and refuses it, the romansoldiers do an attestation to him, and Jewish women weep. 
• In Luke Jesus is given an improbably expensive royal purple robe, and crowned with leaves (thorns), not far from the temple of Jerusalem, with Simon forced to go there to the execution, at the hill named for a skull. He is proffered wine and refuses it, the roman soldiers do an attestation to him and thousands of Jewish Women are forced miserably along.
• Jesus’ story also contains links to Emperor-hood throughout – the gifts he receives as a baby are those of an Emperor. The palm branches at Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem parallels their use in Jewish War for celebration and triumph during Titus’ procession. Jesus is described as coming with a sword, a ‘king’ of the Jews (matching Titus and Vespasian, since their empire contained it), and so forth.
• The sequence – mock regalia, procession, and execution – maps almost line-for-line onto the Titus procession, but inverted to seem like it would be a critique of imperial triumphalism (which marries with a hypothesis that Jesus’ story was created by the Flavians to attract Jews, only to then lead them to worship the Flavians). Directionality of this parody can be identified since Jewish War is clearly factual when it describes a purple robe, laurel crowns, and the execution being at a hill site linked to the word skull (the Capitoline) – so Jesus’ story is the parody here.
• These of course are merely an example of the many ways that Jesus’ story parodies Titus and Vespasian – see section 1 for more details.

B) Josephus’s Cavern Escape as Resurrection Parody

• Josephus’ implausible survival and rise from his grave-like death-filled cavern on the third day, at the hands of a man who was seen as a god (the later deified Vespasian), is crafted as a parody of Jesus’s tomb-resurrection. The cavern’s sideways entry and upward exit offer a cryptic clue matching the shape of a sepulchre.​ Josephus’ story continues later on with him being thought to be dead outside Jerusalem at the age of 33, only to rise up alive, to confound his mother’s expectations, and to show his wounds to Simon (exactly mirroring Jesus’ story). 
• The parallels continue, and are almost too numerous to list – for example: like Jesus, Josephus prophesied that his city would fall to the romans and also predicted when it would happen. His associates match the names of Jesus’ associates. So this should be seen as merely an important example out of the many ways that Josephus’ story parodies that of Jesus – see section 2 for more details.

In addition to the Supreme General, Josephus, ANOTHER THREE Generals in Jewish War parody Jesus’ Resurrection

• Jewish War presents FOUR Generals as echoes of the Gospel resurrection motif, evidencing a deliberate cross-text design, aside from Josephus, the other three are:
  • C) Cestius’s Gorge Escape: The Roman General Cestius withdraws into a gorge (below the surface), which as with Josephus’ story echoes the shape and function of a sepulchre by containing ‘narrow’ passages and dead people. He becomes trapped with graphic scenes of being attacked from all sides, but on the third day he escapes death, and emerges from below alive. Notice that Jewish War introduces him briefly, and then almost never mentions him again. ​
  • D) Niger’s Subterranean Return: The Jewish General Niger leaps – extremely implausibly – from a burning tower down and lands somehow still alive in a subterranean chamber (described for no apparent reason as having an ‘innermost’ part mirroring the structure of a sepulchre), and surfaces from the cavern on the third day, after talking to those who were looking for him (like Jesus did), and receiving a reception that indicates messianic expectations by his followers. Notice that Jewish War introduces him briefly, and then almost never mentions him again.
  • E) Simon’s Purple Rise: The Jewish General Simon Gioras emerges alive from a cavern under Jerusalem (again with a mention of a tunnel being dug sideways, echoing the structure of a sepulchre) and indeed under the Jewish Temple itself, wearing a purple cloak, in a story that then references the Triumph which Jesus’ execution mirrors – i.e. it’s fully circular - another piece of information supporting the co-design hypothesis.
• Aside from cryptic clues such as the references to the shape of a sepulchre particularly in Josephus’ story, the many-to-one relationship shows the direction of the parody. If we suppose that Jesus’ story was parodying all FIVE generals in Jewish War (i.e. it’s one way rather than mutual parodies), then why do three of them overcome a subterranean death to emerge on the third day? The hypothesis cannot explain this. 
• Similarly if we suppose that it is only Jewish War that is parodying Jesus’ story, why then does Jesus’ story mirror aspects of Titus’ Triumph parade which must then by reasonably accepted as factual (ending at the place linked to a skull – the “Capit”olinum named for a skull, or the enemy general Simon led to public execution, the attestation, the purple robe and refusal of wine which were all standard tradition for a returning Roman conqueror).
• Additionally to the cryptic references, and the many-to-one parodying, we can readily find a message, that when Jesus overcomes death and evil (or Hades to use the language in the Gospel of John) it is not coincidentally at Jerusalem. By having Simon emerge in the spot where the Jewish God was believed to physically reside, and by describing Titus’ arrival as allowing huge numbers of Jews to escape via an unspecified ‘gate’ of Jerusalem – the message is that Jerusalem itself is the gate of Hades, and thus that the Jewish God is its guardian – in modern terms the devil. It’s a hidden antisemitic message that shouts very loudly once the puzzle is solved. Not only does this align with Luke describing an ‘evil’ Jewish generation, criticising the doctrine of the Pharisees, and his blood forever on the hands of Jews, it’s a message that perfectly aligns with the propaganda objectives of Titus and Vespasian who were trying to crush Jewish exceptionalism. 
• Indeed we see the same hand at work, where Jesus reframes the ten commandments to a ‘certain’ rich ruler, but when he does so he only mentions the ones that would suit Titus’ objectives – for example the requirement to only worship the Jewish God and obey the Sabbath are go unmentioned. Instead 
• The way Jesus’ execution with Simon parodies Titus’ Triumph execution of Simon, with Jewish War parodying Jesus’ resurrection in four places, along with these hidden antisemitic and pro-roman messages, gives us confidence that the stories are co-written to contain mutual parodies of each other, with the original goal that this would be used to drive people of the Empire to follow Jesus, but then be led to worship the man his story conceptually matches, namely Titus (i.e. as the 2nd coming) and to hate his enemy – Judaism. 
• The presence of mutual parodies can only be explained if the author intended that these would be revealed to show that Luke and Jewish War were co-written, in order to show that Jesus is a fictional story. The only plausible explanation is that the author planned of Jesus followers to be led to accept the Flavian Emperor as the second coming, only to then have their faith in Jesus undermined.

1.3 The Passover Ritual Parodies

In both Luke and the famine story in Jewish War, we find that every requirement of the Passover ritual is either mentioned or conceptually evoked. 

Examples in Luke: The requirement not to break the bones of the lamb sacrificial lamb (which the soldiers specifically consider in relation to Jesus the lamb of God, and then decide against) applying of hyssop to the lamb sacrifice (Jesus being touched with hyssop on the cross) the lamb on a wooden steak to be cooked with fire (mirrored the cross), the requirement to put blood on horizontal and vertical posts of a door (Jesus’ cross getting blood on both types of posts, with this acting as a portal to his battle with death), the requirement of eating unleavened bread at passover (the passion narrative at Passover and last supper where he broke the unleavened bread) etc, Herod tries to kill Jesus when he is the right age to be a passover ritual sacrifice. And so on.

Examples in the famine story in Jewish War – Mary eats her son who is the right age to be a Passover ritual sacrifice, the baby being eaten has hyssop in its bloodline (being descended from the house of hyssop), a man called Jesus is whipped to the bone (without breaking bones) and another man is skewered up through his body from between the legs (like a lamb roast). Robbers who are drunk (evoking wine – the famous Christian metaphor for blood) go ‘reeling’ into doorposts, and the desperate Jews are so hungry they snatch bread from the oven whilst it is only half baked (a cryptic way to evoke the concept of unleavened bread). And so on.

In this article I am ignoring the APTVS pattern, because I want to focus on describing the remaining evidence demonstrating mutual parodies, so I will not focus here on how all of these 39 (possibly 40, which would make sense perhaps) Passover requirements are evoked in the two stories in locations that all match the APTVS pattern. 

Instead however, I would point out that both Luke and the famine story in Jewish War are curious in that they evoke all 39 required acts of the Passover ritual in exactly one or two locations – never zero locations, and never three or more, and furthermore that these appear in a highly cluster (non-random) set of locations. 

Irrespective what unknown symbolism might be the reason for that consistent number, even without mentioning the APTVS pattern, this alone carries some weight since this by itself is highly improbable. 

Whilst it is possible to imagine a reason why Jesus’ story might evoke every required act of Passover once or twice, only the mutual parodies thesis offer us a rationale for why Jewish War would do this and in a clustered fashion. The reason is that (even if we continue to ignore the APTVS pattern) this clustering alone contributes evidence that Luke and Jewish War were co-written. The author’s reason for doing this can be seen in the Flavian secrecy cult theory – namely that the author wanted to be able to convince dual Jesus-Titus worshippers to appreciate that Luke and Jewish War must be co-written, in order that they would see Luke as a creation of the roman government (or perhaps think it was written by Titus himself), allowing the priest to lead them to become pure Titus worshippers. 

Adding weight to the hypothesis of Luke and Jewish War being written together to a common purpose, we observe that both stories hide the references to each requirement of Passover cryptically. I have already given examples earlier of how Jewish War hides the concept that the baby has Hyssop in it’s bloodline or that the baby is of the correct age required by the Passover ritual, and in passing I noted examples where Luke is nearly as cryptic – for example Herod tries to kill Jesus and specifies an age range that covers, rather than matches, the age range required in the Passover ritual. Or for example how you have to note that Hyssop was proffered to Jesus’ face, but his face would be covered with blood due to having been ‘smote’ on the face, thereby arriving at confirmation that Hyssop touched his blood.

More examples are found in Jewish War where ‘drunk’ robbers reel into doors, which requires lateral thinking to see that this is a reference to wine (a metaphor for blood) and doorposts (the Passover ritual requiring blood to be applied to doorposts). Another example is where the Jews are described as so hungry they snatch the bread out of the over half baked (a cryptic reference to unleavened bread), or how the seditious had their throats cut at the altar (mirroring the Passover ritual) whilst the building was set on fire (mirroring the requirement to cook with fire), or how the Jesus in Jewish War is whipped ‘to the bone’ (mirroring the requirement to not break the sacrifice’s bones), and the killing of numerous people all happening at the 9th hour (mirroring the requirement to kill the sacrifice at the 9th hour). A more cryptic clue still is found where Mary says “I have eaten one half [of the baby], let the rest be reserved for me too” which evokes the Passover ritual requirement that no food should be left uneaten.

There are also more examples where Luke is hides its references cryptically. For example it is a Passover requirement for the lamb to be without blemish. We find this in Luke where Pilate declares Jesus to be without fault (if there was any doubt that this is equivalent to ‘without blemish’ 1 Peter 1:18-19 helpfully confirms that they are indeed equivalent). 

Another clue that Jewish War is parodying Luke, is found in the Slavonic tradition of Jewish War, where cannibal Mary goes on to say that here baby is not merely a ‘fury’ but a parable! (in my papers I tend to use the term modern term ‘parody’ rather than parable, but there is not much difference beyond that in a parody at least the author must find their work to be a source of amusement, and this is evidently the case although sadly we find only a sick racist, and deeply antisemitic humor). 

Examples like these, along with the way both Luke and Jewish War act to conceal them, show that both documents are written to conceal clues relating to the same puzzle, and as such they are working together to present it (the solution to the puzzle simply being the realisation that Luke and Jewish War were co-written and thus Jesus is a fiction of the roman government).

This is why this particular piece of evidence (even in the absence of discussion of the APTVS pattern) only supports the hypothesis that Luke and Jewish War were co-written.

1.4. The timelines of the two Jesuses add together to give Titus’ birthday.

Jewish War presents a strange story about a Jesus (Jesus Ananus) in Jerusalem, who also prophecies the demise of Jerusalem. Jewish War - very improbably - describes how this Jesus calls out ‘woe to Jerusalem’ continuously for 7 years 5 months ‘without getting hoarse’, until he was hit and killed by one of Titus’ catapult stones. 

This death by catapult stone is curiously mirrored in another part of Jewish War which describes that Titus fires stones over Jerusalem’s walls causing the Jews to – again improbably! – cry out that “THE SON COMES” (something that has had scholars scratching their heads over for centuries by the way). This occurs 3 months before the fall of Jerusalem. If we identify the two stories as connected, this Jesus Ananus was prophesying the fall of Jerusalem 7 years and 8 months before it happens..

The Gospels present us with a timeline for Jesus’ lifetime, ending in Nisan (i.e. April) 33 AD, and emphasise that events revealing his second coming would come to pass within a generation, which at that time was taken to mean 40 years, and that it is necessary to born again to see the kingdom of God, that he would rise on the 3rd day, that his second coming would be revealed by the fall of Jerusalem (which Jewish War describes as an act completed by Titus).

If we add the timeline of the two Jesus’ together – i.e. April 33 AD, plus 7 years 8 months, we arrive at the end of AD 39 / beginning of AD 40, we arrive at Titus’ birthday, which according to the calendar of the time, was the 3rd day before the year AD 40 (according to Suetonius). 

We can see a clear message here, that Jesus will be ‘born again’ in the form of his second coming, which will be Emperor Titus, the very person who performed the act (destroying Jerusalem) that would reveal the second coming.

1.5 The message about the Jewish God having no resting place on earth

• When Jesus says that the temple will be destroyed with “no stone upon another”, this seems like nothing more than an accurate description (and seemingly a miraculous prophecy) of what happened. 
• Interestingly, this is mirrored in Jewish War, in a manner that reveals a propaganda narrative. Jewish War describes Jerusalem’s temple as being so utterly destroyed and levelled that “no-one would think it had been inhabited”. This is a very clear jibe at the Jewish belief of the time, that the Jewish God very literally and physically resided in the back room of their holiest temple, behind the grand curtain. It’s a message that Jews should reconsider this belief.
• Curiously, we then find this again in separate parallel where Jewish War describes a man called Lupus, which is well known for meaning “Wolf” who destroys a great temple ‘built to resemble Jerusalem’, with his successor completing that task, such that – in the words of Jewish War – “there remained no longer the least remnant of any Divine worship in that place”.
• I think my reader will forgive me if I suggest that “Wolf” and “Fox” have a strong enough connection that one can be used in a parody of a story that uses the other, and indeed that the Roman army, which surrounded Jerusalem has a formation with wings, like a bird. Putting this together, we find this parodied in Luke 9 where it says that “Foxes have holes, and birds nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head”. It’s a metaphor about the destruction of the Jewish God’s resting place on earth, implicitly leaving him with no resting place – i.e. nowhere to lay his head.
• Indeed, if my reader is tempted to think this is a weak connection, notice that Jewish War (2.20.7) specifically details how the Roman army formation attacks with left and right “wings”, ahead of the assault on Jerusalem, whilst Luke 13 parodies this by first mentioning the surrounding of Jerusalem from all four compass directions and then almost immediately adding the comment “Oh Jerusalem… I would have gathered your children as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you refuse me” – it’s talking about the Roman army’s wings surrounding Jerusalem, and this brings in the concept of a bird. Similarly, the later work by Josephus “Antiquities” (a lengthened version of the first half of Jewish War) adds an extra comment (in Ant 19.270) specifying for no apparent reason, that “Lupus means Wolf” as though the author had decided to that the clues weren’t obvious enough. 
• Notice that whilst Jewish War contributes the name Lupus (Wolf) and the concept of Wings, Luke adds to this by contributing the concept of Bird, and Luke then brings all these together in Luke 9 referring to “Foxes…birds… but [God] has nowhere to lay his head” which Jewish War reinforces, saying that Jerusalem was left in a state so “nobody would have thought it was inhabited”. This tendency for both texts to contribute clues, aligns with the premise that the texts are written to work together to deliver a propaganda message.

In this example, as much as the parodies themselves, the way Luke and Josephus work together to push the narrative that the Jewish God’s no longer has a resting place on earth, points to a common design.

1.6 The Gospels completing Jewish War’s story

Jewish War describes that when Titus destroyed Jerusalem, General Simon of Gioras was captured hiding in its ruins (he’s the one that pops up out of an underground cavern right under where the holy temple was, parodying Jesus’ resurrection). Jewish War describes how it was roman law that the enemy General would be captured and taken alive to be dragged along in the returning conqueror’s Triumph parade. 

The way Josephus himself – who claims to have been the supreme Jewish leader – is supposedly spared this treatment goes without comment whatsoever, but Jewish War certainly describes how General Simon was preserved for that Triumph parade, and dragged along with a rope around his head, up to the Capitoline and the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, for this pivotal public execution in the forum. Jewish War details how everyone had to stand still, quietly waiting for the public execution to occur, and that the people let out a great shout for joy when it was done. 

But notice that whilst Jewish War treats this as an important moment, it is completely silent on the manner of the execution. 

Stunningly perhaps, the Gospel of John comes to the rescue by providing that missing piece of information. 

Luke 2 and 23 set the scene - describing how at the outset, at a sacrifice performed in Jerusalem by Jesus’ parents, a man called Simeon was told he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ, and at the end a man called Simon is made to march in Jesus’ procession, carrying the cross to the execution at the place of the skull – which parodies the Triumph parade leading to the execution at the place named for a skull (the Capitoline, supposedly named after a skull found in its foundations, since Capit is Latin for head).

John 21 fills in the details which I will provide here: 

After catching the great fish in Lake Galilee, Jesus has Simon collect the fish for them to eat, and Jesus said to Simon son of Jonas (notice how it sounds similar to Simon of Gioras) “do you love me more than these”. (It is unstated what Jesus refers to when he says ‘these’, but plausibly he refers to the fish he had just retrieved, which – if you recall from section 1 – are a metaphor for the Jews that Titus captured on Lake Galilee). 

In short, Jesus is asking if Simon loves him, and possibly is asking if he loves him more than the Jews.

Simon replies “yes”

Jesus replies “feed my lamblets”

Jesus asks him a second time “do you love me” Simon replies “yes”.

Jesus replies “tend my four-legged beasts” (the greek word probate is used, generically meaning four legged beasts, which includes by way of example, lions).

Jesus says a third time “Simon son of Jonas (notice the phonetic similarity to Simon of Gioras), do you love me?

Simon was deeply hurt, because Jesus said it a third time. Simon replied “yes”.

Jesus told Simon “Feed my four-legged beasts”

And Jesus continued, saying “Truly I tell you [Simon], when you were young, you tied/girded yourself (the greek phrase implies tightening one’s belt) and walked where you wanted, but when you will be old you will stretch forth your hands, and another shall tie you, and carry you where you do not want to go. This, Jesus said, indicating the death by which Simon should glorify God. And when he had spoken this he said “Follow me”

What can be seen here is a composite of three characters all called Simon being presented in the Gospels, offering a message that the death of Simon Jonas/Gioras involved being tied, and forced to go to his death, which involves feeding Jesus’ “Four legged beasts” (or rather Titus’ obviously).

It fills in the noticeable omission in Jewish War, which fails to mention that Simon Jioras was subjected to the roman punishment of death “ad Bestias” – being torn apart by wild animals, which traditionally included lions or tigers. 

Indeed the New Testament doesn’t stop there. Revelation chimes in by mirroring what Jewish War says about Titus’ Triumph parade, and adding extra detail – as follows:

• Jewish War describes the huge procession, and that it was so vast it was “as one may say, running along like a river” along the streets of Rome (a river of living people, so to speak) with how Titus and Vespasian leading it (two men who sit on thrones, who were seen as Gods, and later defied as gods, are at the source of this river of living people), and states, with huge riches on display, including a “vast number of transparent precious stones (i.e. crystals)”, and that it passed through the “Gate of Pomp” which all Triumphs must pass through, a giant stone gate which straddles “either side” of the great parade (this important gate straddles either side of this river of living people), and which had murals/images (it could be said to have leaves of a sort) sculpted on its sides.
• Revelation 22:1-5 mirrors this, saying that an angel showed a river of the water of life that was a clear as crystal, extends down the middle of the great street of the city (a living river down the great street of the city), from the throne of God and of the Lamb (two Gods that have thrones, are at the source of this river of life). On either side of the river stood a tree of life, and the leaves of this tree are for the healing of nations (something that can be described as having leaves of a sort, straddles either side of the river of life).
  • Josephus: Frequent – War 2.254, 2.425, 7.253, Ant. 20.186–208.

As with John 21, Revelation 22:1-5 also provides a few additional details of those at the source of this living river, such as that ‘they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads’ which appears to mirror the idea that Jews would be converted to worship the Emperor.

In summary, especially the example in John 21 offers detail to fill a noticeable omission in the narrative of Jewish War. This is easy to square with the hypothesis that Jewish War and Luke produced by a single source, and written to mutually parody each other, with other texts such as John, Revelation and Antiquities written later from the same source (at least generally, e.g. the roman government, although  not necessarily the same person) and acting to reinforce that parody.

1.7 Two examples of Luke parodying the way that Jewish War parodies Luke – Mary’s soul pierced, and woe to those who breastfeed.

In section 2 I described how the story of cannibal Mary eating her breastfeeding baby in Jewish War acts as a parody of Jesus presenting himself as a sacrifice for us to eat his flesh. 

In Jewish War (6.3.4) whilst it is busy describing this cannibal Mary who was breastfeeding her baby boy, and parodying Jesus’ passion narrative, it throws in the seemingly unnecessary and oddly specific comment that “the famine pierced her very ‘bowels and marrow’”.

Interestingly, this in turn is mirrored in Luke when it describes Mary being told by Simeon that “Yea a sword shall pierce through your (i.e. Mary’s) own soul, so that the thoughts of many.. may be revealed”.  

In case the reader is unconvinced that Luke is mirroring the statement in Jewish War, this is confirmed by observing that when Luke says the word ‘soul’ it actually uses the Greek word for animal innards – which matches the description of “bowels and marrow” in Jewish War. 

Whilst it was short, a careful reading of Mary’ baby sacrifice in Jewish War reveals that it is most certainly parodying Jesus’ self-sacrifice, and Luke’s reference to Mary being pierced in the innards clearly references Mary’s pierced ‘bowels and marrow’ right back.

Indeed there is a second location where Luke references the cannibal Mary in Jewish War who was breastfeeding the boy in Jerusalem before killing and eating him, where Luke says “they will encompass [Jerusalem], woe to them with child, and who breastfeed”. It’s almost as though the author was having fun hiding clues, that could later be revealed to show that Luke and Jewish War were co-written.

Most of the examples I’ve shown of mutual parody involve one bit of text offering a parody in one direction, and an adjacent bit of text offering a parody in the opposite direction. However these examples reveal fully circular referencing; Luke is parodying how Jewish War parodies itself, which makes it a fascinating example of evidence in favour of the two texts being co-written.

1.8 Examples of unique vocabulary shared between Josephus’ works and the New Testament

Ironically, I only discovered this this piece of information when I asked Gemini to try to find evidence against the Flavian Secrecy Cult model. 

It suggested that “it is known that Acts [which is almost universally accepted as from the same source as Luke] uses unique Josephan vocabulary, e.g. terms for Sicarii and assassin” and went on to suppose that this “indicates the author of Luke had read Josephus’ works and adopted his specific terminology.” 

It’s fascinating that the author of Josephus’ works and the author of Luke use unique vocabulary found in no other literature, whilst it is correct that this evidence supports other hypotheses – such as that Luke derives from Josephus or vice versa, it strongly supports my thesis that they are the same source. 

I dug a little more into this, to see if there were even more examples than the two Gemini proposed. Scholar Steve Mason has long noted that Luke and Acts in particular show an unusually close lexicon with Josephus’ works. 

Key examples:

1. Σικάριοι (sicarii, “dagger-men”)

• NT: Only Acts 21:38.
• Elsewhere (1st c.): Not found in any pre-Josephus Greek author.
• After Josephus: Rarely appears, mainly as a Latinism in later Christian or Byzantine authors (Eusebius HE 2.21.1 echoes Acts/Josephus).
• Conclusion: Essentially unique to Josephus and Acts.

2. Φίλος τοῦ Καίσαρος (“Friend of Caesar”)

• Josephus: Several times – a formal title (e.g., Ant. 15.373, War 1.400; Herod and others named φίλοι Καίσαρος).
• NT: John 19:12.
• Elsewhere (1st c.):
  • Philo: never uses the phrase.
  • Administrative Greek papyri and inscriptions: attest φίλος Καίσαρος / φίλος Σεβαστοῦ as a Roman honorific; e.g., P. Oxy. 2435, IG II² 3464 (1st–2nd c.).
• Suetonius uses a Latin version (amicus Caesaris) as a title.
• Conclusion: John and Josephus use a rare technical term found only in Imperial administration (Roman court terminology) – which is not general Koine Greek.

3. Use of the word Πραιτώριον (praetorium) to describe Jerusalem’s palace.

• Josephus: War 2.301; Ant. 18.90; Life 66 – the Roman governor’s residence.
• NT: Mark 15:16; Matt 27:27; John 18–19; Acts 23:35.
• Conclusion: Whilst other authors use the word, they never do so in reference to Jerusalem’s palace / governor’s residence.

 4. Ἡ παρασκευή (“Preparation [day]”)

• Josephus: Ant. 16.163 (in an Augustan decree).
• NT: Mark 15:42; John 19:14, 31, 42; etc.
• Conclusion: Virtually limited to Josephus and the Gospels as a fixed term for the day before the Sabbath.

5. Ὁ Αἰγύπτιος (the Egyptian [prophet])

• Josephus: War 2.261–263; Ant. 20.169–172.
• NT: Acts 21:38.
• Conclusion: The combination of “ὁ Αἰγύπτιος” as a messianic rebel leader is exclusive to Josephus and Acts, and not found in any other surviving 1st century text (only mentioned later in Eusebius and Jerome when they cite Josephus and Acts).
  
   

1.9 Jewish War’s description of multiple victories, with defendants failing because they fell asleep, and Titus coming in over the city walls (in one case ‘coming in a cloud’) summed up by Jesus talking of defeat whilst his disciples sleep, him evading lynching at the cliff edge, and ‘coming in a cloud with power and glory’.

What’s fascinating about this example is that it calling it ‘mutual parodies’ almost undersells what’s going on, and really it’s just two stories written to work together as a combined literary work.

First observe how Jewish War 3.7.34 it describes Titus coming over the walls of Jotapata (where Josephus gets captured). It mentions that this was achieved by virtue of a Galilean Jew who refused to speak despite being crucified, leading Vespasian to trust a Jewish deserter who betrayed Josephus. 

Notice how Jewish War here parodies Luke’ story of Jesus’ Passion narrative, but yet also goes on to say that this deserter told Vespasian the hour during which the city guards would sleep, namely the hour before dawn or ‘last watch of the night’ in the morning (i.e. at dawn), and how the Roman forces advanced quietly ‘at the hour’ they had been told. 

Notice that these details are then parodied back in the Gospels (Matthew 13:35, 14:41) where it says “Watch therefore: for you do not know when the master of the house comes, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping….Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.”

Indeed Jewish War goes on to describe how Titus (the son of our duo) led his forces over the city walls, and with only one roman fatality managed to kill 40,000 Jews, assisted by the descent of a providential “mist” (the son came in power and glory in a cloud!)

Again, this detail too is parodied back, in the Gospels (Luke 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.)

So, already we have Luke’s passion narrative parodied in JW with Luke then parodying the location that parodies it – but… there’s more.

Titus’ triumphant attack storming over the walls of Jotapata and causing the Jews to die and commit suicide, is only one of several locations where this happens. In each of the following sieges, JW describes the Jews in the city killing themselves in large numbers, so that Vespasian/Titus doesn’t have to, and the Romans come in among them, by coming over the wall of a city, which in each case is located on the brow of a hill:

• In Jewish War 424 (3.7.34) (Titus leads romans over Jotapata’s walls – Jews kill themselves),
• In Jewish War 433 (3.8.7) (Romans come over Gamala’s walls – Jews kill themselves),
• In Jewish War 647 (6.9.4) (Attacking over Jerusalem’s walls – Jews kill themselves),
• In Jewish War 684 (7.9.1) (Attacking over Masada's walls – Jews kill themselves).

In these examples the Flavian prevails overcoming the walls of the city, and the Jews all die. It’s a bit of a theme in Jewish War. It’s propaganda of course. It’s claiming roman military superiority.

But notice now that Luke evokes this too in Luke 4:29-30, describing how the Jews led Jesus to the brow of the hill that their city was built on, and tried to cast him down headlong, yet “he passed through the midst of them and went his way”.

Normally I would argue that since this is a many-to-one parallel Jewish War is parodying Luke, but instead in this example we see a coherent propaganda message in Jewish War being repeated, which is parodied in Luke.

To sum up:

First we have the Luke passion narrative of the crucified Jew and betrayer, being parodied in JW’s description of Jotapata with the crucified Jew and betrayer.

In doing so JW provides further details about the taking of the city involving the men sleeping and a certain hour that the master comes, and describing the son of man coming in power and glory in a cloud, which are then parodied back by Luke.

And then we find that in JW this is merely one of several related messages about Titus, (the son) prevailing at the brow of the hill of the city, with the Jews unable to prevent him passing through him – which are parodied by Luke saying the same things.

In short: Again we find Luke’s narrative is parodied by JW, which is then parodied back by Luke, but the two stories reinforce a common message of the son being able to overcome Jews at the brow of their hilltop cities, which shows they simply are written to work together. To describe this as ‘mutual parodies’ undersells what the author is doing.

Section 2. Evidence for Luke parodying Jewish War

Clearly if Luke parodies Jewish War in huge detail, and vice versa, it follows that they mutually parody each other. In this section 2, I will show the former, and then in section 3 I will show the latter.

2.2 The hidden meaning in how the story of the Good Samaritan parodies Jewish War

• In Luke 10, Jesus is asked to clarify whom you should love as your neighbour. In answer to this, Jesus tells of a man coming down from Jerusalem who was set on by Robbers, who left him half dead. A Samaritan came to help, and rode the man to an inn, handing over two denarii coins (coins that typically feature the face of a Flavian Emperor such as Titus, i.e. the Samaritan can be identified as presenting the face of an Emperor twice).
• This mirrors Jewish War 5.2 which describes Jews, led by their Generals that it refers repeatedly to as “Robbers” who came down from Jerusalem, and killed many (but not all) romans in the camp. Titus, who had just come south after conquering Samaria (i.e. he could not be considered a Samarian ruler) came to help these fallen men. Titus fought them (if you read the Slavonic version it even mentions he ‘rode’ in, although that is implicit since he was the General). According to Jewish War Titus saved the Legion twice that day (i.e. a ‘Samarian’ of sorts, showed his face – the face of an Emperor that is – twice to save men wounded by Robbers outside Jerusalem).

What makes this parallel compellingly intentional, is that we can readily identify an intentional and relevant propaganda message within this parallel. Jesus was challenged about who you should love, and gives this as his answer. So, when you put the two passages together, the author’s message is that “you should love Titus”. This aligns with the hypothesis that Luke and Jewish War were co-written as part of a scheme to lead commoners of the Empire to accept Titus as their god. Clearly, this message could not have been secreted into the texts without making Luke parody Jewish War.

2.3 The feeding of the 5000, with numerous details mirroring Jewish War, pointing to Roman mythology

• The Gospels describe Jesus coming with the 12, and feeding 5000 who ‘lay’ in ranks of 50s and 100s in a company, and who were men, with John adding that this was on a hill with much green grass and this was on a hill. Jesus broke the bread, and the fragments (point like things) left after the feast filled 12 baskets, with Mark describing a similar incident involving 4000 men. Matthew adds that Jesus says ‘beware the doctrine of the Pharisees’. Jesus highlights these numbers as important saying “Do you not yet understand the 5 loaves feeding the 5000, or the number of baskets, or the 7 loaves feeding the 4000 (5 and 7 total 12 loaves)?
• These numbers and motifs are also found in Jewish War, where it describes Jerusalem’s Palace, near the temple on the hill, as being ‘everywhere green’, where a Roman Legion ‘lay’. A Roman Legion has 4000 to 5000 men, arranged in ranks of 50s or 100s by companies. It also describes that the temple (near the palace) were ‘wonderful and famous things among all mankind’ including 7 lamps signifying planets (point-like celestial objects), 12 loaves which JW claims to have signified the zodiac (each zodiac being a group of point-like celestial objects), and 13 spices that signified God and how all things were his possessions.

As with the Good Samaritan story, we readily find a message in these parallels. Obviously Jesus’ ‘company’ represents a Roman Legion, but it’s more subtle: Jesus isn’t merely criticising the doctrine of the Pharisees, the parallel leads the reader to identify roman religious symbols – in particular the zodiac. Finding that Roman mythology is being promoted would not be surprising if Luke and Jewish War were written to promote worship of a Flavian Emperor as a Roman god, and indeed this explains why Jesus is always described as being followed by ‘the 12’ even though the Gospels almost never mention a list of 12 disciples being with him – the 12 can be seen as a reference to the Zodiac, with Jesus (or Titus rather) to be seen as a god of the heavens, to whom the zodiac are secondary. 

2.4 Prophecies of Jerusalem’s Fall

• Luke’s forecast of Jerusalem’s siege mirrors Josephus’s siege chronicle with a precision that extends beyond thematic resonance to narrative architecture. Luke portrays Jerusalem encircled by hostile forces and predicts that “not a stone will be left upon another”, a motif that harmonizes with Josephus’s account of Titus erecting and enclosing the city, followed by its devastation leaving God’s seat on earth “such that nobody would think it had been inhabited”. 
• The siege weaponry imagery – white stones hurled by catapults – parallels Luke’s environmental cues about ruin and judgment. The “stones would cry out” motif in Luke, coupled with the hour of visitation imagery, resonates with Josephus’s omens and observer distress during the siege. The effect is one of deliberately aligned events.​

2.5 The Sabbath and the Right Hand

• In Josephus, Titus extends his right hand to John of Gischala on the Sabbath, a gesture that is rebuffed in observance of Sabbath law with John using this as a ruse to escape (in violation of the Sabbath) marking him as hypocritical. 
• In Luke, Jesus enters a synagogue on the Sabbath and heals a man with a withered right hand, provoking the elders who challenge the action as unlawful against Sabbath law, which is also marked as hypocritical. Luke is talking symbolically about an apparently dry historical description in Jewish War – i.e. Luke is parodying Jewish War.

2.6 Gadara’s Legion

• Luke’s Gadara episode describes a man possessed by many demons who identifies as “Legion” and begs not to be destroyed, and Jesus sends the demons into a herd of about 2000 wild pigs (wild beasts) that rush to drown in the lake that meets the river Jordan. John the Baptist declares that a “mightier one comes after me” refuses to baptize Jesus, and instead gets baptized by him (John is plunged in the water), with Jesus described on a sailboat controlling the wind (divine sailing).
• This echoes Jewish War’s portrayal of Vespasian’s Legion near Gadara, where the Roman Legion meets John’s forces and the Jews end up fleeing and being chased (the mightier comes after him), described as being ‘too great for a band and too small for an army’ (i.e. the size of a Legion), and 2200 of John’s men drown (are plunged into) the river Jordan, being specifically described as “wild beasts”, with Titus described a little later as sailing by ‘divine impulse’. 

2.7 Mocking of the Tower

• Jewish War 5.6 describes how Titus went round Jerusalem’s walls and identified a weak spot, namely ‘the tower of John’ which ‘the builders had neglected to fortify’ (i.e. they had built their tower but had not been able to finish it), and Jewish War can be seen as mocking the Jews for this. It then describes how Josephus, acting on Titus’ behalf (effectively as an embassage) attempted to talk to the Jews about terms of peace, but they refused to listen (i.e. the Jews refused to consult on conditions of peace). The previous paragraph of Jewish War mentions that the Jews in the city had “10,000 men besides the Idumeans”.
• Luke 14 mirrors this in remarkable detail, where it says “who, intending to build a tower, doesn’t first assess whether he can afford to finish it? Otherwise they will mock him, saying ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish. And what king, going to make war, does not sit down first, and consult whether he be able to win with 10,000 against 20,000? Or else.. send an embassage, seeking conditions of peace?

2.8 Jerusalem encompassed, the dead raised, and a garment obtained vs a sword, and John repenting even at the last extremity

• Jewish War 5.12 describes Jerusalem encompassed with a wall, and the Jews trying to kill Titus but being unable to, and the corpses being so numerous they had to ‘cast them out from the walls of the temple’. It goes on to describe the Jews breaking open the graves and plundered the dead bodies (Jerusalem’s tombs broken open, and the dead ‘raised’/disturbed), and “took their garments and stuck their swords in the dead bodies” (notice in this sentence, that a sword is presented, and thereby a garment is obtained). Later in 6.2 it describes John being told that it is never dishonorable to “repent even at the last extremity”
• Luke 19 describes the siege promising that ‘your enemies will cast a trench about you, and encompass you around and.. not leave one stone upon another… and the chief of the Jewish people sought to destroy him but [couldn’t]… and he began to ‘cast them out from the temple’ that bought and sold there. Matthew 27 adds further detail describing that in Jerusalem the tombs broke open and the dead were raised, whilst Luke 22 comments that he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one, and that men of Nineveh shall rise even at the last extremity because they repented at the preaching of Jonas (a variant of John)

2.9 Mount of Olives: Command Site Alignment

Jesus’ prophetic actions on the Mount of Olives in Luke directly parallel Titus’ use of the same location as a siege command post in Jewish War. Jesus is also described as coming from Egypt (mirroring the Jewish War prophet who comes from Egypt to Jerusalem), and as standing a stones throw from Jerusalem, describing it surrounded on four sides and with raised banks – all mirroring Titus’ siege.

2.10 The Old Man who Tarried 9 months for his son:

In Jewish War we have Vespasian described as being chosen because he was an ‘old man’, and when he goes to Judea he ‘tarries’ in silence (was politically inactive) for 9 months until his son (Titus) came before departing for his home (Rome). Interestingly, Jewish War provides enough cryptic information for this 9 month period to be deduced, and does not stated it explicitly. 

Luke parodies this with Zacharias the ‘old man’ who tarries in silence for nine months until his son came, before departing to his house.

The birth story of Mary the mother of Jesus, allows a second interpretation in which she became pregnant at this Zacharias’ house (arriving in haste upon told she would become pregnant, and then leaving 3 months later visibly pregnant – again the information needed to calculate this is scattered within the text of the Gospels to make it less obvious). This interpretation has credibility because Zacharias was just described by Luke as having a divine ability to achieve an impossible birth. 

Later in Luke a similarly named Zacharias is then killed in Luke at the holy Jerusalem altar, which parodies how Jewish War presents a man called Zacharias being killed at the same altar – notice that this second Zacharias was accused of having ‘sent to Vespasian’. This presents a conceals riddle with a hidden message, that Zacharias is responsible for Jesus, and that he represents Vespasian. And the only hypothesis this aligns with, is the one that Vespasian initiated a Flavian secrecy cult project, which his sons continued after his death.

2.11 The extraordinarily sequence of parallels in much the same order in Luke and Jewish War:

I will demonstrate that Luke parodies Jewish War by showing a selection of parallels between Jesus in Luke and Titus in Jewish War. This sequence of parallels is largely in the same order in the two documents - not entirely in the same order, but largely. 

In the interests of brevity and simplicity I will just show you some clearly intentional parallels where Luke parodies Jewish War, that are in EXACTLY the same order in the two texts. 

By ignoring the parallels in this coherent sequence that aren’t in exactly the same order in both texts (and there are quite a few) I avoid taking up dozens of pages on this topic, but still provide a very strong argument that there is intentional parodying, based on the following logic: 

• If you DON’T believe me (and you assume the parallels weren’t arranged intentionally to be mostly in the same order), then it follows that there must be an incredible number of such remarkable and thematically coherently parallels (all involving Luke seeming to intentionally parody Jewish War!) for me to be able to pick out a sequence that is in exactly the same order in the two texts - which logically leads to the conclusion that Luke must intentionally parody Jewish War.
• If you DO believe me, and you accept my assertion that this coherent sequence of parallels (all of which have Luke appearing to parody Jewish War!) is largely arranged in much the same order in both texts, then it also follows that Luke intentionally parodies Jewish War.

So to start the sequence we have the middle of Jewish War – paragraphs 389 and 393, parodied by Luke 1 and Luke 3. This is the beginning of Vespasian and Titus’s military campaigns, corresponding to the beginning of Luke.

Titus and Vespasian’s victories, and ethnic cleansing in Judea

(the story in Jewish War)

Jesus’ ministry parodying it.

(the story in Luke)

Jewish War paragraphs 389, 393 (i.e., War of the Jews, 3.6.2 and 3.7.3).

Expecting a battle with John, Vespasian (described in Jewish War 435 as their ‘Lord’) had his men go ahead making the road even and straight… and where rough, be made smooth/planed.  

He frightens John’s men (implicitly giving time to repent). John flees, going before this ‘Lord’, from Judea down the Jordan, and John’s men were violently drowned in the Jordan. 

Luke 1:76, 3:3-5 

John will go before the Lord making paths straight and rough ways will be made smooth. 

He preached baptism of repentance.. and they went out into Judea being baptized of him in (plunged into) the river Jordan… 

42 paragraphs further along in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 4.

As Joe Atwill points out, in the autobiography of the author of Jewish War (i.e., in ‘Vita’) the stated author, Josephus, links himself to a ‘demoniac’ that threw him down at Capernaum.

Jewish War 435 (3.8.9).

This same Josephus makes an apparently divine prophecy of that both Titus and Vespasian will become ‘Caesar’, and he describes them as ‘lord of the land, sea and all mankind’. In essence, the man who says he was thrown down at Capernaum by a ‘demoniac’  is now implying that Titus and Vespasian are Gods. 

As their captured enemy general, it was tradition that he would be executed publicly in the Triumph parade, however Vespasian and Titus free him instead, and give him lands, gifts and tax-free status – i.e., Vespasian and Titus saved him.]

Luke 4:33

In Capernaum there was a man with an unclean daimonion[1]..  

..who cried out…I know you [Jesus] are the Holy One of God’. 

Jesus made the devil come out. It threw him down, and it hurt him not [i.e., Jesus saved him]

31 paragraphs further along in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 6.

Jewish War 466 (4.2.3)

On arrival Titus observed he could easily take the city by force. On the Sabbath he offered John his ‘right hand of security’ if they made peace (e.g., they should extend their ‘right hand’ to him in exchange for peace).

But they rejected the offer, saying it was unlawful to take action on the Sabbath day and this included even removing their arms and surrendering. Titus waited a day. But John used the opportunity to flee, so Titus massacred his men. 

Jewish War 491 (4.5.2)

[This describes the death of Ananus who was ‘just noble and dignified’ etc (similar to blessed), but was ‘upbraided’ (reproached), and who foresaw that the Romans would not be conquered, and the Jews must make peace or be destroyed [Since Titus is the son of Vespasian who gets deified by the Senate as a god – he argued for the sake of a son of God… but his advice was rejected – i.e., he was hated]. 

Now Jesus was with him… …[but as a result] they were cast out naked (separated from them), and seen to be the food of dogs…(i.e., treated as evil).

Luke 6:01-11

Jesus met a man whose right hand was withered, On the sabbath, Jesus told him to stretch out his hand, and Jesus restored that man’s right. 

The Pharisees accused him, saying it was not lawful to work on the Sabbath. Jesus said ‘is it lawful to.. save life on the Sabbath’. And they were filled with rage, and communed what they might do to Jesus.

Luke 6:22

Blessed are you, when men hate you, and separate you from their company, and reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake. 

Further on in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 7. 

Jewish War 496 (4.6.2)

Vespasian tells his [implicitly Roman] commanders they do not even need to enter Jerusalem (the holy ‘house’), since god is acting as an [implicitly Roman] commander making the Jews kill each other.

The occupants are described as sick (‘afflicted with a distemper’) and dying (killing each other)[2] (i.e., the occupants are described as sick, are dead, supposedly by gods power, without him needing to enter this ‘house’) and have just been described (Jewish War 478 4.3.10) as being urged to accept being slaves to romans. 

Jewish War 497-8 (4.6.3, 4.7.1)

[Vespasian is still outside the city of Jerusalem and] the Jews were coming out of every passage (i.e., out through the gates) and killing each other with great ‘barbarity’ so that they lay in heaps (i.e., outside the gates of the city lay many dead people were lying down). 

“to sum up, no other gentle passion was so entirely lost among them as mercy (i.e., the Jews lacked compassion) and the terror was so great they called the dead happy ..and the unburied were the happiest… and they ridiculed gods laws (i.e., they did not glorify god) and the oracle of prophets… and they fulfilled those prophecies relating to their country. 

For they had a certain ancient oracle saying that the city would be taken (a visitation on them) and the sanctuary burnt.. by their own hand…” 

And Jewish War will shortly after, go on to describe various deaths outside NAIN.

[It was Joe Atwill who identified Jewish War 498 as the key description of John ‘beginning to tyrannize (i.e., John came), and that other parts of Jewish War describe this John as the ‘demonaic’ who unleashed thousands into the countryside (‘instances of wickedness’). Along with Simon, John is also described in Jewish War as ‘drinking the blood of the populace’ (an analogy of being a glutton since so frequently wine is associated with blood). ]

Luke 7:1

Jesus responds to a request to heal the slave of a centurion (similar to a Roman Commander), who is sick and dying. But Jesus ends up healing the occupant without even going into the house (via gods power). 

The roman centurion compares himself to Jesus… Jesus then declared him - the (roman) centurion -  as being ‘the greatest faith in all Israel’.

Luke 7:11-35

[Jesus goes to NAIN with a crowd], but out of the gate [of Nain] was carried a dead man ( “ἐξεκομίζετο” evoking funeral procession) carried by his mother, and much of the people of the city was with her. 

Jesus had compassion, and touched the coffin (i.e., he was lying down). 

He that was dead sat up and spoke (i.e., in essence, the happiest person was the unburied dead one, because he was resurrected)

Fear came on them all, and they glorified God, saying, a great prophet is risen up among us; and God has visited his people.

Then John the Baptist came eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say ‘he has a demon!

The Son of man has come eating and drinking, and you say ‘Behold, a gluttonous and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children.

Further on in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 8.

Observe here, how cleverly the parody is hidden – for John’s devil is called ‘Legion’ in Luke, whilst in Jewish War the number of John’s men is described as ‘more than a gang, less than an army’ to indicate it is the size of a Legion.

Notice also that the same sick satire is being used, just as previously, that Jews are being denigrated, described as evil, fit only for death. In this example we see how the two stories aim to equate 2200 Jewish adversaries with “about 2000” wild pigs. It’s an ugly and nasty piece of deeply antisemitic propaganda. But it’s important to recognize it, because understanding the theme helps us pick out the sick parody from the rest of the text and see that it is there.

Jewish War 498-503 (4.7.1-4.7.6)

Then Titus fought the Jewish leader John, who was ‘beginning to tyrannize’ (i.e. evil). He chased John's forces to the river Jordan (i.e., the mightier one, Titus, came after this implicitly ‘evil’ man, and comes to destroy him).

Then [Titus] filled the river Jordan with the dead bodies [of John’s men], killing ...thousands all across the plains to Jordan.

John filled the country with 10,000 instances of wickedness (i.e., evil). John's forces, like the wildest of wild beasts, rushed on each other’s swords (rushed violently), but were forced into the river Jordan [by Titus and his men]. ...and the river and lake were both filled with their dead bodies. (i.e. Titus caused these ‘wild beasts’ to rush violently, and to be drowned in the water, and die in Lake Galilee. Perea surrendered ‘and they wanted him to leave’ (i.e. ‘Leave us alone’). 

Vespasian arrived at GADARA [he led three Legions].  John’s forces were ‘too small for an army and too many for a gang of robbers’ (this is saying John’s force were the size of a Legion). 

[And implicitly John would have begged them to stop torturing him. John’s treatment after his capture is not described, but Jewish War describes how Roman law requires the captured general to be taken to Rome for ghastly public execution, with torture a certainty.]

Vespasian captured 2200 Jews. And having fallen on neighboring cities, the whole country was filled with slaughter. He then put his soldiers on board the ships, and slew those still on the lake. Most of Perea surrendered, and the Jews wanted him to leave their country).

Jewish War 509 …a little later Titus is described, without any particular reason, as  sailing ‘by Divine impulse’.

Luke 8:27-33, etc. 

There was a man, with a spirit of an unclean devil. This [implicitly evil man] cried out “Leave us alone… have you come to destroy us? I know you who you are [i.e. represents Titus]...” And John… beseeched Jesus… saying, a mightier one comes after me…

And John said he should be baptized (plunged in the water) [implicitly of the river Jordan] by Jesus. 

Luke 8:23-33. Some unclean (i.e. evil) spirits inhabited a great herd of wild pigs. So Jesus caused the (evil) wild pigs (wild beasts) to rush violently and to be drowned in the water, and to die in Lake Galilee.

They went [with Jesus] to Gadara / Gadarenes…  And John ran... crying ‘…I ask you not to torment me’... and said my name is LEGION for we are many. 

Luke 8:33 etc. The number of the pig herd was ‘about 2000’. And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And Jesus came into the ship. And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts (- wanting him to leave their country). 

At the start of this story (Luke 8:23) Jesus controlled the wind on the water in a sailboat (Divine sailing)

Further on in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 9.

Jewish War 525-6 (4.10.6-7)

Vespasian obtained the throne via Divine Providence, and a righteous kind of fate – i.e., implying Vespasian is divine (something that Vespasian never states) – (this presages that, according to other sources, he was later deified as a god by the senate).   

And the Legions, and the people of every city (them all), all swore oaths of fidelity to him (implicitly denying the allegiance in their former vows, in order to follow him)

Jewish War 525 and 529 (4.10.6, 4.11.3) 

These two paragraphs similarly discuss the sharing of the ‘Good News’ of Titus/Vespasian’s military victory. [3] 525 discusses Vespasian’s departure from Judea, and passing from one city to another ( ‘went through the towns’), 

Jewish War 531 (4.11.5) 

Then Vespasian went to Alexandria, and received good news from Rome regarding the death of Emperor Vitellius and Vespasian being hailed as emperor. (the text uses the word ‘Evangelion’ – most certainly meaning ‘good news of military victory’. The same paragraph also details Vespasian’s departure from Judea, involving passing through and staying at six named cities. i.e., he went through the towns) 

Jewish War 532-533 (5.1.1-2) 

The sedition (- i.e., those seeking independence from Rome) in Jerusalem had split into three factions that fought each other. John led one faction. Another was led by Eleazar son of Simon assisted by Judas and Simon. 

These men were those 'among the men of greatest power', yet were they afraid of John, due to their small number. (i.e., the group that was least in number, was comparatively great in power)

When one of the Jewish factions killed the other, this was seen as good from the Romans perspective, and the effect of ‘Divine justice’. So the sedition is like a wild beast grown mad (equivalent to them being devils)…eating its own flesh.

Jewish War 535-9 (5.1.6-5.2.2) 

Titus left Cesarea and headed to Jerusalem, with all his forces too… but close to Jerusalem they were attacked (i.e., they didn’t want to receive him). Some of his forces went ahead of him  (similar to sending messengers ahead to Jerusalem)

His siege of Jerusalem was assured because John and Eleazar and Simon fought, burning all the corn houses, and burning the temple (god’s seat on earth) causing almost all the corn to be burned (i.e., John and Eleazar (sound like Elijah) caused fire in ‘gods seat on earth’ to burn the corn – something obtained using a plough).

(in effect, with the Jews destroying themselves Titus didn’t need to destroy them, however he sent his forces there via several towns/cities). On the way, he met his friend Tiberius who then ‘followed’ him with 3000 men, and acted as his counselor.

 Titus brought the three legions and the twelfth legion which had been formerly beaten (i.e., they left their dead behind them)... so it marched now with greater alacrity to avenge themselves on the Jews, as remembering what they had suffered from them. (i.e., it is right to push on without pausing).

Luke 9:6-7 

And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the good news, and healing everywhere. 

Note that the original Greek text uses the word ‘Evangelizomeni’, whose conventional meaning was “announcing   good news of military victory”.

Luke 9:18,23

Here Peter says that Jesus is ‘The Christ of God’ i.e., implying Jesus is divine (something Jesus never states).

And Jesus told them all, ‘If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily*, and follow me.’

Luke 9:46-50 

There arose an argument among Jesus' disciples, which of them should be greatest. 

And Jesus said he that is least among you, shall be great. 

And John said that we saw someone casting out devils in your name, but he followed not with us (- because elsewhere devils are equated with beasts).

And Jesus said he that is not against us is for us.

Luke 9:51-62

When he was to be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem. And sent messengers before him (to Jerusalem) and they did not receive him… On seeing this, John and James said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did?” (N.B. in the old testament[4] Elijah meets Elisha of Shaphat ploughing with twelve teams of oxen. Elisha stops ploughing and ‘turns back’ and burns his plough – a plough is used in getting corn)

Jesus responded suggesting he has not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. And on the way an unnamed man met them, and said ‘I will follow you wherever you go’.

One said, Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said, Let the dead bury their dead: but go you and preach the kingdom of God. 

‘No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking behind him, is apt (‘fit’) for the kingdom of God.’ (i.e., it is right to push on without pausing).

Further on in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 10.

Jewish War 541-542 (5.2.4-5)

The Jews led by their generals (described repeatedly in Jewish War as robbers)… came down from Jerusalem and killed many Romans... 

 Titus, (who had just become conqueror of Samaria – the area between Jerusalem and Galilee) came to help them… and when the Roman soldiers scattered, Titus <rode among the Jews> and fought them himself… and then Titus also <stood at the front> of the Roman line to defend their camp… 

‘So it must be told that Titus saved the entire Legion twice from these “robbers” (who fell on them implicitly) ’. [in essence, a Samaritan-Ruler Emperor rides in and ‘shows his face’ twice to save the men wounded by ‘robbers’ outside Jerusalem]. 

Luke 10:30 etc.

Jesus said “…love the lord your god… and love your neighbor (i.e., two ‘people’)”. [so they asked him to clarify the term ‘neighbor’.]

Jesus clarified who the ‘neighbor you should love is’, by saying: 

“A man went down from Jerusalem... and fell among robbers, who wounded him, and left him half dead... Unlike two Jews, a Samaritan came to help (implicitly riding in)... and he then rode the man to an inn, giving two (roman) denarii.”

[N.B. Emperors faces are generally shown on Denarii (Vespasian and Titus being prime examples). So a Samaritan rides in, and shows the Emperor’s face twice, to save the man wounded by robbers outside Jerusalem]. 

And Jesus concludes that [‘The Samaritan who helped those attacked by the robbers that fell on him], is the neighbor [you should love].

In Luke, the Good Samaritan implicitly rides in before saving a man from robbers, and then gives the innkeeper two denarius coins. As James Vaillant has pointed out, it was Titus and Vespasian who had Denarius coins minted with the earliest Christian symbols (the dolphin and anchor) on the other side, and their faces on the other side. So this story is mirrored by Titus’ effectively showing his face twice when rode in to save his men from the ‘robbers’.

But what is most fascinating here is the hidden message. In Luke, Jesus is being questioned about his teaching that you should ‘love your neighbor and your god’, and he is then asked to clarify who should count as a neighbor that you should love.

You might be forgiven for assuming that Jesus would assert that everyone counts as your neighbor. But observe that in Luke, Jesus advises that the one who helped the man attacked by robbers is the neighbor – i.e., the good Samaritan. Comparing the stories side-by-side, we see that Titus is equated with the good Samaritan. This mirrors how in John 8:48 Jesus is described as a Samaritan and a devil, but only denies being a devil. 

So while Jesus says “love your god and love your neighbor” the message is that this means “Love your god, and love Titus”. This is a horribly cynical distortion of one of the Jewish great commandments; “love your neighbor”.

Further on in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 11.

Jewish War 540-541 (5.2.3-4) 

   Titus marched and arrived at night… deciding his men were tired (i.e., so they could sleep), and arranged three Legions around Jerusalem (the holy ‘house’ which implicitly had its gates firmly shut). (N.B. later on Jewish War will describe how those gates were overcome by a battering ram)

   He also arranged ballistae (also known as ‘scorpions’, which launch stones), meanwhile the factions in the city fought each other.... The Jews cried out 'we are only courageous against ourselves, while the Romans will gain the city by our sedition' -  (i.e., their divided house caused their downfall, and implicitly their kingdom too.) 

The parties in Jerusalem had been fighting each other… now began to think of an awkward concord, and said… We are, it seems, only courageous against ourselves, while the Romans are likely to gain the city.. by our sedition (- again, the city will fall because it is divided).

Then the Jews attacked the Roman camp unexpectedly, and many soldiers were killed running to get their arms. Titus came with more forces and ‘scattered’ the Jews (those who gather not with him, ‘scatters’) (i.e., he was stronger and kept his camp safe).

But John's forces became 'still more and more in number', as encouraged by the good success of those that first made the attack.

Luke 11:5-29  

..which of you will go to him at midnight (arrive at night)and say, “lend me three loaves  For my friend in his journey is come to me”... he from within shall say, 

“Trouble me not: the door is now shut; my children are asleep with me…” “Knock and the door shall be opened”

If a son shall ask for bread or fish...will he give him a stone or scorpion...  

But he, knowing their thoughts, said ‘Everykingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falls’. If the house of Satan is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?

When a strong man armed keeps his palace, his goods are in peace: When a stronger one comes and overcomes him, he takes his trusted armor from him, and divides his spoils. He that.. gathers not with me ‘scatters’.

The crowds were increasing / people were gathered thick together, and Jesus said, This is an evil generation….no sign be given to it, but that of Jonas (John) the prophet.

Further on in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 11-12.

Jewish War 542-547 (5.2.5-5.3.5)

The Jews pretended to be vulnerable, and then rushed on the romans unexpectedly, and Caesar comments that that the Jews “lay ambushes” against himself (i.e., Titus)… 

Titus was [in the valley adjacent to Siloam] and Titus fell on great numbers as they marched down the hill… (Atwill points out that the word for ‘fell’ here is written ‘pipto’) and this was outside Jerusalem.

In Jerusalem “on the 14th day of Nisan when it is thought the Jews were freed from Egypt”, John sent men with concealed weapons into the temple... And those were his enemy ran away, avoiding an engagement (the guilty weren’t beaten)… but those who had no concern in the sedition stood trembling at the altar with wooden and iron weapons. 

(i.e., the innocent are beaten more than the guilty)  

(i.e., Jewish blood shed at the sacrificial altar on the 14th day of Nisan corresponding to Jews being freed)

These men also seized this inner temple, and opposed Simon. Thus the sedition, which had been divided into three factions, was now reduced to two factions.. [but Titus had come with three legions] (so it was now two against three).

The Jews devised a cunning strategy, which Titus was suspicious of. Ignoring Titus’ orders some romans fell for it (he discerned it, they didn’t), and chased the enemy (they go with their adversary). The Jews blocked their retreat (are in the way). Titus ‘weighed the laws of war’ (judged what is right) and considered executing them all (i.e., Titus was their judge), and the soldiers despaired, expecting just execution (they expected to be punished) but the other legions promised they would make amends, and Titus considered how he might get even with the Jews (extract payment).

Titus (who came for 3 years before returning to Rome) had come to Jerusalem. He gave orders for the army to clear the ground all the way to the wall of the city (digging around it). So they threw down the hedges and walls, and cut down all the fruit trees.

Luke 11:53-54 and 12:47-13:22

The scribes and Pharisees assailed him vehemently… lying in wait for him (Jews lying in ambush against Jesus), to catch him in something he might say…

13:4 The tower of Siloam fellon those eighteen (a lucky number for Jews) (Atwill points out for ‘fell’ here is the same word: ‘pipto’)… worse sinners than those in Jerusalem.

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and did not follow it, shall be beaten with many stripes. Yet he… who did things deserving of stripes, will be beaten with few (the innocent are beaten more than the guilty)

13:1 …told him about Galileans blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices (which was on the 14th day of Nisan, when a Jew called Barabbas was freed).

12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, No, I (Jesus) come to give you division: From henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

12:56 ..how is it that you do not discernthis time? And why do you not judge what is right? When you go with your adversary to the magistrate, as you are in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison (expect to be punished). You will not depart, till you have paid the very last mite (you must make amends).

13:6 Jesus told a parable: ‘a certain man had a fig tree in his vineyard, and told the vineyard keeper ‘for 3 years I came seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none – cut it down; why does it use up the ground. He answered: ‘leave it alone this year until I dig around it and fertilize it. If it still bears no fruit cut it down’.

Further on in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 12.

Jewish War 555 (5.5.4) 

The holy temple (which is where their ‘flock’ congregate) has a holy curtain (fabric) described as representing all that was mystical in the heavens (the only use of heavens, plural, in Jewish War).

Jewish War 555 and 554 go to some lengths to describe a great abundance of gold and silver in the temple (i.e., treasure in the temple, which is what the end of Jewish War describes burning.)

Luke 12:32

Fear not little flock… Provide yourselves bags (fabric) which do not age, a treasure in the heavens (only use of the word heavens in Luke) that does not fail, where no thief approaches, or moth corrupts. 

Where your treasure is, there will be your heart too.

(N.B. Your ‘hearts’ is what the end of Luke describes burning) 

Further on in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 14.

Jewish War 561 (5.6.2)

Titus identified a weak point in Jerusalem’s defenses as the tower of John which the builders had neglected to fortify (i.e., wasn’t finished)… (the text of Jewish War seems to mock the Jews for this). 

And Josephus (acting on Titus’ behalf as an ‘embassage’)... attempted to talk to the Jews, about terms of peace; for he was known by them. The Jews refused... and so [Titus] knew ...that they would not listen (- the Jews would not talk terms of peace)... 

Jewish War 560 (5.6.1) The Jews in the city had ‘10,000 men besides the Idumeans’.

Luke 14:25-32. 

Who, intending to build a tower, doesn’t first assess whether he can afford to finish it? Otherwise, they will mock him, saying ‘This man began to build, and was not able to finish’. 

And what king, going to make war, does not sit down first, and consult whether he be able to win with 10,000 against 20,000? Or else... send an embassage, seeking conditions of peace.

Further on in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 19-21.

Jewish War 562, 563, 566 (5.6.3, 5.6.4, 5.7.2)

Titus the son of the Emperor had, as mentioned, set camp at the Mount of Olives and had come to destroy Jerusalem. 

He bombards Jerusalem with great catapult stones, but the Jews see them coming because the stones are white, and since the stones are audible and visible the Jews cry out ‘THE SON COMES’[5] / <‘the sons are coming’>[6]. So to address this the Romans blackened the stone... 

At this time, a certain Jew was taken alive, who, by Titus's order, was crucified before the wall... And the Romans got control of the first wall on the 7th of June (start of summer). 

(so, in conjunction with a crucified Jew, Titus is described at the Mount of Olives, and they decried ‘the son comes’ as the stones made great noise these were hidden from their eyes,  Titus (a white man with a different face) was coming into Jerusalem, when summer was nigh) 

Jewish War 586-7, (5.12.1-2) 

Titus built a wall encompassing Jerusalem, in just three days. 

Jewish War 588 (5.12.3) 

The Jews tried to kill him but couldn’t, and the number of corpses forced them to just ‘cast them out from the walls of the temple’.

Luke 19:40-43,  21 etc. (e.g., Matt 21, 24, 28).

Jesus [was at the mount of Olives, outside Jerusalem] and said, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out (i.e., the stones are audible)... 

And when he came near, he beheld the city, and wept/cried over it, Saying, ‘..but now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you, that your enemies shall cast a trench about you..

Before Jesus’ crucifixion, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus said ‘the stones will cry out’. and ‘this is hidden from your eyes’, and ‘they will dig a trench around you’ and ‘the son will come again’,  in one generation / 40 years, when summer is nigh, but his face will be different and implicitly white.

Luke 19:37-47. 

For the days shall come, that your enemies will cast a trench about you, and encompass you around… they will not leave one stone upon another …And the chief of the Jewish people sought to destroy him but couldn’t…

…and he went into the temple and began to ‘cast out them from the temple’ that sold and bought there.

  Further on in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 21.

Jewish War 649 (7.1.1) 

And gave orders to leave Jerusalem entirely levelled such as to leave future visitors no grounds for believing that it had ever been inhabited.

Luke 21:5 

“the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”. (the city will be utterly levelled)[7]

Further on in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 22.

Jewish War 652 (7.2.1) 

Simon rises ‘out of the ground’ from his subterranean cavern (evocative of Satan) and is caught, and kept (controlled like a possession) to be executed before Titus at the conclusion of the Triumph (i.e., a formal judgement on their adversary)

Jewish War 652, 662  (7.2.1, 7.5.3) 

The Jewish temple (in essence the heart of the religion) was burning, and Titus had it quenched with water. And Simon was brought to Titus.

Luke 22:31-33 

Simon will be given (controlled like a possession) to Satan to be sifted as wheat (judged), and Simon said he was willing to go to prison and death (be executed).

Luke 24:32. 

They said.. Didn’t our heart burn within us.. and returned to Jerusalem… saying, The Lord.. appeared to Simon. 

Further on in Jewish War we find this discussion, parodied by Luke 23.

Jewish War 663-665 / 7.5.4-6

Vespasian and Titus pooled their resources for a monumental procession in Rome. 

Early they came out crowned with laurel,and clothed in purple robes (which only Emperors could wear), and went to the governors of the city for a tribunal, where the troops gave attestations of their valor. The Praetorian Guard would implicitly have been a key part of the Triumph.

They gave a feast (i.e., involving all the men), and paraded to be seen by the multitudes, and the parade involved great numbers of captives (including women from Galilee) following and watching them. 

The parade was truly vast, with huge parade floats, troops, displays etc. and rather than merely be a pompous show, it was, “as one may say, running along like a river”.

[Whilst unstated in Jewish War, the 1st C. reader would know that Titus and Vespasian were later deified as gods. So the “river” extends from two ‘gods’ located at its head down the middle of the main streets of the city.]  

The huge riches displayed included immense quantities of gold, and silver. Also a vast number of transparent precious stones were carried along.

The key monument it passed through was the Gate of the Pomp, which all Triumphs must pass through, and this giant stone gate straddled “either side” of the great parade, which had murals/images (‘leaves’ of a sort) sculpted on its sides.

Jewish War 665 (7.5.6)

The procession reached the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, for the enemy general to be slain (i.e., Simon). This building was named after a skull discovered in its foundations, and it is tradition for the Triumphator there to be offered, but refuse, wine.

Roman law required that “malefactors” be executed at the end of the parade… The Jewish general chosen was Simon,  son of Gioras who had been dragged in the triumph via a rope. They waited in silence and when Simon had died all the people offered a shout for joy (an attestation). 

Luke 23:1-49 etc. 

The multitude arose and led Jesus…. to the governor... they arrayed him in a purple robe, and put a crown of thorns on his head and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee saying, Hail, King of the Jews! (a mock attestation) 

They led Jesus to the hall of judgment (- a tribunal) known as the Praetorium and they called together all the men..   and it was early… And they had a feast.

And as they walked, Jesus said that thehuge number of men and women following them should be weeping in sadness for their own misfortune. 

And all the women that followed him from Galilee watched. 

Revelation 22:1-3 

the angel showed a river of the water of life (i.e., a living river). It was clear as crystal (- precious transparent stone).

This river extends from two Gods (Lamb and God) located at its source, down the middle of the main street of the city.

“On either side of the river” stood a tree of life (- singular yet spans a street of a city - so this has the shape of a city gate)...   And the leaves of the tree/gate are for the healing of the nations.

Luke 23:26-47 etc. 

To Jesus they offered him wine.. which he refused. 

And they laid hold upon Simon and made him bear Jesus' cross… And they came to Calvary/Golgotha, the place of the skull, and crucified him with “malefactors” executed next to him. 

The Centurion (- a Roman) said that certainly Jesus was a righteous man. And all the people that gathered to see, smote their breasts (- the practice of Roman soldiers when giving attestation).

In summary, I have described numerous, strong (and sometimes extraordinary) parallels, and it is not difficult to see that Jesus’ story here is parodying Jewish War (rather than vice versa).

To repeat: By ignoring the parallels in this coherent sequence that aren’t in exactly the same order in both texts (and there are quite a few) I avoid taking up dozens of pages on this topic, but still provide a very strong argument that there is intentional parodying, based on the following logic:  

• If you DON’T believe me (and you assume the parallels weren’t arranged intentionally to be mostly in the same order), then it follows that there must be an incredible number of such remarkable and thematically coherently parallels (all involving Luke seeming to intentionally parody Jewish War!) for me to be able to pick out a sequence that is in exactly the same order in the two texts - which logically leads to the conclusion that Luke must intentionally parody Jewish War.
• If you DO believe me, and you accept my assertion that this coherent sequence of parallels (all of which have Luke appearing to parody Jewish War!) is largely arranged in much the same order in both texts, then it also follows that Luke intentionally parodies Jewish War.
   

Section 3. Evidence for Jewish War parodying, and being derivative of, the Gospels 

3.1 Inversion of the sacredness of the Jewish Temple and references to Jesus’ death:

Jewish War deliberately maps temple-topography onto resurrection-inflected scenes, using sacred space as a stage to echo the Gospel.

• In Jewish War, numerous battles specifically mention that the killing began, or occurred at, the 9th hour – i.e. the time the Gospels offer for Jesus’s death.
• In Jewish War, numerous passages describe humans being killed at or near the holy temple of Jerusalem, including one called Zacharia – this evokes the comment in Luke that Zacharias was killed at that very altar. Not only is this ‘many to one’ relationship hard to explain other than if Jewish War is derivative of Luke, but it encodes a hidden message, suggesting – very antisemitically – that  the holiest and most sacred of all altars, perhaps was a place of human sacrifice and thus evil. This mirrors other hidden messages equating Jerusalem as the gate of Hades which I will come on to shortly.
• Subterranean around Jerusalem’s holy temple serve as launch points for generals to escape – in each case these FOUR Generals improbably overcome subterranean death and escape to the surface on the third day, in each case with additional elements of their story evoking the resurrection of Jesus, such as wearing of a purple robe, or having soldiers cast lots over them, or the cavern containing dead people, or having a passage to the side like a sepulchre, or that when they were found there were two men, implicitly kneeling and wearing shining garments (armor). 
• In these three stories Generals evoking Jesus’ resurrection story, we can readily find a hidden message in the continual use of Jerusalem as the place that Generals overcome death to rise alive on the third day – it’s suggesting that Jerusalem is where you would go to if you were a deity fighting to overcome death – i.e. Jerusalem is being subtly equated with the entrance to Hades (the location that the Gospels repeatedly and inexplicably refer to rather than Hell).

These are examples of topographic mapping which provides concrete evidence for readers to trace deliberate common design or bidirectional dialogue in the writing of Luke and JW.​

3.2. The problem of Josephus’s silence and the Antiquities

Josephus’s near complete absence of discussion of Jesus in the Greek tradition of Jewish War, contrasted with fuller treatment in his later book Antiquities, shows strong awareness of Jesus’ story, and is readily interpretable within a mutual-design frame as a deliberate piece of intertextual choreography rather than historical omission.

• Silence as feature, not bug: The selective silence in Jewish War is read as consistent with intentional cross-referencing discipline – placing certain Jesus motifs in a separate, later document shows full awareness of Jesus’ story, and points to a desire to avoid tipping off readers of the earlier work that it deeply relates to Jesus’ story.
• Explanation for the supposed “additions” to Josephus’ works (Slavonic Josephus, Antiquities mainly and to a lesser extent in the Greek tradition of Jewish War) relating to Jesus’ story. Some scholars have argued that supposed Christian copyists in some later century added references to Jesus’ story in an ‘inserted’ manner, and random locations. This is difficult to reconcile with all surviving copies in all languages, of all three works, all having these references, but yet the references are different between the three works, and don’t conform to what a Christian would write or believe. 
• An easier explanation for why they appear in all works and do indeed given the impression of forceful insertion into an otherwise irrelevant narrative, is that this was done at the outset by the original author, so as to create noticeable clusters (or indeed the APTVS pattern) which could  be pointed out later and shown to be intentional to 1st century followers of Jesus. By presenting those believe with such information after they had been led to accept Titus as the 2nd coming, these believers could be made to abandon faith in Jesus, and become pure Titus worshippers.
• Indeed, this thesis also explains why so many historical writers in later centuries claimed that the romans persecuted Christians, despite the fact they were consistently writing about a century that they had not lived in. The easier explanation is that the early Church and Constantine’s government wanted to make it hard to believe that the Roman Government was responsible for the birth of Christianity in Rome (tellingly, it’s even in the name though – the Roman Catholic Church).
• The thesis further explains why those same authors who claimed the Romans had persecuted Christians, consistently show awareness of Josephus’ works yet never allude to any mentions of Jesus in them (which you might expect from a Christian apologist). Whilst many scholars see this as evidence the diverse references to Jesus were inserted in a later century into all surviving versions, the easier explanation is that these authors were under instructions not to highlight the references to Jesus’ in Josephus’ works, since they knew that these are a critical piece of information needed to deduce that Luke and Jewish War mutually parody each other – a discovery which might have been fatal to the dominance of any of those successive European leaders.

3.3. Mary’s son being offered as food in both Luke and Jewish War.

As with most of the parallels described in section 1 the following parody was first described and published by Joe Atwill, but here I will highlight that it differs from them, in that the direction of the parody is opposite.

In the Gospel story, there is a reason why Jesus was to be killed around age 1, described as the Lamb of God, and presented as arriving at the Passover festival offering his body to be eaten, and for him to be killed with his body supported on a wooden pole, with – most tellingly - Hyssop to be proffered to him, and soldiers making an active decision not to break his bones – it all evokes the Passover ritual and spit roast of the lamb, which must be male, killed under the age of 1, and cooked with Hyssop at the time of Passover, without its bones being broken. This is described as having the effect of relieving us of our sins.

I think more generally it represents Jesus being Gods Passover for all of us, so that Passover with the effect that Passover would no longer need to be performed. This aligns with the actions of the later Church which not only prohibited Passover (and Judaism of course), but arranged the non-meat based Easter festival to fall on the exact same day for centuries, thereby making it difficult for closet Jews to perform Passover.

The Flavians had a strong motivation to stop Jews from performing Passover, because this ritual involves excluding non-Jews from their homes for fear of being cast out of Jewish society, thereby providing an annual reinforcement of Jewish life existing separate from Gentile culture.

The key question is whether cannibal Mary is a parody of Luke, or whether Jesus’ self-sacrifice is a parody of cannibal Mary.

To answer this I start by noting that whilst Luke’s story is overtly presenting Jesus as a Passover sacrifice, nothing about Jewish War would give the reader any reason to suspect that it has a reason to evoke the Passover ritual. We never find Titus presenting himself to be eaten, or being described as a Lamb or a sacrifice or anything remotely similar. 

Another reason to see Jewish War as parodying Luke, is that the cannibal who ate her son is called Mary. Jesus’ mother Mary is a core aspect of Jesus’ story, and the name Mary is used so often in the Gospels, by so many women (including two pairs of sisters), that it is a source of bemusement in itself. This suggests that it is Jewish War that is parodying Luke.

But the strongest reason to see Jewish War as parodying Luke, is the use of cryptic and scattered clues in Jewish War, designed to prevent anyone noticing that there is a parody in the first place. For instance: 

• In the Passover sacrifice the sacrificial lamb must have Hyssop added to its blood. The Gospels plainly state that Hyssop is proffered to Jesus’ face whilst he is on his cross, and if adding specifically to the sacrifices blood needs to be identified, it doesn’t take a genius to observe that since he has been smote on the face the Hyssop has touched his blood. By contrast Jewish War goes to greater lengths to hide the parallel. First it details how Mary has a baby, and later it mentions that she (not the baby!) is descended from the house of Hyssop. It takes a small but non-zero amount of lateral thinking to realise that the baby has Hyssop in its bloodline, and that this is a very strong metaphor for having Hyssop in its blood.
• In the Passover sacrifice the sacrificial lamb must be a male in its first year. In the Gospels, Jesus suffers an attempt on his life with the age range of the children that Herod specifies must be killed being “two and under” which is only slightly cryptic as it clearly covers the age range in question. In cannibal Mary’s story in Jewish War the reference to killing the sacrificial baby is simply described as a boy suckling at her breast. Again, it takes a small but non-zero amount of lateral thinking to realise that this puts the baby at the age matching the Passover sacrifice requirement.

3.4 Other ways that Jesus’ death scene is parodied in Josephus’ works

As well as the four Generals who overcome death and rise from underground – in most cases on the 3rd day – Josephus’ works offer other passages which evoke the passion of Jesus.

• In the Slavonic tradition of Jewish War it describes that in the temple there were three equal pillars with titles on them, and above these pillars hung an inscription in Greek, Latin and Jewish letters saying “Jesus the king did not reign, but was crucified”, whereupon the curtain was suddenly torn from the top to the bottom.
• Another text from Josephus’ (Vita) describes three men who are crucified outside Jerusalem (noticeably, somewhere between Jerusalem and Bethlehem). Josephus arranges for them to be taken down, resulting in two dying and one of them improbably surviving. The likely later date of Vita suggests that it is continuing and reinforcing the mutual parodies between Josephus’ works and the Gospels.

3.5 Prophetic Astral Omens
Luke’s use of the nativity “star” and astronomical omens is parodied in an inverted fashion in Jewish War’s description of a sword-shaped star and comet appearing over Jerusalem prior to its fall, with both texts encoding portents forecasting the city’s destruction via imperial triumph, and the sacrifice of a bull that impossibly gave birth to a lamb at the altar. A competing hypothesis, that Luke only derives from Jewish War, struggles to provide an explanation for why Jewish War needed these absurd claims, or why Jesus’ story would be based on them.

3.6 Simon and John Rebel/Disciple Name Parallels
Repeated deployment of the names Simon and John among Jesus’ disciples in Luke reflects a deliberate satirical recasting of the rebel leaders Simon and John featured in Jewish War, repositioning them from resistance figures to models of obedience and faith within the Gospel narrative. 

Judas, Pontius Pilate, Augustas, etc are all described in Jewish War and then in the Gospels. If Luke is parodying Simon and John, they present as followers of Jesus, only to be revealed as a discussion of the robbers – the term that Jewish War uses for those leaders – as part of an effort to demonise the Jewish leaders and turn followers away from Judaism and towards Flavian worship. If Luke was only parodying Jewish War it is unclear what the purpose would be. But if Luke and Jewish War are parodying each other (with for example Mary in Jewish War parodying Luke) this supports the Flavian secrecy cult hypothesis in which a believer would initially see Jesus’ story as innocent, and then as a divine precursor for Titus, and finally merely as a parable about Titus.

3.7 Josephus’ entire life story parodies Jesus’

This is probably the big one. 

There are so many parallels between Josephus and Jesus’ lives that it is amazing it has not been noticed and discussed in the scientific literature. I will list them with brief details, and conclude by discussing how Jewish War hides the links using cryptic or scattered clues (actually both stories do it, suggesting co-design, but here I will mainly argue the case for intentional mirroring by Jewish War).

Before I begin, I must mention just how implausible Josephus’ story was in the first place:

• ‘Josephus’ claims he became the supreme Jewish military leader (Jewish War 392/3.7.2), yet there is no contemporary Jewish writing mentioning them having such a leader. 
• Josephus also claims that despite being a key enemy general, he was not only spared death, but was freed and then treated almost like royalty by the Emperor, who gave him freedom, precious gifts (Jewish War 435/3.8.9) and lands and tax-free status (Vita). This was not merely culturally and politically impossible, but contrary to Roman law. The expectation was for enemy generals to be taken to Rome to be publicly executed at the end of the triumph parade. The source that tells us that this was roman law, is Josephus himself! (Jewish War 665/7.5.6).
• In addition to being one of the three people to have ever claimed first hand knowledge of the Essene sect, his is the only account of someone claiming to have been a member. This is challenging because there isn’t a single Judean document prior to the Flavian era which mentions the existence of such a Jewish sect. Even the entire library of dead sea scrolls in Qumran doesn’t mention the Essene sect once. Making his claims about the Essene more suspicious, all three people who have claimed first-hand knowledge of the Essene sect, are closely associated with Josephus’ supposed saviors: Titus and Vespasian.
• Josephus claims he prophesied his own defeat and the very day it would occur and told his own forces of this (Jewish War 435/3.8.9). Frankly, no military leader would ever openly predict total defeat, even if it was possible to make such an accurate prediction. This claim of being a prophet is obviously fiction.
• Josephus also claims he prophesied that Vespasian and Titus were to become successors to Emperor Nero (Jewish War 435/3.8.9), even though Vespasian was supposedly of humble origins (Suetonius). Even if this were possible, no one would dare predict the fall of the current Emperor, for fear of execution, making the story implausible. 
• Josephus claims that as their enemy general, immediately upon being captured he was “led to Vespasian”, and then roman figures including senior ones (commanders) crowded around “their General” calling for his (Josephus’) death, until they got close enough to see him, then becoming concerned “at the change” in his fortune, and then they relented when they saw him. Jewish War 434 (3.8.8). At face value it is self-evidently nonsense that the senior romans would want Josephus dead only to relent when they saw him. However it makes sense if Josephus is merely a pen name for the Emperor Titus himself. 

• Continuing 3.7, here are details of Josephus’ story in Jewish War parodying Jesus’ story.

The number of parallels between Josephus and Jesus are so great that I’m going to use a condensed format to list them, and for evidence and details please see my 9th article which is omitted here in the interests of brevity.

Just like Jesus in Luke, Jewish War describes how Josephus:

1. Prophesied that the romans would take and utterly destroy the city he was in, as well as the time that the romans would destroy his city, with this being linked to 46 units of time (years to build it in John, days it survived in JW) (JW 3.7.33),
2. fulfills the requirements of a Jewish Messiah (Jewish military leader, descended from Jewish royalty and thus implicitly from King David) (Vita)
3. gets betrayed to the romans by one specific Jew, with the betrayal happening at an ‘hour’ when his followers were asleep (JW 3.7.33)... 
4. is betrayed by a Jew who ‘obtained’ a ‘field of blood’, and that in this field there were underground caverns in which there would be dead people, such that the caverns are associated with graves, whilst guts get spilled and he himself gets hanged, and promptly a man’s position gets taken and the place is left uninhabited (Luke 22:4 Matt 27:3-9, Acts 1:18-20 and JW 3.7.33-34 – for details see article 9 as the clues are cryptically hidden).
5. was confined in what is presented as a ‘grave’, and this grave had the shape of a sepulcher (an exit sideways before up), and this grave had not been used as a grave before (Luke 23:53, JW 3.8.1, 3.8.7) and belonged to a man called Joseph (Matt 27:60) and its entrance was guarded by many Roman soldiers (Matt 27:66, JW 3.8.1)

…and just like Jesus in Luke, Jewish War describes how Josephus:

1. spent two days in that grave, only to be raised alive on the third day, thanks to ‘supernatural providence’… … and the person who led them to his grave was a woman, and witness, who had been with him previously (John 20:1 Luke 24:1-3 JW 3.8.1)… and those who arrived at Josephus’ grave found two men inside it, alive (Luke 24:4-5, JW 3.8.7) and these two people they found in Josephus’ grave were at least implicitly kneeling and wearing shining garments, and how people there were afraid, and how the place was associated with dead men (Luke 24:5, note that in JW he fled the battlefield as commander, so implicitly wearing armor).
2. was raised from his ‘grave’ by a person who was seen as a ‘god’ (Acts, JW 3.8.1-2) 
3. had associates included a Simon, a John, a Matthew, a Joseph and a Jesus, and also mentions multiple Marys, a Judas, a James, a Lazarus, an Eleazar, a Philip, and also specific individuals such as Augustus Caesar, Tiberius Caesar, Emperor Nero, the two Herods, and Pontious Pilate... (Luke, Nero mentioned in Acts)
4. promoted the idea that commoners should pay taxes to Rome… …and submit to oppression and accept servitude… …and give up possessions and wealth… …and accept little or no pay… and His story equates grass with food (Luke 12:14-33, Jew 2.8.2)

…and just like Jesus in Luke, Jewish War describes how Josephus:

1. advocated accepting being diminished, having no fear of death, and believing that bad souls go to perpetual torture (Luke 12:4, JW 2.8.10-11)
2. was subjected to soldiers casting lots over him during his capture by the Romans, and his city had a ‘den of robbers’, and clothes that in a sense were his, were parted, and (Luke 19:45 23:34, JW 3.8.7, 3.7.13)
3. is described being involved with a Galilean Jew being crucified after refusing to speak, followed by both the sun and the night sky becoming darkened, and the son of God coming in a cloud with great power and glory (Luke 23:44, 21:25, Mark 13:24-26, JW 423-424)
4. has a man attend his grave, who also defended him whose name began with ‘Nic’ (meaning victory) (John 3:1 19:39, Luke 24:1, JW 3.8.3)
5. prayed to god when anticipating his capture by the romans (Luke 22:42 JW 3.8.3)

…and just like Jesus in Luke, Jewish War describes how Josephus:

1. is described being captured but then given the clothes of an Emperor, and how, both at his capture and his birth, he was treated in a manner equating him with royalty (Luke 23:11 Matt 15, JW 3.8.9, Vita)
2. has his story involving ‘the son coming’, resulting in death associated with someone called Jesus, with a specific place of a skull, and this involves a distance relating to the trajectory of a stone (Luke 22:41, Mark 27:33, JW 413, 562)
3. has his story involve men relating to a false prophet* dressed in sheep’s clothing, who inwardly are like ravenous/thirsty canines (Matt 7:15, JW 3.7.14)
4. has conflict with the romans in his city, where the most important death is readily identifiable as a metaphor for a traditional spit-roasted Passover lamb sacrifice whilst also being linked to a crucifixion (Luke 23:33, John 19, JW 3.7.35)
5. has his story involve an adult version of a lamb (e.g. a ram) hung from a wooden cross, three wooden towers with men on them, a great trumpet sound, a great shaking, the daylight being darkened, and cloth (e.g. cloth bags) at the gates of the city being torn (Luke 23:32,44,45 and JW 3.7.19,27,30)

…and just like Jesus in Luke, Jewish War describes how Josephus:

1. has his story describing that during that same conflict a Jewish man from Galilee refused to defend himself, and he was pierced in five places by the romans, and high up, he was displayed to the multitude outside the city, presenting in effect an adult version of a lamb, and in a sense he was ‘next to’ two men, whilst a person linked to Salome moved a very great stone, with a key person’s foot being pierced leaving ‘the son’ in agony (Luke 23:33 24:10, JW 3.7.21 (enhanced by detail in Slavonic tradition))
2. has his story (in this case in Vita) involve a trio of men being crucified together, some distance outside of the walls of Jerusalem, but that whilst two of them died, one of them was brought down and survived (Vita 75)
3. has leaders seeking to lay their hands on him, but then holding their peace, him being affirmed at teaching the true way of God, craftiness in the conversation being perceived, and being tempted, speaking truth, and a conclusion being reached regarding whether something should be given to Caesar or to God (Luke 20:19-26, JW 434-435)
4. has his main role in his published story end in Jerusalem when He was aged 33 (Luke 24:51, JW 637) 
5. was at the age of 33 considered dead outside Jerusalem, but afterwards he was found to be alive and he appeared in front of Simon and showed his wounds, thereby confounding his mother’s expectation of him being buried, and that part of the story is linked to Lazarus’ resurrection (Luke 24:3,15,40,42,34 JW 592-3 and 596 (with detail added in Slavonic tradition)) 

…and just like Jesus in Luke, Jewish War describes how Josephus:

1. was captured by the Romans 33 years after a key point in a Jesus’ life (Luke 23:32, JW 3.8.8 – in particular AD 66)
2. is described in a way that has the names Joseph and Matthias being placed side by side, along with the name Justus which in turn is linked to insurrection and murder in the city, in which two men were confined together (Acts 1:23, Luke 23:18, Vita 76, JW 432-433 – for details see article 9)
3. was set to die before a crowd, with those involved being Simon, Jesus, John with either Joseph or Joseph’s wife, and also just like Jesus, Jewish War describes how Josephus escaped a lynching (Luke 23:46 4:29-30, JW 2.21.3)
4. suggests that God’s sacred covenant with the Jews ended, and is being replaced by a new arrangement, as a result of the ‘abomination’ of the Jews (Luke 16:15, Slavonic tradition of JW 4.8.3)
5. has his story involve him being on the roof of a house, and a man being scourged/whipped and made to be a red color (Luke 4:9, John 19:1-2 JW 2.21.5)

…and just like Jesus in Luke, Jewish War describes how Josephus:

1. entered a boat on Lake Galilee, with a man called James… …with messengers of a man called John departing (Luke 5:9, 7:24-27, 9:49-52, JW 2.21.6-7)
2. had 4000 men being required to be down on the ground (Luke 9:14, JW 2.21.7, Vita clarifies the number as 4000).
3. was described as a lord/ruler and him appointed 70 leaders to go into each of the cities, and them successfully subjecting those cities to their rule, through his authority/name (Luke 10:1, 17, JW 2.20.5).
4. has his story involving a scene evoking the use of wings, and moving under authority of a lord, as a metaphor (Luke 13.34-35, JW 2.20.7).
5. has his story involving people being betrayed whilst they sleep, and being taken and bound, and a plan to encompass them with a wall i.e., all around (Mark 14:41 15:1, Luke 19.43, JW 2.21.3).

… and just like Jesus in Luke, Jewish War describes how Josephus:

1. has his story make it at least implicitly clear that he was one of the two most notable members of the ‘Essene’ sect (Vita 2)
2. was confronted by hostile religious figures, over a matter mentioning plunder and the appearance of cups, and escaping via a response that centers on the contrast between outward appearance and inward reality, in a story mentioning Jesus (Luke 11:38-40, 53-54, JW 2.21.3)

This list of parallels is frankly extraordinary, and cannot be explained by chance. Some additional ones aren’t shown here because I’ve used them in other sections of this article (e.g. how Josephus was in a cavern that had the nature and shape of a sepulchre, and was raised on the third day by a deity). 

We can be sure that Josephus is the parody of Jesus and not vice versa due to the way these parallels are “scattered” throughout the text of Jewish War, and often hidden cryptically (for example, the cavern had an exit to the side to a pit that is exposed upwards to the surface, and had been the subject of mass suicide, is a cryptic way of saying it is a cavern for corpses with an exit sideways and up, which is the nature and shape of a sephulcher). 

There is a mere selection of examples from the above list of parallels, where Jewish War uses cryptic language:

• see how easy it is to miss that Titus presents an adult lamb on a cross (the text describes his battering ram having a tip shaped like a ram’s head, and then describes it being slung under a wooden cross to swing it), 
• see how easy it is to miss that Titus’ ram then tears the cloth at gate of Jerusalem (Josephus hangs sacks of chaff to protect the gate, implicitly forming a veil of fabric, which the ram eventually destroys), 
• see how easy it is to miss that his last main role in his published story occurs when he is 33 (the text certainly doesn’t say it outright, requiring a lot of lateral thinking). 
• See how easy it is to miss that Titus’ only battlefield loss is a metaphor for a Passover roast and a battle with death underground (noting that the Passover sacrifice involves a spit-roast, we observe the text saying that the sole roman fatality (vs 40,000 Jewish fatalities) involved a roman soldier climbing down to the caverns, being skewered by a spear up through his privates – this occurring in the same city where Josephus goes into a cavern (same one? the text doesn’t say), overcoming death, raised by a deity on the 3rd day), with the Slavonic version offering that he stretched out his arm, and received a spear in the side – cryptically mirroring Jesus’ death on the cross but in a slightly different way.

There are so many examples I cannot reasonably list them here. See my 9th article for the evidence, the text in Jewish War and Luke, and to observe the huge number of examples where Jewish War presents parallels that are intentionally difficult to spot.

To such examples, however, we must also add in the ways in which Josephus’ story was always implausible in the first place. His claims to be a miracle worker and prophet. His conversion to the Roman side and generous freedom instead of traditional public execution. Him receiving lands and gifts from Vespasian, and the way he claims to have been the supreme military and religious ruler of the Jews, and yet so happily switches to the more holy Roman side – which is obviously a piece of propaganda aiming to present a model for Jews to switch sides. Note also his claims of being this incredibly important Jewish leader, despite no Jewish records of the time mentioning him, or the fact he is the only person to be recorded claiming to be a member of the Essene sect, which of course he lauds as the best of the Jewish sects, whilst describing it in a manner that doesn’t make it Jewish at all, but does make it a perfect model for the Flavian Secrecy Cult adherents to adopt.

This aligns with the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis, which presumes that Josephus is merely a fiction, and his name is a pun on Josef (a Hebrew anagram for Piso) Matthias (a pun on M-Ares, the M standing for Mega/Mighty, just as it does to this day which mirrors the repeated references to “Marias” in Luke - the Genitive case of Mary/Maria), thus Joseph Matthias is a pun on Ares Piso, which appears to be a name used by the Flavians to represent their divine Piso lineage, and the name by which they would be worshipped. 

The upshot of this is that once adherents of the Flavian Secrecy Cult were shown that Luke and Jewish War parody each other and therefore Jesus’ is the Roman Government’s fiction, it would then be suggested to them that the author – ostensibly Josephus Matthias – is a pun, and pen name of, Ares Piso, i.e. suggesting that the texts were written by Titus himself. Of course Titus probably didn’t write them – he would simply take the credit, thereby enhancing the awe that his followers were under. Similarly, it follows that certain rulers, certainly the Flavians, and possibly Hadrian, and certainly Constantine onwards, all had a motive for spreading narratives and information that would make Josephus’ life be believed to be historical fact. 

Whilst some readers may feel this last point about Josephus’ name being a pun, seems like speculation, it shows that Josephus being a parody of Jesus perfectly aligns with the only scenario that would explain why Luke and Jewish War mutually parody each other.

Whether you accept that Josephus’ name is a pun and that he is a pen name, or not, all the evidence I have described shows that Josephus’ story acts as a parody of Jesus’ story, which confirms that Jewish War is parodying Luke, indeed in a manner consistent with the scenario described in the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis.
 

Section 4. Archaeological and historical evidence supporting the hypothesis that Jewish War and Luke were co-written for Titus’ benefit

4.1. Mainstream dating of the New Testament texts places the Flavian Era at the centre of the date ranges, and undisputed Pauline literature just beforehand – supporting the Flavian Secrecy Cult.

Match with mainstream timing of authentic Pauline literature:

• Paul’s undisputed letters receive wide scholarly support for late 40s to 50s or early 60s, which predates the Flavian era. This fits the model that the Flavians based the good news story on this remarkably vague Pauline discussion of a Jesus Christ. 
• In clear alignment with the mainstream timing for the authentic Pauline literature, the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis proposes that at least some Pauline literature predates the Flavian Era.

Match with mainstream timing of Gospels and Revelation:

• Mark is generally dated to 65-75 AD, however if we (very sensibly) ignore those scholars who think Jesus had magical power to predict Jerusalem’s downfall in 69 AD, and take the secular view that Mark wrote after these events thereby enabling him to describe Jesus predicting them - this dates Mark to around 70-75 AD (i.e. Vespasian’s reign) whilst Matthew/Luke receive widespread scholarly support for a dating circa 80-90 AD (i.e. Titus/Domitian’s reign), with Acts dated similarly by implication, John circa 90-100 AD, and Revelation circa 95 AD.
• Whilst I’ve previously argued for a Lukan style Gospel being primary due to its closer links with the surviving version of Jewish War, the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis allows for Mark being the first Gospel story, and I’m coming round to that view having recently identified that Mark has stronger parallels with Vespasian’s story (compared to Luke having stronger parallels with Titus’ story).
• So FSC proposes at least one synoptic Gospel (perhaps Mark) or non-surviving precursor version during Vespasian’s reign, possibly early on given his strong motivation (70-75 AD), with Luke potentially during Vespasian’s reign but most likely Titus’ (probably 79-81 AD), and John/Acts definitively within Domitian’s reign (81-96 AD), and Revelation probably afterwards during Domitian’s reign (circa 95 AD with high uncertainty).

The complete compatibility of FSC and mainstream dating of NT and related texts (overlap in all cases) is summarised here:

Mainstream scholarship most likely date range

FSC theory most likely date range 

Does FSC theory accommodate mainstream dating and vice versa?

Authentic Pauline epistles

40-60s AD

Caveat: The mainstream start date is essentially based on Paul mentioning Jesus’ death, plus allowing a few years for his claimed conversion etc - but the timeline of Jesus’ life and death is only given in the Gospels!

Before 69 AD

Yes

Inauthentic Pauline epistles

70-100 AD

70-96 AD.

Yes

Mark

Circa 65-75 AD, or by secular scholars: Circa 70-75 AD.

70-81 with reasons to think 70-75 AD

Yes

Luke

Circa 80-90 AD

79-81 AD

Yes

Matthew

Circa 80-90 AD

70-81 AD with reasons to think 79-81 AD.

Yes

Jewish War 1st version

70-76 AD (early Vespasian’s reign)

Assumed same

Yes – near identical

Jewish War 2nd version

75-81 AD probably 79-81 AD (Titus’ reign)

75-81 AD probably 79-81 AD

Yes – near identical

Jewish War Slavonic tradition

Generally accepted as Medieval adaptation – few proponents of 1st century origins

Open minded – accommodates Medieval and 1st century origins  

Yes

Antiquities, Vita, Against Apion 

93-94 AD

Assumed same

Yes – near identical

John

Circa 90-100 AD

Assumed circa 90 AD

Yes

Acts

Circa 80-90 AD

Revelation

Usually circa 95 AD

Assumed same

Yes – near identical

Marcion

130-140 AD

117-138 (Hadrian)

Yes

4.2 The Frankfurt Silver Inscription – The only securely concealed private invocation ever found from before Constantine, and it starts by invoking Titus before mentioning Jesus.

The “Frankfurt silver inscription” is an 18-line Latin text inscribed on thin silver foil, that was rolled up and concealed within a miniscule amulet worn as a necklace. It was excavated in 2018 from a grave near the Roman town of Nida (in modern Frankfurt) and confidently dated to roughly 230–270 AD. Importantly, it was extremely private. Nobody would know what it said other than the wearer.

The text invokes Jesus Christ explicitly as “Son of God”, quotes Philippians 2:10–11 in Latin translation, but starts with an appeal to “Sacred Titus” followed by a triple “holy, holy, holy” before mentioning Jesus. 

This is relevant to the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis, because it shows that by the mid-3rd century there were Latin-speaking Christians in a Roman military frontier zone (Upper Germania) using language of Christ as divine lord, and appealing to a figure called “Sacred Titus”, despite not containing any allusions to any known religion other than Christianity. I translate ‘sancti’ as ‘sacred’ rather than as ‘saint’, because formal sainthood had not begun in the 3rd century, and the word ‘saint’ loads the phrase with meaning that the term may not have had in the 3rd century.

Mainstream scholars assume it refers to Paul’s companion Titus (who was enshrined in a later century as Saint Titus), although they appear to have no explanation for why it appeals to this Sacred Titus before mentioning Jesus. Even under the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis, it may well – sort of – refer to Paul’s companion Titus, however this requires focussing on the (quite widely held) view that some of the Pauline literature is not original, and in particular assuming that those epistles that introduce Titus into Paul’s story were produced after the start of the Flavian era, or possibly modified (at least some of them are widely thought to post-date the start of the Flavian era by the way, but not all). 

Whilst the Frankfurt silver inscription is not a clean “smoking gun” for a Flavian secrecy cult it is very important. It proves that by the 3rd century, frontier Latin Christianity involved calling Christ the “Son of God” and – at least in privately held invocations – invoking a sacred man called ‘Titus’ for protection before mentioning Jesus. 

The point is that a) this combination exactly aligns with what we might expect if a Jesus-based Flavian Secrecy Cult continued to develop after the Flavian era, before being eradicated by Constantine and replaced with Christianity based on belief in a historical Jesus, and b) it is the ONLY surviving pre-Constantine relic which gives insight into any private – and thus potentially secret – Christian beliefs that were not allowed to be disclosed to the public.

4.3 Flavian Imperial Imagery on Coins and Inscriptions

If we step back into the late 1st century: Flavian imperial propaganda itself is explicitly theological.

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Vespasian and Titus issued the IUDAEA CAPTA coin series. These coins show a mourning female figure personifying Judaea seated under a Roman trophy of arms, sometimes with the emperor standing triumphant. They circulated widely in Rome and the eastern provinces and continued (with variations) under Domitian. The message is ritualized humiliation: Judaea is conquered, and that conquest legitimates the Flavian dynasty.

Soon after, we see the Flavian house formalized as explicitly divine:

• After Vespasian’s death (79 AD) he is styled Divus Vespasianus, i.e. “the deified Vespasian.”
• After Titus’ death (81 AD) he is styled Divus Titus.
• Domitian, ruling 81–96 AD, strikes coin types naming himself DIVI VESP F, short for divi Vespasiani filius – “son of the deified Vespasian.” Some sestertii and provincial bronzes also identify Titus as Divus Titus and call him “son of the deified Vespasian.” – notice how this is essentially saying “Titus: Son of God”.

This is standard imperial cult grammar, not Christian borrowing. But the overlap in language is striking:

• Roman coins are publicly calling the emperor “son of a god” (divi filius) and treating the Flavian line as literally heaven-backed.
• The Gospels and early Christian traditions call Jesus “Son of God” (Greek huios tou theou) and “Savior.” The Greek sōtēr (“savior/deliverer”) is also a familiar imperial term for benefactor rulers, especially in the Greek East.

The Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis doesn’t argue that one copied the other word-for-word. But it benefits from realising that terms like “son of god”, “savior” and “bringer of peace after war” were already saturated with Flavian imperial meaning in the exact decades when (by mainstream dating) Luke–Acts and Josephus were being finalized. That is; the vocabulary Christians later use devotionally was already in service as Flavian state vocabulary politically.

4.4 Flavian Family and Christian Associations

As early as the 90s AD, Christianity is connected with the Flavian household itself.

Cassius Dio (writing in the early 3rd century) reports that in 95 AD Domitian executed the consul Titus Flavius Clemens – a relative – and exiled his wife Flavia Domitilla, also a relative of the emperor, on the charge of “atheism,” the same charge brought against “many others who drifted into Jewish ways.” Dio says some of those accused were  killed, others lost property. But later Christian writers reinterpreted this: they identified the “atheism / Jewish ways” accusation with Christianity, treating Clemens as a martyr and Domitilla as an exiled noblewoman of the faith. By late antiquity and medieval tradition, Domitilla and her circle are remembered as proto-Christian aristocrats within the Flavian orbit. 

Two things can be taken from this confidently:

1. Under Domitian, high-ranking Flavian kin were punished on religious/loyalty grounds explicitly linked to “Jewish practices” / “atheism,” i.e. refusal to honour the traditional gods and imperial cult.
2. Early Christian memory aggressively claimed those punished figures as their own.

That convergence is exactly the sort of thing we would expect in the Flavian Secrecy Cult scenario: If nothing else, rival interpretations of the Flavian dynasty’s sacred status in connection with Christianity become a political fault line inside the imperial family itself.

Indeed, within Domitilla’s Catacombs is the tomb of Nereus & Achilleus, who are recorded as having been chamberlains of Flavia Domitilla herself (a relative of Domitian) in the Flavian Emperor’s household. This provides a second strong link between this intensely important Christian site, and that third Flavian Emperor, Domitian.

4.5 Early Christian Activity on Flavian Land: The Domitilla Catacombs

The Catacombs of Domitilla, along the Via Ardeatina, are among the largest catacomb complexes in Rome (roughly 17 km of galleries, four levels with about 15,000 burials). Archaeology dates the beginnings of the cemetery to the late 2nd century AD, with major expansion through the 3rd and 4th centuries. The site includes an underground basilica, and later (4th-century) devotional spaces dedicated to the martyrs Nereus and Achilleus. 

Why this matters:

• The estate over which the catacomb developed is linked in tradition to a Flavia Domitilla associated with the Flavian imperial household. The property was said to have been put “at the disposal of the Christian community,” and patristic/late antique sources treat this Domitilla as a noble exile for the faith. 
• The iconography in the catacomb – Good Shepherd imagery, Christ with apostles, loaves-and-fishes meals, Jonah, Noah, orans figures – is well-attested Christian art from the 3rd–4th centuries. It’s not Flavian in date, but it sits physically in a funerary complex tied (in Christian memory and in property tradition) to a Flavian woman accused under Domitian. 
• The martyr cult of Nereus and Achilleus is later (their traditional martyrdom is eventually pushed to the Diocletianic persecutions ~304 AD, not Domitian), but by the time the basilica over the catacombs is monumentalized in the late 4th century, the whole site is being narrated as a Flavian-family Christian site of origin. 

So: even if some of the details are retrofitted via later writers, Christians in late 2nd/3rd-century Rome are rooting their sacred geography and burial cult in a memory of Flavian elite.

That’s important for the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis because – at an absolute minimum – it shows a very old Christian instinct to intertwine its own legitimacy with Flavian lineage.

Putting 4.1-4.5 together:

• Mainstream views on the timing of the writing of the Gospels aligns with the Flavian era and the Flavian Secrecy Cult model, whilst the authentic Pauline epistles not only lack the details linked to the Flavian story that we find in the Gospels but attest to very little more than assemblies formed regarding a ‘Christos’ individual about whom they say amazingly little.
• Imperial self-deification is explicit under the Flavians. Vespasian and Titus are styled Divus, and Domitian promotes himself as son of the deified Vespasian. Coins proclaim this across the empire, including the formerly rebellious Judaea.
• The Flavian household is already entangled with “Jewish/atheist” (i.e. non-traditional) cult accusations by the 90s AD. Cassius Dio preserves that, later Christian memory amplifies it, and the Domitilla burial complex embodies it archaeologically.
• By the 3rd century, frontier Latin Christian(s) are wearing amulets invoking “Jesus Christ, Son of God,” that STARTS by appealing to a “Sacred Titus”. It demonstrates a mature pre-Constantine Christian faith privately lauding someone called Sacred Titus.

None of this, on its own, proves the Flavian Secrecy Cult model. It does, however, show that:

1. The Flavians sacralized themselves using “son of god / savior” language at exactly the moment the canonical Jesus narrative is usually dated to coalesce.
2. Elite Flavian relatives were, within a generation, entangled in activities which later Christian tradition claims as its own lineage.
3. Within two centuries, the only relic capable of showing us any secretly held views of Christians of the time, turns out to laud someone called ‘Sacred Titus, Holy, Holy, Holy’ before mentioning Jesus; exactly what we would expect if Emperor Titus’ family was responsible for creating Jesus’ Gospel story with the aim of making worshippers see him as the 2nd coming of Jesus.

The upshot is that Roman imperial ideology and early Christian cult were not developing in sealed compartments. They were already sharing language, spaces, and even family networks in and around the Flavian house.

4.6 Flavian Imperial Cult in Judaea and Regional Archaeology

• Caesarea as Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta:
  After the Jewish War, Vespasian elevated Caesarea Maritima – already the Roman administrative center of Judaea since Herod – to full colonial status as Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesariensis (also called Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta) and settled veterans there.
  In Roman practice, colonial refoundation wasn’t just honorary. Colonies of this type typically had formal imperial cult space (temple, altar, priesthood) as part of their civic identity. Caesarea already had a monumental temple to Roma and Augustus built by Herod overlooking the harbor. Flavian promotion of Caesarea into a veteran colony makes it highly likely that existing imperial cult structures in the area continued in use – now with Flavian dynastic emphasis – with loyalty to the new ruling house.
  In other words: Judea gained not only a provincial capital but a ritualized Flavian city. That’s an environment in which state-managed “savior” messaging would be particularly easy.
• Judaea Capta coinage as provincial propaganda:
  Beginning immediately after the fall of Jerusalem (70 AD), Vespasian and Titus issued the IVDAEA CAPTA / IUDAEA CAPTA series. These coins show a mourning, bound female figure (“Judaea”) seated beneath a Roman trophy of arms, sometimes with the victorious emperor standing. They were minted in Rome and in eastern mints, and variants continued under Domitian.
  The message is brutally clear: Judaea is subdued, and that subjugation is to the glory of the Flavian house. The coins function as portable triumphal arches.
  It’s true that the very earliest Iudaea Capta issues don’t yet call Vespasian “divus,” because divus (“deified”) is a title conferred after death. But under Titus and Domitian, new issues and provincial bronzes begin styling the Flavians in overtly sacral language: Vespasian becomes Divus Vespasianus once deified, Titus becomes Divus Titus, and Domitian publicly calls himself divi Vesp(asiani) f(ilius) – “son of the deified Vespasian.” 
  So within a decade of the war, coins circulating in and around Judaea were literally announcing Flavian rulers as gods (or sons of gods). This is not hypothetical allusion to imperial cult – its literally being stated ‘on the money’.
• Cult infrastructure and priesthoods:
  We do not (so far) have an excavated, inscribed “Temple of Vespasian” or “Temple of Titus” sitting on the ruins of the Jerusalem Temple specifically in the Flavian decade. The later, well-attested construction of a pagan/Jupiter Capitolinus temple on the Temple Mount belongs to the Hadrianic re-foundation of Aelia Capitolina in the 130s AD, after the Bar Kokhba revolt, not the 70s. Scholars are generally careful about that chronology.
  But absence of a Flavian-inscribed temple on the Mount is not absence of imperial cult in the province. After 70 AD, Judaea is militarized, garrisoned by Legio X Fretensis in Jerusalem, and reorganized under direct imperial authority. Vespasian settles veterans in new or refounded Flavian colonies (Caesarea as Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta, Emmaus/Nicopolis, Flavia Neapolis in Samaria). These colonial foundations normally came with local imperial cult priests (e.g. Augustales) and altars for the ruling house, and we do have epigraphic and numismatic evidence in the broader Syria-Palestina region for priesthoods and dedications to the Flavian gens.

In summary: by the early 70s AD, the Flavians are not just ruling Judaea militarily, they are installing the visual, monetary, and civic machinery of “the emperor as sacred victor” in the very landscape that produced both the Jewish revolt and, later, the canonical Gospel geography.

4.7 Imperial Divine Titles and Gospel Terminology

• Imperial titles after the war:
  On Flavian and Flavian-era provincial coinage, we start to see formulas like DIVI VESP F DOMITIAN AVG – “Domitian, Augustus, son of the deified Vespasian.” Coins issued under (or for) Agrippa II in the 80s–90s AD show Domitian explicitly styled as divi Vesp(asiani) f(ilius), i.e. “son of the divine Vespasian,” sometimes paired with vows for the ruler’s health/salvation (SALVTI AVGVST). 
  Titus and Vespasian themselves, once dead, become Divus Vespasianus and Divus Titus. This is not subtle: the Flavian line is being mythologized in public media as god, son-of-god, savior of the province.
• Lexical overlap with Gospel Christology:
  In the canonical Gospels, Jesus is repeatedly proclaimed “the Son of God” (huios tou theou). In Matthew 27:54, for example, the centurion calls him “God’s Son.” The Greek formula [ho] huios tou theou is the semantic twin of the Latin divi filius / divi Vesp(filius) – “son of the divine [one].”
  Closely related honorifics appear as well: emperors are hailed as sōtēr (“savior,” “deliverer”) in Greek East inscriptions; early Christian texts also call Jesus sōtēr. Likewise, emperors who have been consecrated become divus (“the divine [so-and-so]”), while post-Easter Jesus is described in exalted, quasi-divine terms. This doesn’t prove borrowing, but it shows that the Gospel title set (“Son of God,” “Savior,” exalted Lord who brings peace) lived in a world where such language was already deployed to sacralize Flavian rule and to encode dynastic succession as the continuation of divine favor. 
  This makes a subtle but important point in favor of the Flavian Secrecy Cult: a vocabulary that sounds pious and salvific to provincials is simultaneously political language marking loyalty to the house that “saved” Judaea by conquering it.

4.8 Josephus’s Vespasian Prophecy and Jewish Messianism

• Josephus reframes Jewish prophecy:
  In Jewish War 6.312–313, Josephus says the rebels were energized by an “ambiguous oracle” in their sacred writings, predicting that “one from [Judea] would become ruler of the inhabited world.” Josephus then explicitly claims the prophecy did not mean a Jewish liberator – it meant Vespasian, whose elevation to emperor in 69–70 AD therefore fulfills Jewish scripture. 
  That is Josephus openly performing ideological work on behalf of the Flavians: Jewish messianic expectation is not denied; it’s redirected.
• Slavonic Josephus reframes the Jewish prophecy a second time, directing it FROM Jesus TO Vespasian.

The Greek tradition of Jewish War predicts that this “one from [Judea] would become ruler of the inhabited world and claims that this person turns out to be “Vespasian”, but the Slavonic version does something different, by framing the question as whether this “ambiguous oracle” was predicting Jesus, Herod, or Vespasian. 

If you put the two versions together, one poses the “question” of whether Jesus, Herod or Vespasian would become king of the Jews, and the other presents the “answer” that it was Vespasian – the implication being that it is NOT Jesus, but rather the is Flavian Emperor.

A message of this sort is what would be predicted by Flavian Secrecy Cult model – a message suggesting that although you might be worshipping Jesus, you should actually be worshipping Vespasian.

• Roman confirmation of the same spin:
  Tacitus (Histories 5.13) and Suetonius (Life of Vespasian 4.5) (publishing under Trajan/Hadrian, the latter of whom appears to have wanted to be seen as the culmination of a divine lineage from Vespasian and Trajan) both report a widespread belief in the East that “men coming from Judaea” would rule the world, and both say that, in fact, this prophecy pointed to Vespasian (and Titus), not to a native Judean messiah. 
  So Roman historians outside Josephus also preserve the claim that Flavian power equals the fulfillment of Jewish apocalyptic expectation.

Why this matters:

 

What we see here is not subtle. Flavian-era propaganda is already taking Jewish language – “a ruler from Judaea will govern the whole world” and declaring: “that’s us”.
The canonical Gospels emerge in exactly this world. They present a Judean/Galilean savior whose titles are “Son of God,” “Lord,” “Savior,” peacemaker, bringer of good news to the nations. Josephus, meanwhile, is packaging Vespasian and Titus as the true, world-ruling fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.
The documented behavior is the same in outline: Flavian Rome and Flavian-aligned writers actively appropriate Jewish messianic scripts and republish them in pro-Flavian form. The Secrecy Cult thesis simply focusses on this observation – proposing that the Jesus narrative, as finally published, is part of that same appropriation-and-redeployment process, aimed at directing Jews to modify their faith and end up worshipping the Flavian Emperor.

4.9 Coins that have Flavian Emperor’s names/faces on one side, also have Christian symbols on the other.

It was Vaillant and Fahy who identified and published evidence that certain Roman Denarrius coins with the names and faces of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, also had the dolphin/anchor symbol on the other side. Dolphins and anchor symbols existed in wider Roman naval iconography, and the dolphin/anchor combination wasn’t new, but the combination doesn’t appear on any earlier Emperor’s coinage, marking it as significant.

There is dispute over whether the dolphin/anchor symbol was a key Christian one, and indeed when it was in most use by early Christians, but it appears to be a symbol adopted sometime after the Flavian era, by at least some early Christians (long before the adoption of the Cross as Christianity’s main symbol). Vaillant argues that this is strong evidence of a deep connection between the Flavians, and early Christianity. 

Even if we downplay the likelihood of it being a very important symbol of early Christianity, the anchor and dolphin combination appears on the denarius coins of all three Flavian Emperors and on the coinage of no earlier Emperor, and it most definitely has become important to Christianity over time, which fits very well with a Flavian origin for Jesus’ Gospel story, but begs explanation in other scenarios.

It is noteworthy that all three coins we are talking about here, are Denarius coins. This fits extremely well with the FSC reading of Jesus’ discussion of the coin he is presented with when asked if tax should be paid to Caesar. Jesus asks what image and inscription it has and is told ‘Caesars’ (a term, which by the late 1st century AD simply meant “the reigning Emperor”). What coin was it? Luke records that it was a “Denarius” coin.

4.10 Those same three Flavian denarius coins depict seven stars, mirroring the 7-star constellation related theology that extended versions of the Flavian Secrecy Cult propose to be central

Whilst more speculative, extended versions of the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis propose that a key phrase describing the nature of the Flavian divinity is in Luke which says “he who puts his hand to the plough without looking behind (i.e. without pause) is apt for the kingdom of heaven”. 

Aside from being the location of the word APTVS (see the latin bible), this not only hides the word ‘opiso’ which can be split into the greek words for “the” and “piso” (part of the name Ares Piso, or ‘Divine Piso’ identified as a moniker for the Flavian divinity and lineage), but also attests to the idea of god pushing the extremely recognisable roman constellation of the plough (usually referred to as the seven ox plough, but mentioned by at least one emperor’s records as being called simply the ‘plough’ (as is still the case to this day in some countries, and the big dipper in in others).

The extended Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis identifies this as a jibe at the Jewish God who paused the motion of the sun and moon, suggesting that the Jewish God is not apt (fit) for the kingdom of God, and by extension, a different God must be fit to reside there instead – implicitly “the Divine Piso”. 

This hidden suggestion that the Flavian Deifies pushed the firmament around above our heads, via the constellation of the Plough, which has seven stars, fits with the observation that these same coins that feature Flavian Emperors on one side, and early Christian symbols on the other (the dolphin and anchor combination) feature seven stars, and indeed this is the case for all three Flavian Emperors.

Section 5. Reinforcing messages in John-Acts

In this section I will overview how John and Acts work together, and why this would align well with the thesis that Luke and Jewish War mutually parody.

This will be a brief run through, without providing all the evidence. For the evidence in full, see my 10th article.

My 10th article starts by showing that there are four famous three-digit triangle numbers in John and Acts. 153 Fishes, 300 denarii, 120 people, and 276 people.

Many scholars have written about the famous triangle numbers in John/Acts, even as far back as Augustine (4th C. AD), noting their link to the concept of holy trinity. But neither he nor Jerome (also 4th C. AD) offer an explanation for why those particular triangle numbers are used.

John/Acts actually contains the triangle numbers 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 (with 21 alluded to), as well as 120, 153, 276, and 300 (with 666 alluded to). In this section I provide a coherent explanation for WHY they are there. The answer reveals an effort to promote Domitian as the 2nd coming of Didymus, who it turn would then be seen as a resurrected twin of Jesus. 

Introduction:

Question: If you wanted to assert that god is triangular, you could use a variety of puzzles. Sure, you could mention the word three a lot, but that’s rather… basic. If you want your ‘in the know’ reader to feel clever and superior, you would encode puzzles pointing to the parameter that defines triangles, i.e. 180 (the internal angle of all triangles), but couldn’t you find something cleverer too?

Triangle numbers are famously used in John and Acts, and correspond to an arrangement of dots in a solid triangle e.g. like pool/billiard balls. 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, etc  – so what is the most triangle related triangle number of all? 

Answer: Observe that the number 666 not only has three digits/magnitudes conventionally (even in Latin it has 6 letters, which is also a triangle number), and can even be written with three letters (as evidenced by Revelation, which goes out of its way to do so), and can be seen as being composed of three triangle numbers (6 being a triangle number). You can even remove any digit and the result (66) is still a triangle number. Unusually, and as has been noted by other scholars, 666 is the 36th triangle number which is also a triangle number.

666 is also unusual in being equal to 3 times the sum of the 12th triangle number and the 12th square number (144), which might help explain why Revelation is keen to associate the Lamb/beast with the number 144,000 and why John/Acts contain 6 references to ‘the twelve’.

But 666 also has a more important, and far deeper connection with triangles: 666 is the third triangle number whose circumference and length are also triangle numbers (making it a “Triple Triangle Number”), and 666 is the third triangle number which can be arrived at in three ways by adding pairs of triangle numbers (which I call a “Triple Triangle-Pair Number”). These numbers are extremely rare, so the place they overlap – namely at the number 666 – is even more special.

Since 666 can be so easily argued to be the most triangle-related triangle number of all, a smart author would encode puzzles pointing to those concepts – ‘triple triangle numbers’, and ‘triple triangle-pair numbers’.

Question: How do John and Acts point to 180 and 666, and how does this explain the presence of the numbers 2, 3, 6, 15, 21 (which is only alluded to), 120, 153, 276, 300 in John and Acts:

Explaining the presence of 2, 3, 6, 15 and allusion to 21:

I start by pointing out that for a very few triangle numbers not only their number, but also the circumference and side length are triangle numbers too – In my paper I take the time to prove that aside from “1” the first three are 6, 21, 666. 

The author references 6 and 21 as triple triangle numbers to point the reader towards 666 as the ‘third’ aspect of God.

To highlight the numbers 6 and 21 as being triple triangle numbers, the author needs to evoke their side length and circumference, and does so as follows:

• I show that the ‘first’ one, 6, has side/circumference of 2 and 3, and that this is evoked in the story of Jesus’ first miracle turning 6 pots of water to wine, that are described as “2 or 3 measures in volume”.
• I show that the second one, 21, has side/circumference of 6 and 15. I then show that, without any real effort in interpretation or consideration of manuscript variations, Acts contains 21 triangle numbers, of which the number 3 appears 15 times, and others 6 times. Acts also contains 21 words relating to threeness, again the number 3 appearing 15 times and various others appearing 6 times (see article 10 for details).

Explaining the presence of the triangle number 276: I point out that very few triangle numbers can be arrived at by adding together pairs of triangle numbers in three ways – these are 276, 406 and 666. 276 is referenced in acts and 666 is the third member of that sequence. So this 276 is here to point the reader towards 666 as the ‘third’ aspect of god. It is the convergence of the two sequences which marks out 666 as the “answer”!

Explaining the presence of the triangle number 153: I point out that there is only one triangle number that can be added to triple triangle numbers, to arrive at the internal angle of all triangles – 180. This calculation is 153 + 6 + 21 = 180. (of course, by the 1st century, 180 was well known as the angle of all triangles (the 360 degree system having been in place already for 2 or 3 centuries earlier).

It’s possible the author saw a second reason to include 153 and link it to ‘great’ fish. This is that beyond 666 there is a fourth triple triangle number (namely 3081) and unlike the first three triple triangle numbers it has an additional connection to triangle numbers, in that its ‘top surface’ is the triangle number 153 (see my 10th article for what this means). 

Explaining the presence of the triangle numbers 120 and 300: I point out that there are also ways to produce the number 180 using just two triangle numbers but none of them involve addition, multiplication or division. The only solution is subtraction, and the first solution that involves three digit triangle numbers, is: 300 -120 = 180. 

Explaining the presence of the triangle number 10: The number 10 appears in both John and Acts, and this would not normally be remarkable. But since we have a coherent explanation for every other triangle number in those texts, it follows that the number 10 must have some special relationship to merit being mentioned. 

And yes, there is indeed a special relationship between triangle numbers and the number 180 (the internal angle of all triangles). Excluding the trivial number ‘1’, the first three triangle numbers multiplied together produce the number 180. This calculation is 3 x 6 x 10 = 180. This explains why the author felt it necessary to mention the number 10.

Summary: The reason for all the triangle numbers mentioned in John and Acts being present, can be explained through a coherent explanation – namely a desire to include those triangle numbers that have special relationships to the most triangle-related numbers of all – the numbers 180 and 666. 

Are there counter-arguments? 

A reader might question whether there are other triangle-number based numerical puzzles that would point to the numbers 180 or 666 or other triangle concepts, for example:

• Why didn’t the author highlight the first triple triangle number that is also a cube? Answer  - there isn’t one.
• Why didn’t the author highlight the pair of triple triangle numbers that add or multiply to give 180? Answer – there isn’t one.
• Why didn’t the author highlight the number 406, to show the reader that they are pointing to the sequence 276, 406, 666? Answer – it would have made it too obvious.
• Why didn’t the author highlight the next triple triangle number 3081? Answer – it would have made it obvious that it’s about triple triangle numbers and that the missing one is 666.
• See my 10th article for more examples. 

In short, what we find is compatible with an author seeking to avoid making the puzzle obvious, and instead using a subtle trail of clues, enabling the puzzle to be solved by identifying it as pointing to the numbers 180 and 666.

Why write John and Acts to promote two extremely ‘triangular’ numbers - 180 and 666?

The obvious and simple answer is to promote the idea that god has a triangular nature. If Vespasian and Titus were two deities behind the Flavian Secrecy Cult, it almost follows that Domitian – the 3rd Flavian Emperor – would be the obvious person to seek to be seen as a third aspect of a three-head god. 

But we can do better merely surmising this as ‘obvious’ from the historical context, and what follows is a trail of evidence pointing directly to Domitian:

• John's Gospel presents the Holy Spirit as a distinct person (John 14–16), or as the "Paraclete" (meaning “one called to ones side”, or “the Helper” – we’ll come back to this). 
• Repeated use of pronouns (he/his) to refer to the Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26) reinforces this personal identity. And Acts takes the same approach, portraying the Holy Spirit as an active agent in the early church and speaking (Acts 8:29; 13:2; 15:28; 16:6–7). 
• By contrast, the Synoptic Gospels (Luke, Mark, Matthew) often describe a variety of individuals being "filled with" or "led by" the Holy Spirit, as if it were a characteristic like holiness or divinity, and do not emphasize personal characteristics of the Holy Spirit as John and Acts do.

So this is our first hint that the Synoptics didn’t aim to present a three-fold God, and John/Acts aim to introduce this. This explains why Acts is written to very convincingly appear to be the 2nd half of Luke – it would help convince followers to accept Luke, and thus a 3rd aspect of God. It also explains why some early Christians favored the Triangle as their religious symbol.

As I mentioned earlier, the reason for all the triangle numbers mentioned in John and Acts being present, can be explained through a coherent explanation – namely a desire to include those triangle numbers that have special relationships to the most triangle-related numbers of all – the numbers 180 and 666. However that explanation requires that John and Acts are written together. First the face-value of Acts convinces the followers to accept it as the 2nd volume of Luke, and then the riddles force them to accept that John and Acts are written together to reveal a 3rd aspect of God, and seeing this puzzle forces them to accept John, and all other messages it contains, regarding Didymus (which we will come to) and Domitian (ditto).

The clue in Revelation, talking of a MAN (not a devil) whose number is 666:

When Revelation says “This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the [second] beast, for it is the number for a person. Its number is 666.” There is absolutely nowhere where it suggests 666 is the mark of the devil. All of that is later Church tradition, centuries after Revelation was written. This “666 = the mark of devil” idea is now firmly cemented in our minds thanks to it becoming an inescapable trope found in absolutely every book and film where the devil is a character, but it simply has no basis in the Bible. 

Revelation does not aim to ‘reveal’ anything useful to lay readers. It aims to validate the beliefs of insiders of the Flavian Secrecy Cult and flatter their ‘wisdom’. For those still working their way into the top rank, it guides them to look for a “man whose number is 666” and their priest would duly guide them to decode the puzzle in John/Acts relating to the triangle number sequences that converge on 666.

So, admittedly borrowing some text from my 11th article, I’ll now walk through how those followers would identify the identity of the triangle man:

There are several places where John refers to Jesus having brothers. John 7:3 stands out because the description of Jesus’ brothers cannot be easily dismissed for example by suggesting it merely refers to Jesus’ disciples. This is because in that verse, Jesus’ ‘brothers’ are indicated to be discussing Jesus’ disciples who are far away. Whilst the Greek word used here for ‘brothers’ (adelphoi) is one that can mean countrymen or male siblings, John uses the same word elsewhere to undoubtedly mean male siblings. This apparent contradiction to the Church view that Mary remained a virgin, is a well-known controversy in Christian scholarship.

And on the topic of brothers, John introduces a disciple of Jesus who followers of Luke would not have heard of. He is introduced in John 20:24 as “Thomas, one of the twelve, who was also called Didymus”. Notice that Thomas is the Aramaic word for twin (which derives from the Hebrew word for twin), whilst Didymus is the Greek word for twin. 

Noting that the text of John is in Greek, to a Greek reader this reads is as follows: “Thomas, one of the twelve, who was also called ‘the twin’”. I.e. the text really goes out of its way to emphasize that he is called ‘the twin’.

The story John tells us about Didymus – who I will now simply refer to as “the twin” – is a very interesting one:

1. After dying and resurrecting, Jesus tells Mary to fetch his brothers, adding for good measure that his own father is also their father. Immediately the story says that his disciples are assembled that very evening, but it only identifies the twin by name, omitting to say which others are present. Jesus then “breathed on to them” declaring to them “receive the Holy Spirit” and saying to them that they now have the power to forgive sins.

Notice how the only named individual that Jesus ‘breathed the Holy Spirit’ onto, and is given the power to forgive sins, is ‘the twin’ who was referred to five verses earlier as Jesus brother who he shares a father with! – and for good measure, once Jesus has done this, it is specifically the other (unnamed) disciples who tell this twin that “we have seen the lord”.

1. This same ‘twin’ immediately proposes to place his hand on Jesus’ cross where Jesus’ hand had been – this arrangement would be akin to the ‘twin’ being on Jesus’ cross – and then the ‘twin’ proceeds to “put his hand in Jesus’ side”. Notice that the physical arrangement of a side-by-side embrace, evokes the way John refers to the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete meaning “one called to ones’ side”.

And that physical side-by-side embrace also evokes the pose of the Gemini twins (one of the twelve zodiac deities; the twins who shared a divinity and are depicted with their arms embracing side by side). The reason I highlight the Gemini, is that Acts describes how the Gemini (the symbol of the twin brothers) is the figurehead of the ship used for Paul’s sea voyage (Acts 28:11). It surely cannot be a coincidence that both John and Acts mention a twin who is one of ‘the twelve’ (in John’s case one of the 12 disciples. In Acts, one of the 12 zodiac deities).

In short, there seems to be a hidden message saying that the twin is Jesus’ twin sibling, who goes by various names such as Didymus, the Holy Spirit and the Paraklete.

1. Now, the only other place in John which mentions this ‘twin’, Didymus, is earlier in John 11, which by the way also takes time to emphasize that he is not just called Thomas, but was called ‘the twin’. 

From a plain reading, John 11 tells the story of a man called Lazarus who falls sick, dies and gets resurrected from the grave by Jesus. 

Lazarus is a name that evokes the phrase “he whom god helps”, or more precisely Lazarus is derived from Eleazar which means ‘whom god helps’ (El means god, and Azar means help).

The author hints at ‘he whom god helps’ being an important interpretation of the word Lazarus, since at the beginning of this very story, Jesus (who is to be seen as god of course, so I can substitute that word in place of Jesus) is told that Lazarus is “he whom [god] loves”.

But there is one occasion in the story where Jesus doesn’t say the word Lazarus in the nominative form, and instead uses the vocative form ‘Lazare’ – i.e. phonetically evoking the name Eleazar! – which literally means “he whom god helps”. 

Now, suppose a priest suggested to a 1st Century follower that when Jesus calls out ‘Lazare’ he is not saying Lazarus, but rather is uttering the Hebrew version of the word, Eleazar, literally meaning ‘he whom god helps’, and that when the term Lazarus is used, the reader should consider whether these too are simply supposed to refer to ‘he whom god helps’. 

The story begins by saying that the character Lazarus is sick. Mary and Martha go to Jesus and tells him that Lazarus is sick. The story adds that Jesus loved Mary, Martha and ‘Lazaron’ – the word here is in the accusative, perhaps to differentiate it and help suggest it might simply mean ‘he whom god helps’. 

Jesus, either misunderstanding Martha and thinking she refers to ‘he whom god helps’, or alternatively knowing (since he is a prophet of course) that Didymus will go to die with Lazarus, declares that “this sickness will not end in death”, and sets off to Judea, declaring that he will wake Lazarus (which now could mean either of them) from sleep. Jesus then declares that ‘plainly that Lazarus is dead’, which presumably means the character Lazarus.

The story continues saying that ‘Therefore Didymus, the twin, said that he should go with his disciples, to die with Lazarus.’ The story offers zero explanation for why Didymus volunteers to die in Lazarus’ grave. Our notional priest and follower would take this to mean that Didymus (Jesus’ twin) wishes to be resurrected by Jesus.

Jesus arrives at Lazarus’ tomb, which presumably now contains the corpses of Lazarus and ‘he whom god loves’ (i.e. Didymus the twin). Jesus has the stone moved aside and declares “‘Lazare [a form of Lazarus which more strongly evokes the word Eleazar, meaning: he whom god helps]’ - come out!”, whereupon a man rises from the dead and leaves the tomb. The story indicates that the man’s face was covered by a cloth, making his identity ambiguous.

Clearly, most modern Christians are wedded to the idea that Jesus did not have a sibling, but I should point out how if the reader identifies Didymus, the twin, as not only the disciple whom Jesus loved but also Jesus’ sibling, it finally makes sense why John 19:26-27 says: Jesus [looked down from the cross and] saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, and told his mother ‘Woman, here is your son!’, and then told the disciple ‘Here is your mother!’

To sum up; the text in John might be written to permit a priest to lead a reader to disregard the story’s face-value meaning, and to settle on an interpretation in which Jesus and his ‘brother’ ‘the twin’ who puts his arm in Jesus’ side like Gemini’s divine twin brothers, are to be seen as exactly that – as divine twin brothers. 

From this, and the statement in John that the Holy Ghost is the Paraclete (one who comes to ones’ side), such followers would understand Didymus to be the Holy Spirit.

So who is Didymus? Why is he important?

At face value, Didymus is a character with a cameo role in the final Gospel, and we learn little about him, other than that he was not in Judea when Jesus came, and that there’s a hidden message that he is Jesus’ twin brother, and indeed the Holy Spirit, and indeed the Paraclete (he who comes to one’s side). It’s interesting that the manner this twinship is presented has the form of the zodiac deity, Gemini, which is a Greek/Roman tradition. But as character profiles go, it’s on the weak side.

However we already know that the purpose of Luke and Jewish War working together was to lead followers to see the Flavian Emperor as the 2nd coming of Jesus. Originally, via the lost 1st version of Jewish War, this probably aimed to help lead followers to see Vespasian as god, and the surviving 2nd version appears intended to drive worship of his son Titus. 

I propose we consider Joe Atwill’s identification that the triangle numbers in John/Acts relate to the third Flavian Emperor, Titus’ younger brother Domitian.

Upon realizing this, the rest of the puzzle falls into place, and much credit here is due to Joe Atwill too. The huge effort John and Acts go to, to emphasize that god has three persons, sits extremely well with a desire to lead followers who already worship the first two Flavian Emperors, to accept the third one as divine too. 

Indeed if followers saw Titus as the 2nd coming of Jesus, and saw in Jesus’ godly father a message about Titus’ father Vespasian being the creator god, then by suggesting that Jesus has a divine brother who also gets resurrected, it follows that Titus’ only brother is the 2nd coming of Didymus. 

And it continues. Domitian’s first initial is D, which in Greek is Delta. The capital letter delta is literally a triangle written in Greek as: ∆, so if you wanted to guide worshippers to accept Domitian as god, making them adopt the first letter of Domitian’s name as their holy symbol makes sense. Hence early Christians using the triangle as their favored symbol, not the cross. The name Didymus also begins with ∆, which is probably intentional.

Similarly, when Titus went to conquer Judea, Domitian didn’t go with him, being too young to do so, and that matches the description in John of Didymus who “was not in Judea when Jesus came”. Even on close inspection, the character Didymus evokes Domitian.

Indeed after Jesus has breathed the Holy Spirit onto Didymus, the story concludes with Didymus declaring “My Lord and God”. This has an astonishingly strong connection to Domitian, who is recorded as insisting that everyone must refer to him, whether in writing or verbally, by that same phrase: “Lord and God”.

Joe Atwill points out that there is a reason that Didymus is equated with the Gemini, which isn’t as banal as trying to insert Roman deities (use of any Zodiac deity would achieve that), and it relates to the way that Didymus (aka Thomas) is presented as the doubter – hence the modern phrase a ‘Doubting Thomas’.

Whilst Titus was no doubt proud of his crowning achievement, the destruction of Jerusalem, Domitian had no such war victories as accolades. He did however take the 14th Legion to crush revolt in Germania which proved quite easy, and it’s noteworthy that he took the 14th Legion because this was the main one that had hesitated to accept Flavian rule – that is to say that he forgave and redeemed it. 

The name of that Legion? It was called the Gemini since it was formed by the twinning of two defeated Legions. Admittedly it is not the only Legion that was called the Gemini – the divine twins, but here we have a Gemini that was a ‘doubter’ which was treated favorably – i.e. loved and forgiven. And that’s the story of Didymus in John. He was the doubter, who Jesus gave power to forgive to, and is the divine twin, and the disciple whom Jesus loved.

These parallels are summarized in the following table:

Didymus the Doubter

Domitian’s demonstration of power with his 14th Gemini Legion

The first letter 

‘D’

‘D’

His arrival in Judea

Didn’t come with Jesus in Judea

Didn’t come with Titus to Judea

He was a doubter

His name (Didymus and Thomas) is stated as meaning ‘doubter’ and indeed it means this in both in Greek and in Hebrew. 

His Legion initially doubted Flavian rule, and normally might have expected punishment for this (e.g., lower pay / less opportunity for glory).

His story involves a third aspect of god, and also the narrative of forgiveness

The very sentence prior to Didymus being introduced, has Jesus breathing the Holy Spirit on them, saying “If you forgive, they are forgiven”. John 20:22-233

Despite that legion doubting the Flavians, Domitian forgave it. By choosing to lead them in his Germania campaign, Domitian effectively made a show of forgiving them.

He gains divinity

By deciding he should ‘go to die’ for no apparent reason with Lazarus, and then Jesus resurrecting a person from that tomb, the hidden message is that he was resurrected, but by doing so with Lazarus, which is a metaphor for “all divinity”, the implication is he gains divinity thanks to Jesus. 

This is reinforced by him then placing his hand in the imprint of Jesus’ hand on the cross where the nail was and ‘stretching out his arm and putting it into Jesus’ side’.

By associating himself with the ‘Twin’ ship in Acts, and the 14th ‘Gemini’ Legion (meaning ‘twin’ Domitian links himself to the roman zodiac god Gemini, the twins, who share a divinity. The Gemini are depicted in embrace/holding hands. As such the message is that Domitian gains his divinity from his sibling Titus.

He was one of the 12

Didymus is described as one of Jesus’ 12 which at face value means disciples, but in roman mythology would mean the zodiac.

Domitian’s legion is the 14th Legion, but being called the ‘Gemini’ this identifies with one of the 12 zodiac constellations / gods.

The honorific he uses is ‘lord and god’

Yes, Didymus’ story ends with him speaking to Jesus saying ‘my lord and my god’.

Completing the parallel narrative, Domitian ensures it is known that his title is always ‘lord and god’ and never anything different.

In my 10th paper describing the triangle numbers, there’s one relationship I omitted. This is because I didn’t plan to discuss the meaning of these triangle numbers in that article, beyond that the author is suggesting a three-fold divinity.

When I discussed how John uses the number 6 in the context of it being the first triple triangle number, I showed how John uses the ‘bases’ of that triple triangle number, that is to say that 6 is the 3rd triangle number, and its side length 3 is the 2nd triangle number. So the relevant numbers are 6,3,2 and 1, and I showed that these were present in the first miracle in John with the 6 jars.

With the number 21 this wasn’t necessary because its key numbers are 21, 15 and 6 (its value, periphery and base length), and merely including those was sufficient for the author to signify that 21 was being used in the context of being a triple triangle number.

But what about 666? It’s the all-important third ‘triple triangle number’. Its key numbers are its value (666), its periphery (105) and base length (36) are all absent!? Surely some reference to 666 would be expected? And if those numbers were deemed too obvious, then what about the ‘bases’? 105 is the 14th triangle number, and 36 is the 8th triangle number. Why aren’t at least those numbers, 8 and 14, placed together, e.g. in the same sentence? 

Well, it turns out that they are. I didn’t discuss this in my 10th article because it takes us beyond the scope of what I planned to discuss in that paper. 

So where are they? In John, the number 8 is trivial to find in the story of Didymus, the doubting Thomas. It’s in John 20:25-26 where Thomas/Didymus says “unless… I will my hand in [Jesus’] side, I will not believe. 26: And after eight days again his disciples were there with Thomas… 27: … And Jesus said to Thomas… thrust your hand in my side.”  Yet the number 14 is absent. It doesn’t appear anywhere in John!

Our notional follower is forced to look elsewhere, and as Joe Atwill astutely pointed out, it’s found in the story of… Domitian! Why? Because that doubter, the Legion called the Gemini, which doubted Flavian rule but was forgiven by Domitian who personally led it in his campaign – it was Legion 14.

Summary: We have now unpicked the entire hidden message, and solved the author’s puzzle. 

We can now see that John covertly suggests that Didymus is Jesus’ twin, the one whom Jesus loved, and who he shares a divinity with, in the manner of a Gemini – the roman myth of the brothers who shared a single divinity. Put the clues pointing to Domitian’s doubting 14th Legion, together with Revelations’ hints as to who this second man relating to 666 is (see the next section), and the 1st century follower of Titus would be left in absolutely no doubt that the Emperor Domitian is the third aspect of a three-head god (or holy trinity in modern terms) with Vespasian and Titus. 

This interpretation as incredibly coherent, and as such this lends support for the thesis that the Gospels originated from the Flavian Government, as mutual parodies with Jewish War.

Section 6. Reinforcing messages in Revelation

In this section I will overview how Revelation can be revealed as a parody of Jewish War, which references John-Acts and it’s 666 number riddle, and how it can be better understood once seen in that light, and – again – why this aligns with the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis.

Why Revelation’s riddle-retelling supports a Flavian Secrecy Cult and mutual-parody hypothesis

If later publications on each “side” keep reinforcing the intertextuality – by re-parodying and referencing the existing mutual parodies – then the simplest explanation is that these texts belong to an extended effort by one or more Emperors to develop the project in whatever manner suited their needs. 

On one side of this ‘corpus’ of interwoven texts, we have the works of Josephus (Jewish War, its Slavonic version, and finally Antiquities and Vita). On the other side we have Luke, Matthew, Mark followed by John, Acts and finally Revelation (and perhaps the Lukan Gospel of Marcion under a later Emperor such as Hadrian, and finally the story of Constantine’s mother collecting Jesus’ cross and nails, under Constantine).

Revelation does three things that point back to, and support the idea of Jewish War & Gospels mutually parodying each other for use in a Flavian Secrecy Cult:

1. It parodies Jewish War’s seven-book arc three times in its description of the 7 seals, the 7 trumpets, and the 7 bowls – not randomly, but with repeated rare images and siege metaphors that the reader can find in Josephus.
2. It flags itself as a number-riddle about emperors (“HERE IS WISDOM… COUNT THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST FOR IT IS THE NUMBER OF A MAN,” “MIND WITH WISDOM… SEVEN KINGS”), and goes on to encode Flavian dynastic signatures.
3. It finishes with a parody of Jewish War’s description of Titus’ Triumph parade: It describes a living river of crystals with two deities at its head and the tree straddling it on both sides, mirroring Titus and Vespasian’s parade of people and gemstones running up through the Gate of Pomp.

This is the sort of behavior we’d expect if War and the Gospels were crafted to mirror and parody each other within a controlled Flavian literary program – and if later texts were tasked with sealing that intertextuality whilst developing the project in ways align with the goals of later emperors.

A: The trio of 7-parters (Seals–Trumpets–Bowls) retell War’s 7 volumes

Jewish War Volume 1 – mirrored by SEAL 1 / TRUMPET 1 / BOWL 1 in Revelation

• Rev 6:2: “The first seal was open… I saw a WHITE horse. Its rider held a BOW, and he was GIVEN A CROWN, and he rode out to conquer.”
• War 1.20.1: Herod before Caesar after Actium: “after the BOW that was given [Antony]… God bestowed the on thee (equivalent to GAINING A CROWN).” (WHITE represents Imperial power)
  
   

Jewish War Volume 2 – mirrored by SEAL 2 / TRUMPET 2 / BOWL 2

• Rev 6:4: “a RED horse, its rider granted permission to TAKE AWAY PEACE AND MAKE MEN SLAY ONE ANOTHER, and he was given a GREAT SWORD.”
• War 2 – Archelaus sends his horsemen to kill 3000 men whilst they performed their animal sacrifice ritual (hence the color RED), and the Sicarii are described as wearers of the SWORDS called Sicae), with the overall message that JEWS SLAY ONE ANOTHER.

Jewish War Volume 3 (Galilee, famine, engines) – mirrored by SEAL 3 / TRUMPET 3 / BOWL 3

• Rev 6:5–6: “a BLACK horse, its rider held A PAIR OF SCALES… a quart of wheat for a large coin and three of barley [food extremely costly – i.e. FAMINE] – a denarius coin (COINAGE KNOWN TO DISPLAY THE FACE OF A FLAVIAN EMPEROR).”. Rev 8:10–11; 16:4: Takes a pause in the matching story of the 7 bowls, to mention that as bowl 3 is spilled, the RIVERS TURNED TO BLOOD.
• War 3.7.11,19: Vespasian forces FAMINE in Jotapata, whilst Titus (the two Flavian Emperors), arrived, bringing the battering ram “hung like the BALANCE IN A PAIR OF SCALES.” War 3.10.9: LAKE GALILEE “ALL BLOODY… full of dead bodies. Vespasian arrives at Joppa, and the Jews flee on boats, only to be killed by the “BLACK NORTH WIND”

Jewish War Volume 4 (pestilence, sky dark) – mirrored by SEAL 4 / TRUMPET 4 / BOWL 4

• Rev 6:8: “a PALE GREEN horse; It’s rider was DEATH and HADESfollowed him.”
• Rev 16:8–9: the SUN GIVEN POWER TO SCORCH PEOPLE with fire, yet they did not REPENT.
• War 4 describes the arrival of Titus at Jerusalem and its temple formerly housing the Legion, described as ‘everywhere green’ (which is mirrored in Matthew with the 5000 in companies of 50/100 like a Legion on the (green) grass), which – if you read the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis in detail – has the Roman side equating Jerusalem with the gate of HADES. Jewish War 4.6.2-4 adds that Vespasian wondered if the Jews would REPENT of their crimes, and those escaping the city were killed and LEFT TO PUTRIFY IN THE SUN, and the dead lay in heaps and those who tried to bury the dead were killed (extremes of DEATH). N.B. the colour of death and putrification is a PALE GREEN.

Jewish War Volume 5 (Jerusalem siege; engines) – mirrored by SEAL 5 / TRUMPET 5 / BOWL 5

• Rev 6:9–10: I saw the lamb open the 5th seal, and I saw the SLAIN SOULS UNDER THE ALTAR, and they cried out “How long, O Lord..until…you AVENGE OUR BLOOD?”
• War 5.1.6 Now that 12th legion marched on to AVENGE THEMSELVES, since they had been beaten with Cestius (this references the way Cestius retreats at Jerusalem to a gorge (subterranean) with Jews attacking from above, and improbably escapes death on the third day, and how other generals emerged from underground, usually on the 3rd day, including General Simon who emerged from UNDER THE ALTAR, offering us a message that the rest of Cestius’ Legion are dead SOULS TRAPPED UNDER THAT ALTAR, with their comrades now wishing to AVENGE THEM).

Jewish War Volume 6 (omens; eastern muster) – mirrored by SEAL 6 / TRUMPET 6 / BOWL 6, and – in a slight variation to the pattern – ALSO THE 5TH TRUMPET.

• Rev 6:12–14: I watched as the Lamb opened the 6th seal, and there was a great EARTHQUAKE, and the sun became black, and the moon turned blood red, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth like unripe figs (TEMPORARY STARS)… and THE KINGS OF THE EARTH HID IN THE CAVES … for the wrath of the Lamb has come. Rev 9:14–16; 16:12: And the 6th Angel sounded his trumpet and I heard a voice from the four horns of the GOLDEN ALTAR before God saying “release the four angels BOUND AT THE EUPHRATES. And the 6th angel poured out his bowl on the EUPHRATES… to prepare the way for the kings of the East.
• Rev 8:13-9: 5: I heard an eagle saying “WOE! WOE! WOE! TO THOSE WHO DWELL ON THE EARTH”. The 5th Angel sounded his trumpet, and THE STAR OPENED THE GATES OF THE ABYSS (in a break from the pattern, this appears to reference Jewish War 6 rather than 5).  
• War 6.5.3: A STAR resembling a SWORD and a COMET that continued for a year (TEMPORARY STARS), and as it was brought to the altar, and the great TEMPLE GATES OPENED OF THEIR OWN ACCORD despite normally needing 20 men to push them. And a man called Jesus constantly declared “WOE, WOE TO JERUSALEM”. War 6: Roman legions converge around Jerusalem (where the GOLDEN ALTAR is by the way) – of these the 12th and 16th Legions historically HAD BEEN STATIONED AT THE EUPHRATES.  WAR 6.7.3 describes that the JEWISH LEADER’S ONLY HOPE WAS IN THE CAVES AND CAVERNS UNDERGROUND.
  
   

Jewish War Volume 7 (triumph/settlement) – mirrored by SEAL 7 / TRUMPET 7 / BOWL 7

• Rev 8:1: When the Lamb opened the 7th seal there was SILENCE FOR ABOUT HALF AN HOUR in heaven.. and an angel had a CENSER WITH MUCH INSENSE, WITH THE PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS (GRAND SACRALIZATION), on THE GOLDEN ALTAR before the THRONE; Rev 11:15: “KINGDOM of this world BECOME [the Lord’s]”; Rev 16:17 adds: “The 7th angel poured his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came from the TEMPLE saying  “IT IS DONE!”.
• War 7 describes the Flavian Triumph parade in Rome beginning at the TEMPLE of Isis, up to the TEMPLE of Peace, with the parade including the golden table from Jerusalem’s temple  (THE GOLDEN ALTAR) where Vespasian gave the SIGNAL OF SILENCEand both Titus and Vespasian offered up the accustomed solemn PRAYERS, and offered SACRIFICES TO THE GODS AT THE GATE (GRAND SACRALIZATION) whereupon as was custom, at the TEMPLE of Jupiter Capitolinus the people stood still (i.e. SILENT) waiting for news of the execution of general Simon, and when it was related that there was an end of him (equivalent to an exclamation that “IT IS DONE”) all the people shouted for joy. 
  
   

In summary, Revelation’s stories about the 7 seals, 7 trumpets and 7 bowls can be readily and coherently decoded as a retelling of the 7 volumes of Jewish War.

B. The two beasts and their numbers (how Revelation tells you it’s emperor-coded)

• Rev 13:5–7, describes the first beast: 
  • The word ‘first’ is used to describe him (fits Titus who is the first son)
  • a royal crown-wearing male with a throne and authority over every nation (fits Titus)
  • he was able to act for 42 months (fits Titus and his 42 month war against Jerusalem)
  • they said ‘who can wage war against him’ (fits Titus – the undefeated warmonger)
  • one of his heads was mortally wounded, but the mortal wound healed, and the whole world marvelled and followed him (fits Titus – his 1st coming was killed but resurrected, and everyone marvelled and followed him)
  • he spoke blasphemies against God (fits Titus who produced literature that deviates from Judaism)
  • he was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation (fits Titus who conquered the 12 tribes of Judea, and became Emperor of the known world)
  • and all who dwell on the earth will worship him - all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life belonging to the Lamb who was slain (he is worshipped by all, and is linked to the Lamb of God, Jesus who was slain – so this also fits with Titus).
• Rev 13:11–18, describes the second beast: 
  • The word ‘second’ is used to describe him (fits Domitian who is the second son)
  • “like a lamb” (not Jesus/Titus – but very similar. Fits Domitian, Titus’ brother)
  • He ‘excercised the authority of the first beast’ (fits Domitian, who redirected the Flavian Secrecy Cult after his brother’s death, and secretly styled himself using John and Acts (seen as the second volume of Luke), specifically as the twin who shared a divinity with Titus – i.e. not only his authority as successor, but also his divinity derives from the 1st beast, Titus)
  • He caused the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose mortal wound had been healed (fits Domitian who perpetuated his brother’s religion and made himself an additional god rather than replacing Titus)
  • He deceived those who dwell on the earth, telling them to make an image to the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet had lived (fits Domitian because he perpetuated the Flavian Secrecy Cult which deceives followers into worshipping Jesus, merely as a stepping stone to leading them to become Emperor worshippers).
  • He required all people… to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark - the name of the beast or the number of its name (fits any emperor, whose name is on the coins people needed to buy and sell).
  • “Here is a call for wisdom: Let the one who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and that number is 666” (fits Domitian since John Acts contain a triple triangle number puzzle leading via the number 666, to reveal Domitian (ruler of the doubting twin Legion) as the second coming of Didymus (the doubting twin who went to die in the tomb that Jesus performed a resurrection miracle on with Jesus calling out “arise Lazare” (Lazare being a pun on E’leazar meaning ‘he whom god helps’ – not Lazarus)  
• Rev 14:1–5, The Lamb and the number 144,000
  • Then I looked and saw the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him 144,000… 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. (fits Titus because we already know he is the 2nd coming of the Lamb, but also because Jewish War records:
    • 4,000 Jews killed as Titus leads his men over Gamala’s walls assisted by a ‘divine storm’ (4.1.10) 
    • 40,000 Jews killed as Titus leads his men over Jotapata’s walls assisted by ‘sudden mist’ (3.7.36). 
    • Another key figure is that 97,000 Jews were captured in the war.
    • Jewish War says Titus killed ‘more than 2500’ in Cesarea (i.e. approaching 3000).
    • Add them together you get 144,000. Whilst it is not a perfect solution (they aren’t all fatality numbers), Revelation is writing after Jewish War was published, and so is making the best of an imperfect opportunity.

Wisdom required for the number of the beast, and the number of rulers:

• A key point to note here is that Revelation 13:18 says “here is a call for wisdom… the number of the 2nd beast is 666” and Revelation 17:9-10 repeats nearly the same phrase “This calls for a mind with wisdom… there are 7 rulers (the Greek word ‘Basileis’, meaning king/sovereign/ruler, and in some cases clearly to be translated as Emperor), 5 of whom have fallen…”. 
• I cannot say which 7 Emperors the author wishes to laud, although clearly it includes at least two Flavian Emperors. But what matters here is that these two passages serve to confirm that revelation is talking about rulers. 

Summary: Revelation, which clearly is talking about rulers, can be readily and coherently decoded as describing Titus the 1st son/beast (signified by the number 144,000) as the return of Jesus, with Domitian as the 2nd son/beast (signified by the number 666) as the perpetuator of Titus’ religion – i.e. the text marries precisely to key points in the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis.

C. Triumph-theology finale (brief but vivid)

The following parallel is copied from my book, and shows that Luke 23 mirrors Jewish War 7.5.4-6. Whilst of course this is yet another piece of direct evidence in support of them mutually parodying each other, what I want to highlight here is that Revelation chimes in and adds to the depth of the interconnection between the two sides (Josephus’ works vs New Testament).

Jewish War 663-665 / 7.5.4-6

Vespasian and Titus pooled their resources for a monumental procession in Rome. 

Early they came out crowned with laurel,and clothed in purple robes (which only Emperors could wear), and went to the governors of the city for a tribunal, where the troops gave attestations of their valor. The Praetorian Guard would implicitly have been a key part of the Triumph.

They gave a feast (i.e., involving all the men), and paraded to be seen by the multitudes, and the parade involved great numbers of captives (including women from Galilee) following and watching them. 

The parade was truly vast, with huge parade floats, troops, displays etc. and rather than merely be a pompous show, it was, “as one may say, running along like a river”.

[Whilst unstated in Jewish War, the 1st C. reader would know that Titus and Vespasian were later deified as gods. So the “river” extends from two ‘gods’ located at its head down the middle of the main streets of the city.]  

The huge riches displayed included immense quantities of gold, and silver. Also a vast number of transparent precious stones were carried along.

The key monument it passed through was the Gate of the Pomp, which all Triumphs must pass through, and this giant stone gate straddled “either side” of the great parade, which had murals/images (‘leaves’ of a sort) sculpted on its sides.

Jewish War 665 (7.5.6)

The procession reached the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, for the enemy general to be slain (i.e., Simon). This building was named after a skull discovered in its foundations, and it is tradition for the Triumphator there to be offered, but refuse, wine.

Roman law required that “malefactors” be executed at the end of the parade… The Jewish general chosen was Simon,  son of Gioras who had been dragged in the triumph via a rope. They waited in silence and when Simon had died all the people offered a shout for joy (an attestation). 

Luke 23:1-49 etc. 

The multitude arose and led Jesus…. to the governor... they arrayed him in a purple robe, and put a crown of thorns on his head and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee saying, Hail, King of the Jews! (a mock attestation) 

They led Jesus to the hall of judgment (- a tribunal) known as the Praetorium and they called together all the men..   and it was early… And they had a feast.

And as they walked, Jesus said that thehuge number of men and women following them should be weeping in sadness for their own misfortune. 

And all the women that followed him from Galilee watched. 

Revelation 22:1-3 

the angel showed a river of the water of life (i.e., a living river). It was clear as crystal (- precious transparent stone).

This river extends from two Gods (Lamb and God) located at its source, down the middle of the main street of the city.

“On either side of the river” stood a tree of life (- singular yet spans a street of a city - so this has the shape of a city gate)...   And the leaves of the tree/gate are for the healing of the nations.

Luke 23:26-47 etc. 

To Jesus they offered him wine.. which he refused. 

And they laid hold upon Simon and made him bear Jesus' cross… And they came to Calvary/Golgotha, the place of the skull, and crucified him with “malefactors” executed next to him. 

The Centurion (- a Roman) said that certainly Jesus was a righteous man. And all the people that gathered to see, smote their breasts (- the practice of Roman soldiers when giving attestation).

If there was any doubt as to whether Revelation is hinting at a connection between this ‘tree of life’ and a city’s gates, Revelation continues, only a few verses later in 22:14 by saying “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by its gates.

Summary:

Revelation explicitly announces itself as a wisdom-riddle about rulers, and then:

1. Re-tells the seven-book arc of Jewish War via three heptads (the descriptions of the 7 seals, 7 trumpets, and 7 bowls).
2. Describes the two beasts in a manner evoking Titus and Domitian.
3. Describes the living river/crystal procession in a manner evoking Titus’ procession.

Critically, it does these three things not only cryptically, but in a manner that would only be identified by someone who understands how Luke and Jewish War work together to provide the intertextual literature underpinning the Flavian Secrecy Cult. To everyone else, this is invisible.

Taken together, these moves are highly compatible with an effort to reinforce that Jewish War and the Gospel literature are intertextually linked (written together to mutually parody each other), so this evidence supports the view that Jewish War and Luke are in fact mutual parodies of each other. 

This is compatible with the idea that the secrecy cult was primarily a project of the Flavian Emperors, but may have been further developed by some of their successors.

Section 7. Reinforcing messages in the Jewish Talmud 

In this section I will show that the Jewish Talmud indicate that its authors viewed Christianity as intimately connected with a Roman origin or indeed directly with the Flavian Emperors, which is harder to explain if this was not the case, than if it were.

Talmudic items that lend themselves to being interpreted in a manner corroborating a Flavian–Christian connection

A.3) The “mule that gave birth” & 100,000 coins (Bechorot 8b)

The text involves a discussion between rabbis which goes as follows:

“A mule gave birth, and a note hung from its foal’s neck: it owed 100,000 dinars to its father’s house…” The elders discuss this and agree that it is nonsense because a mule cannot give birth.

The elders go on to pose their own fiction in response, commenting that “If salt rots, what do you use to preserve it” which they similarly mock – it is obvious that they are mocking the proposition in the Gospels which reads “Luke 14:34 Matt 5:13 You are the salt of the earth: however if the salt has lost its flavor, how shall the salt be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” 

• Why it matters: The passage is clearly linked to the Gospels, but the “mule” recalls Vespasian’s nickname (mulio, “muleteer”), whilst the reference to ‘zuz’ reinforces a Flavian link, since a zuz is a defaced roman Denarius - the exact coin that was most likely to display the face of one of the Flavian Emperors.
• The story can be read as mocking an “impossible birth” (the Christian virgin birth) while slyly pointing at a Flavian mule-emperor behind it. (Suetonius notes Vespasian’s mule trade/nickname.) 

Why this supports the thesis: This passage lends itself extremely easily to being interpreted as mockery of Christianity, and drops in two references that can be easily interpreted as references to the Flavian Emperors. This is the sort of hidden message you might expect to find in Jewish literature if some of the rabbis who wrote it believed that the Flavians were responsible for Jesus’ story.

A.4) A second denigration of Jesus, also connecting him to the Mule-teer (Vespasian’s nickname).

As shown by the 1st example above, the Babylonian Talmud (Bechorot 8b) mocks the idea in Luke of Jesus saying that salt loses its flavor so it needs resalting. Notice that this can be equated, in culinary terms, of someone oversalting a dish, aka ‘spoiling’ the dish.

The Talmud picks this up in Bavli Sanhedrin 103a, where it denigrates an ‘evil’ ‘son or disciple who publicly spoils his dish like Jesus the Nazarene’.

Two further sections develop this narrative (Section B Ber 17a-b and Sanh 10.1) adding that you should not associate with 4 individuals – 3 are named men and one is stated to be a ‘son or disciple who publicly spoils his fish’, and then repeating a list of 4 individuals describing them as very bad people (specifically, the ones with no place in heaven) – 3 are fathers of those exact same 3 men, and one is Balaam (the destroyer) plus three unnamed kings (we can easily guess though). Noticeably the two lists both mention Doeg (or in the other list Doeg’s father).

This connection to Doeg is critical since Doeg is described elsewhere as ‘driver of the mules’ (which again, is Vespasian’s nickname; the muleo/mule-teer). 

In case my reader doubts that this still has to do with Christianity and Vespasian, Doeg is also described as ‘killer of priests’ (which is one thing Vespasian and Titus did whilst destroying Jerusalem), and accused of ‘taking god’s covenant into his mouth’ (which mirrors how the story about the mule giving birth is about god’s covenant) and having his ‘own Torah’ which is only insincere lip service (what else could this mean, other than the New Testament?), ‘mightiest of the shepherds’ (an allusion to Jesus the shepherd). He is described as a man who should be ‘uprooted’ (a reversal of the metaphor of Rome uprooting Judaism as alluded to in the Gospels and War of the Jews), and mirroring Jesus - he died within a year of age 33 (Sanhedrin 106b). Indeed, the other two named men have strong connections to Jesus too – dying at age 33 – attempting a resurrection, believed to be king of Israel.

A.5) Vespasian & Yohanan b. Zakkai (Gittin 56a–b) -> Rome as God’s instrument

Yohanan b. Zakkai tells Vespasian: “You are king… otherwise Jerusalem would not be delivered into your hand.” (Gittin 56b) 

• Why it matters: A central Talmudic account explicitly names Vespasian as the divinely fated conqueror, mirroring Josephus’s theology that Rome (Flavians) executed God’s judgment. As background corroboration, it aligns with the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis.

Why this supports the thesis: Whilst obviously not proof, it offers convergent testimony that Flavians are cast as God’s chosen agents in Jewish memory – consistent with a program where Christian literature could serve Flavian legitimation.

A.6) A fourth example how the Talmud can be seen as mocking a roman creation of Jesus

This example is not linked to the Flavians, but certainly is linked to the Romans. In the Talmud (Bechoros 8 4 / Avodas Zara 11b) it says ‘they have a festival in rome’ where Rome would present a whole and defectless man (how Pilate described Jesus) on the back of a lame man (a possible reference to Jewish War 3.7.22 describing Vespasian’s agony upon receiving an arrow in the leg), every 70 years (1AD and 69AD being the dates of Jesus’ birth and Vespasian becoming Emperor) and they dress this defectless man in the garments of Adam (a metaphor for Jesus being dressed up in Jewish literature), which the Romans flayed when they executed him (thereby connecting this again to Jesus’ execution).

Based on the information so far, this is not a strong example, and we could think of other explanations for it, but it would explain why other authors (e.g. Carrier) have identified that the Talmud speaks about a Jesus of Nazarene in the region of 70 BC. Seen through the Flavian Secrecy Cult lens, the Talmud is joking – or more accurately the author is mocking, using carefully veiled metaphor to avoid detection by the Roman censors. This explains why the Talmud even references that earlier Jesus of Nazarene (circa 75 BC) as having close ties to “the roman authorities” (Sandrehin, 43:18-22) – which Carrier seems to overlook.

What makes it a stronger example is the text in Tract Avodah Zara [Section on Idolatry]. Ch 1, Parts 1 to 8, which concludes with exactly the same message “festival in Rome which occurs once in seventy years, on which they would make a well man ride on a lame man, dress him in the garments of Adam” and which begins with a very telling comment: “Why are men compared with fish of the sea?” This aligns with an awareness of a pivotal metaphor used in the Flavian Secrecy Cult, where Titus has his men fish men out of Lake Galilee, and Jesus’s story (set a generation earlier) says that he will make his men do exactly this – i.e. it is commenting on how the Gospels covertly compare men to fish.

A.7) Jesus linked Pandera, and to a Gentile (Roman) origin.

The Talmud frequently equates Jesus with ‘Pandera’, although it’s possible Pandera is used to refer to Jesus’ lineage or origin. Pandera strongly evokes ‘Panther’ which means ‘preys on everything’ and so would offer a negative connotation.

Some examples:

Talmud: Tosefta Hullin 2:24 – "a word of heresy in the name of Jesus son of Pantiri"

Talmud: Seder Moed, Shabboth 14:4/13 – "Jesus Pandera"

Talmud: Tosefta Hullin 2:22f – "Jesus son of Pantera / Pandera”

Talmud: Jerusalem Abodah Zarah 2:2/7 – "Jesus son of Pandera"

Talmud: Jerusalem Abodah Zarah 2:2/12 – "Jesus son of Pandera"

Talmud: Qohelet Rabbah 1:8(3) – "Jesus son of Pandera" 

Talmud: Jerusalem Shabboth 14:4/8 – "Jesus son of Pandera"

Talmud: Jerusalem Shabboth 14:4/13 – "Jesus Pandera"

Having noted that Pandera is a reference to Jesus or his lineage/origin, we can now identify that the Talmud and related Jewish literature emphasizes Jesus’ Gentile (i.e. Roman) origin, as follows, and in one case even associates him directly with Titus and Vespasian:

Talmudic and Tannaitic Portrayals of Yeshu / Pandera’s Gentile Identity or Status

Source

Translation

Evidence of Gentile Association or Status

b. Shabbat 104b / b. Sanhedrin 67a

expanded on by 

Toledot Yeshu (early strata, post-Talmudic)

Here ben Stada is equated with ben Pandera via a word-play chain: “The husband was Stada and the paramour was Pandera… the husband was Pappos ben Yehuda… the mother was Miriam the women’s hairdresser… ‘Stada’ = ‘she strayed (satat da) from her husband.’” 

The Toledot expands on this, saying that Pandera was a Roman soldier. 

(N.B. Peter Shaefer (‘Jesus in the Talmud’) claimed that in Contra Celsum this same association is made between Pandera and a ‘Roman’ soldier, although I have not been able to find or verify the reference).

Explicit Roman/Gentile paternity although post-Talmudic.

b. Gittin 56b–57a (Onkelos raising Yeshu)

Sequence: R. Yoḥanan b. Zakkai hails Vespasian as king; then Onkelos performs necromancy and summons (not “resurrects”) Titus, Balaam, and Yeshu. Yeshu says his punishment is boiling excrement for mocking the Sages.

Conceptual grouping of Yeshu with Gentile enemies (Vespasian and Titus, and especially close association with Titus).

This shows that the Talmud doesn’t merely mock or denigrate Jesus, as is widely thought, but that in doing so it points to Jesus having a Roman origin, connected with Vespasian and Titus. 

These are just selected examples. There are many other examples where the Talmud hints at or associates Jesus or Pandera to a Gentile connection.

Summary: These examples point to Flavian involvement in creation of Christianity, although they certainly do not offer proof. The Shakespearean examples are too numerous to properly overview here (see my 5th article for details) and yet also too subtle to be accepted by many critics. Even the Talmud examples are just that – a selection of examples. 

The point is that if the Flavians invented Jesus and taught people about this under oath of secrecy, you could expect at least someone to figure it out. But if it talking about it openly invited execution of you and your family, then we would not expect open or frequent commentary.

Who else would dare to comment than the Jewish rabbis or a network of closet Jews (Shakespeare is linked to Emelia Lannier at the very least by personal association – the mistress of the royal who controlled the Shakespeare playhouse, who Atwill shows was almost certainly from a Jewish family), and how else could they do so except in coded mockery in a large book of law, or in deeply veiled metaphor in plays, where they could be shared, but still go unnoticed by the censors? 

As such, these examples of evidence are better aligned with the hypothesis that the Flavians created Christianity, than they are to the mainstream assumption that the two are unrelated.

Section 8. Perfect fit with Vespasian’s objectives, capabilities and culture – his means, motive, and opportunity

We can be sure that Emperor Vespasian was a remarkable strategist, if only because he emerged the simultaneous victor of the great Roman Jewish war, and the Roman Civil War, in the year 69 AD. 

We can also be sure that he wanted to avoid the grim fate of his four recent predecessors who had all been toppled from the throne and killed in the previous 12 months (the famous year of four emperors). His primary objective, surely, was to avoid being the fifth gruesomely murdered Emperor. For this he needed to prevent those two wars reigniting, and for that he needed widespread loyalty.

If we are looking for a culprit for creation of the Gospels, it makes sense to look at this through the lens of means, motive and opportunity, to which perhaps we should add culture.

Culture: The history of the Roman Empire is replete with Emperors who sought to be worshipped as various Roman gods. Relatively few emperors ignored the very obvious benefits of promoting worship of themselves as gods, but they differed in the lengths they went to, to promote it. Roman Emperors created and maintained state religions and promoted or tolerated a range of secrecy cults – to the point that it was a standard model for religion in the 1st century AD. Vespasian would be no different, in wishing to be worshipped as a God, and accounts of him performing healing of the blind and lame, and being deified as a God on his deathbed make it clear he was no exception to this cultural norm.

Means: Vespasian gained the throne of the Empire in AD69, and was very much a dictator, able to control all temples, and create new religions as he pleased. He wasn’t merely a remarkable strategist (as observed above), but had the entire Roman government at his disposal, undoubtedly containing teams of capable staff, who could devise, develop and implement strategies suiting his objectives. 

Motive: We can imagine that either he, or his advisors identified an opportunity to promote a fictional story about a miracle worker and prophet, who conveniently died a generation earlier.

We can identify how convenient the existing Pauline literature would be for this project, since it talks of a man called Jesus, and yet has almost nothing to say about his entire life story. For example it doesn’t suggest he lived in (or even visited) Judea, and barring one passage in Romans 1, which has been speculated by other scholars to be a later addition, it doesn’t even suggest he was Jewish. 

If Jesus’ Gospel story was written carefully enough, this would permit the Empire’s temples to later reveal (under oath of secrecy) to their followers how Jesus’ story acts as a prophetic fore-runner of himself or his family. This would lead the people to accept the Emperor as the 2nd coming of Jesus. Vespasian certainly had the opportunity to launch such a religion, and this would explain why Christianity arose not in Judea, but in Vespasian’s capital, Rome. 

I think it is reasonable to question why Vespasian had the motive and plenty of time, to pull off this sophisticated propaganda strategy, yet the textual links between the surviving version of Jewish War and Luke relate more strongly to his son Titus (only a minority relate to Vespasian himself). Titus only ruled for a two year period about a decade after those two wars had ceased, making him the less obvious candidate to have done much more than reconfigure his father’s project. 

This conundrum can be solved by identifying a scenario where the famously lost 1st version of Jewish War was written to promote worship of Vespasian, and the surviving 2nd version of Jewish War was produced to promote worship of Titus. As noted in my other papers, the surviving version of Jewish War states that it is based on an earlier ‘father’-tongue version, and yet modern linguists have shown this to be a lie, since it is clearly not a translation. This puzzle can be solved by identifying it as a pun joking about the earlier version being that of his ‘father’.

But we can go a step beyond whether Vespasian had the motive to create loyalty by promoting a miracle worker story which covertly contains a (cleverly backdated) ‘prophecy’ about himself. We should ask exactly who he wanted to influence. To answer this we must look at who he needed loyalty from in order to prevent a reigniting of the two wars he had just emerged victor of – the Roman Jewish War in Judea, and the Civil War in Rome. As such, the two most obvious audiences would be 1) the Jews and 2) the Empire’s Legions including Rome’s Praetorian Guard, followed perhaps by commoners and slaves in general.

It would be easy for Vespasian to guide the Legionaries into temples he would set up inside the Legions, whereas the Jews were a far more challenging yet also vital audience. They were devout monotheists who already hated Vespasian as their enemy, and their recent revolt had stretched Nero’s Legions and served to enable the Civil War in Rome. But most importantly, as Vespasian took the throne, that Jewish revolt was threatening to erupt again. This explains why Vespasian would promote a story of a Jewish miracle-worker whose story could be revealed as a prophecy of his family’s divine rise, even though the Pauline literature (barring about one line, which may not be original) doesn’t suggest that Jesus was Jewish.

Opportunity: Arguably, Vespasian had no need for an opportunity. He was the dictator of most of the known world, and could establish a new secrecy cult and associated literature simply by telling his staff to “make it so”. But we must not forget how difficult it was to influence the Jews. They were devout monotheists with a religion that involves excluding non-Jews from their homes and communities (at the least at Passover, and in the 1st century, more generally too). They saw themselves as a warrior race who escaped slavery, and Rome as their enemy who was trying to re-enslave them. Due to this extreme resistance it’s appropriate to ask whether Vespasian had a particular opportunity that other Emperors lacked.

And opportunity is he had - afforded by the destruction of Jerusalem. Prior to 69 AD, Jews universally believed that their God resided at the holy temple in Jerusalem. Not figuratively, but literally and physically. The sacred holiest temple at the mount of Jerusalem had a huge empty room at the back, veiled by a curtain, and the Jews of the time believed that their God physically resided in that space.

This explains why, when seeking to crush the Jewish uprising, Vespasian and Titus were not content to lay siege to Jerusalem and kill its leaders. Having taken it by force, they had it levelled so completely, that as Luke puts there was “not one stone left upon another”, and we find much more interesting language in Jewish War which records that Jerusalem’s temple was “so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came there believe it had ever been inhabited”. 

This wording in Jewish War betrays the purpose of destroying that temple so completely. The goal was to make Jews doubt that it had been inhabited by the Jewish God - via the logic that surely an almighty God is able to protect his house from mere human beings?

This total destruction, along with the killing of the Jewish high priests, provided a temporary period when Jews were left bewildered and confused, and Judaism undermined, and with it the opportunity to influence the Jews to abandon Judaism. 

In short, it was Vespasian who had the means, motive and opportunity, to create a Secrecy Cult based on a good news story building on the existing Pauline literature so vaguely describing Jesus Christ.

Section 9. The ways in which Jesus’ teachings align with Flavian objectives, and how Jewish War pushes a matching narrative

It would be hard to list all the passages in the New Testament that contain teachings aligning with the objectives of the Flavian Emperors. Instead I will list some highlights:

9.1 Promotion of Submission and Taxes to Roman Authority

For example “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, which encourages Jews to accept Roman taxation and authority, whilst easing the Empire’s financial woes. The message to “walk a mile” aligns with roman law a roman soldier may command a commoner to carry his kit for a mile.

9.2 Encouraging Roman Soldiers to tolerate low pay

Jesus message to the roman soldiers to accept low pay, serves to eases the Empire’s financial difficulties, and in particular the extreme burden of financing the Legions.

9.3 Pacifism and Rejection of Violent Revolt

For example “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies”, promotes non-violence, which would undermine historical Jewish messianic movements. 

9.4 Linking Divine Kingship with an Imperial Model

For example the portrayal of Jesus as a divine “Son of Man” and king, tends to parallel Flavian claims to apotheosis and divine descent. The Gospels embed numerological and typological symbols reflecting imperial cult language.

9.5 Praise of the Roman Centurion’s Faith

The centurion is depicted as a model of faith, surpassing all Israelites, reflecting a positive view of Roman soldiers and solidifying the notion that loyalty to Rome can coexist with religious virtue.

9.6 Reframing of the 10 commandments.

Jesus omits the commandment to love the Jewish God

Jesus omits the commandment not to make graven images of God (since as with so many leaders, having their face in the temples was critical for making commoners worship them, and having their face on the coins the commoners worked daily to obtain, is a propaganda technique followed by almost every dictator in history)

Jesus omits the commandment to respect the Sabbath (the Flavians wanted their Legionaries to work any day of the week)

Jesus instead adds a requirement to follow him (suiting use in a Flavian Secrecy Cult where Titus would be revealed as his 2nd coming).

9.7 Remarkably, Jewish War mirrors these same values when it describes an promotes the way of the Essene, as follows:

Model for Pacification and Control

Jewish War depicts the Essenes as a sect practicing strict communal living, humility, and non-violence, and never doing except as told - all traits that promote internal peace and reduce the likelihood of rebellion. This conveniently offers a template encouraging Jews and Legionaries to adopt attitudes favorable to Roman order, paralleling Jesus’ teachings, including in the Empire’s Navy, Army and even work camps and slave houses.

Promotion of Humility and Resource Conservation

Jewish War depicts the Essenes communal sharing, rejection of wealth accumulation, and modest lifestyle. This matches Jesus’ calls for detachment from material possessions and humility, but also aligns with the Flavian need for control and conserving the resources of the Empire.

Emphasis on Obedience and Oath-bound Secrecy

Jewish War depicts the Essenes adhering to strict rituals and oaths, and living in a four-level hierarchy. This serves as a model for the Flavian Secrecy Cult’s initiation system and four-stage hierarchy, where followers of Jesus’ narrative were progressively initiated, sworn to secrecy, and gradually exposed to the hidden truth connecting Jesus to Flavian imperial figures.

Undermining Passover and the Jewish lineage

Essene practices include extreme minimalism, and even exclude eating more than one food per plate and more than one plate per meal, which eliminates being able to perform Passover, the ritual that serves to reinforce Judea’s people as a nation. This mirrors the Gospels efforts to present Jesus as a grand sacrifice at Passover, and the later Church’s explanations as to why Passover is not required. Added to this, the Essene are described as focussing on adoption rather than raising ones own children, which is compatible with efforts to stamp out how Judaism is passed down from mother to child.

Worshipping their Legislator and carrying weapons only against robbers, and suggesting two versions

Jewish War describes the (Jewish) Essene sect in a manner that is compatible with this being a model for non-Essene culture. This explains why Jewish War says they worship their Legislator, but conspicuously fails to confirm who that Legislator is. Jewish War suggests they never carry weapons except to guard against robbers when travelling – but notice that Jewish War reserves the word ‘robbers’ for the leaders of Rome’s enemies. This is compatible with Jewish War presenting the Essene as a model for those serving in Rome’s Legions. Indeed Jewish War deviates from the two other sources, suggesting there are two types of Essene colony – those that can marry, and those which do not fraternise with women. One model suits commoners, since the Empire needed a growing population, whilst the other model suits the Legions and Navy.

Section 10. The extraordinary explanatory power of the thesis 

The Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis, which appears to be the only coherent scenario requiring that (and explaining why) Jewish War and Luke parody each other, has extraordinary explanatory power.

It explains a vast swath of historical puzzles, which competing hypotheses cannot explain. These are listed below:

1. It explains why Jesus is written to evoke an Emperor and from the viewpoint of an Emperor: It explains why Jesus is presented with Emperor’s gifts as a baby, an Emperor’s robe at his death, an Emperor’s quantity of spices at his funeral, and an entrance to Jerusalem that evokes an Emperor’s triumph. It explains why Jesus teaches Jews to pay tax to the Roman Emperor, chose the slave of a Roman Centurion’s to heal, taught Roman soldiers to accept low pay (noting that their cost was nearly crippling the Empire), and even declares that a Roman Centurion ‘is’ (not ‘had’) the greatest faith in Israel.
2. It explains why Jesus’ teaches acceptance of oppression and antisemitism: It explains why Jesus’ teachings lead people to see humility, poverty, and acceptance of oppression as a virtue, and why it is so easily interpreted as encouraging hatred against Jews, with Jesus describing the Jews of that time as an ‘evil generation’ who should repent, and his story suggesting the Jews have Jesus’ blood forever on their hands.
3. It explains why Jesus has such a specific second coming, which Christians still await 2000 years later: It explains why Jesus would claim he would be resurrected and have a second coming (so people could be guided to see this person as Emperor Titus), and why this would happen within one generation, that believers should expect it ‘imminently’. It explains why Jesus rose on the third day (i.e. Titus’ birthday, the third day of their calendar), why this would take 40 years (Titus was born in the year corresponding to 40AD) and indeed why this would be revealed by the fall of Jerusalem (the act defining Titus’ crowning victory), and why Jesus came with a sword, declaring that he does not come to bring peace, and why his face would appear ‘transfigured’ with a different ‘white’ face (Titus being a Caucasian Commander).
4. It explains why Jesus left no physical evidence at all: It explains why Jesus left behind no writings, monuments, family, remains, documents, etc. We have nothing but a fake shroud, fake cross fragments, and the odd sighting on toast.
5. It explains why nobody at the time noted Jesus’ existence: In explains why no Judean records from the AD 30s mention this miracle worker who raised the dead to life, walked on water or fed the 5000. It explains why the Pauline literature (which predates the Gospels) exhibits zero awareness of almost every aspect of Jesus’ life story, barring his crucifixion.
6. The thesis – when you get into its details relating to Domitian’s involvement - explains why the Gospels point to god being threefold, why Jesus is God’s Lamb killed at Passover and why he declared his flesh and blood are for us to eat and drink: It explains Domitian’s intervention which portrays God as a three-fold, which led to the modern Holy Trinity interpretation, and explains why Jesus is presented as a Passover lamb sacrifice (i.e. both to suggest that the Jews can cease performing Passover, the ritual that keeps the Jewish nation coherent, preventing them from being slowly absorbed into the Roman Empire), but additionally so that parallels evoking Exodus 12 can be included to help make it undeniable that Luke and Jewish War were written together. In doing so it explains why 666 is the number of the second beast, and why 42 is the number of the first beast, and why 144,000 is the number of the lamb. It explains why the specific numbers 153, 276, 120 and 300 are found in John and Acts.
7. It explains the observations that have led many secular scholars see Jesus’ story as a collage of existing Myths. It explains why Jesus’ story evokes that of a wide variety of Mediterranean deities such as Mithras, Zeus, Samson and more i.e., partly to attract people from many faiths, and apparently also because the Flavians wanted to be worshipped as a supreme god embodying all of those earlier divinely powerful figures.
8. As mentioned earlier, it explains the observations that have led many secular scholars to think that Jewish War must have been added to by early Christian apologist copyists. It explains why in Jewish War the passages talking overtly of Jesus’ story have the strong appearance of being ‘added’, without needing to suppose this was done by a later copyist to all surviving copies (i.e., they were indeed forcibly ‘added’, but this was done by the original author who needed to arrange them to form the APTVS pattern), and it explains why later Christian apologists who clearly knew of Jewish War and knew it was obviously from the 1st century, failed to point out these references to Jesus’ story (i.e., because these parallels could be used to identify the APTVS pattern and therefore posed a threat).
9. It explains why Jewish War states that it is the second version, the first being in the ‘father tongue’ but yet linguists have shown that it isn’t a translation, and why the first half has a different writing style, and doesn’t discuss the topic stated in the title. This is explained by the proposition that the first version was the ‘father’s message’ i.e. Vespasian’s, and that it was perhaps originally designed to form only two letters, “VS”, but after his untimely death, his son Titus issued the second version with another 300 paragraphs added to the front discussing the previous century of conflict so as to add the letter APT forming APTVS, which appears to have either been coined to take advantage of messages that were either already within the Gospel of Luke or being added at the same time.
10. It explains the layout and content difference between Luke and Mark/Matthew, and details in John and Acts: It explains why there needed to be multiple versions of Jesus’ story, with Mark and Matthew containing much near-identical text as Luke in some places, yet arranged in a different order (i.e., Mark and Matthew designed for Gentile and Jewish audiences and aiming to conceal the links with Titus and the APTVS pattern, but Luke designed to reveal this). 

It also explains why Acts appears to be the 2nd volume of Luke and why John was written after the synoptic gospels. It explains why John has notable differences, such as introducing the new disciple Didymus who was a Doubter called the Twin, and suggests that Jesus has brothers. 

It even explains why Acts has a voyage on a ship figured headed by the Gemini. It explains away the apparent ‘multiple witnesses’ such as John vs the synoptic Gospels, by showing that they have the same origin.

1. It explains why the Gospels are in Koine Greek - a language that Jesus wouldn’t have spoken. By showing that Luke and Jewish War were intended to be read together, it follows that needed to be in the same language. Latin was an unacceptable choice for Luke as it would have betrayed its roman origin. Conversely, Hebrew and Aramaic were unacceptable choices for publishing Jewish War across the Empire. Thus Greek is the obvious compromise (or rather Koine Greek which was the common form of Greek between 300 BC and 300 AD).
2. It explains the purpose of Jesus’ story: It was written to drive the Jews, Gentiles and Legionaries of the Empire to worship the Roman Emperor and pay their taxes, thereby cementing the Flavian’s hold on the throne, ensuring the economic success of the Empire, with the aim of sustaining Flavian rule for generations.
3. It explains a huge number of parables and details of Jesus’ story: Merely as examples, it explains why Jesus tells Simon that he will be dragged to his death and should feed his four-legged beasts, why another Simon is made to lead Jesus’ procession to Golgotha, why Golgotha is described as the place of the skull (i.e., it is a parody of the Triumph arriving at the Capitoline that was named after a skull). 

It explains why Jesus refers to Jerusalem as a den of thieves, and talks to the devil upon Jerusalem’s holy house, why John is described as having a devil, why it is he who says he should be plunged in the river Jordan by Jesus (because this is a parody of Titus drowning John’s forces in that river), why Jesus sends pigs to drown in the Jordan (for the same reason), why Jesus descends into the earth and defeats death at Jerusalem, why Jesus’ story keeps mentioning Hades rather than Hell (because Jerusalem was intended to be equated with Hades). 

It explains why Jesus described a Samaritan when asked who you should love, and why Jesus is described as a Samaritan and doesn’t deny it, why he fed the 4000 and the 5000 leaving 12 baskets full, why he healed the slave without going into the house.

It explains why he offers an ambiguous liberty to leave, why he repeatedly bends down and up when they contemplate stoning an adulteress, why his story permits a reading in which he resurrected a man referred to Lazare (meaning Eleazar, or “he whom god helps”) after the twin went into the tomb with Lazarus, and why that doubting twin Thomas went to die with Lazarus in the first place. 

It explains why Jesus talked of a good Samaritan, and of men becoming Eunuchs for kings, and ‘letting them receive it’, why Jesus is rebuked for touching children but dismisses it as this being the way in god’s kingdom (possible effort to justify Flavian’s approach to life - which mirrors that Domitian was known to have a Eunuch, and other Emperors were recorded as pursuing far more debauched lives) etc.

It explains why Jesus predicts that he will be born again, and that his 2nd coming will be revealed by the destruction of Jerusalem (an act completed by Titus), or why when adding the timelines of Jesus the Jerusalem prophet in Luke with Jesus the Jerusalem prophet up until the fall of Jerusalem, you arrive at the date of Titus’ birthday, who notably is recorded as being born on the third day (according to Suetonius using the calendar of the time).

It explains why Mary’ story has her arriving at the house of Zacharias not pregnant, and leaving apparently 3 months later visibly pregnant (which takes 3 months), and why names such as Zacharias and Lazarus contain the word Arias (Areios meaning ‘of Ares’ – hence aligning with the idea of the Flavians or Titus being worshipped as Ares Piso.

1. It explains why the Romans have been thought of as expert strategists, yet bizarrely mute when it comes to propaganda: By showing Josephus to be fictional, this shows that several prominent writers were propaganda outlets (or the government chose to publish works falsely in their names), and the reality is that the Romans were so good at propaganda that we have been unable to detect which writings were in fact propaganda.
2. As mentioned, it explains why the Romans were claimed so often to have persecuted early Christians: It explains why so many writers over the following centuries who had no first-hand knowledge of it, made unsupported claims that the romans persecuted early Christians (i.e. to make it hard for anyone to imagine that the romans created Jesus’ story).
3. It explains why Josephus’ story is so bizarrely implausible. It explains why Josephus is described as the supreme Jewish military and religious leader, despite no contemporary Judean records mentioning this, who Vespasian and Titus defeated and then befriended despite it being their culture to execute him publicly in the Triumph in Rome.

It explains why gave their enemy permission to write their account of their crowning achievement, including how they defeated him (the explanation being because the roman government wanted to present a model for Jews to emulate).

1. It explains why Jesus’ story would not only parallel Titus’ story (This being to enable the temples to lead followers to see Titus as the second coming of Jesus), but also why Josephus’ own story would parody Jesus’ story back (This apparently being so Josephus Matthias could be revealed as both a Hebrew anagram of Piso and a pun on ‘Mighty/Mega Arrius/Areios/Ares’, as part of an effort to mislead the followers that Emperor Titus – who was apparently to be worshipped as Ares Piso Titus – had personally written the Gospels, thereby helping convince them that he had super-human intellect, and thus as evidence of him being divine (although this does not mean he actually was particularly intelligent, as he had any number of government employees to strategize and do his bidding).
2. It explains why Tacitus and other writers just happen to mention knowing Josephus in person, indeed in private correspondence that just happened to become widely circulated – in this scenario, the Flavian government had a great need to convince the Jewish population that Josephus was real. Having writers produced in Tacitus’ name, that would happen to mark Josephus as convincingly real and historical, and would be a trivially easy strategy for the Flavian government to implement. This also explains why the most well preserved roman writings from that era are all from sources that back up Josephus’ viewpoint and historicity.

In the scenario where the Flavian government created Jewish War co-written with the Gospel story to lead Jesus-followers to accept Titus as the 2nd coming, it makes sense to create a fictional Jewish General (or superimpose a life story on a dead Jewish General). This explains why Josephus’ story is so improbable – for example why he mirror’s Jesus’ story, why he was the supreme Jewish General yet defected willingly to the Roman side, and why the Roman’s supposedly (but implausibly) accepted him, freed him, lavished gifts on him and allowed him to write the history document detailing their victory over Judea. Such a narrative would make sense if you wanted to provide a model for Jews to follow – i.e. that they should follow their ‘leader’ in switching to the Roman side. It also explains why Jewish War has a stated author who claims to have prophetic abilities, both predicting the day of his own defeat to the Romans, and the rise of the Flavians to power as if ordained by god. 

It also explains why he is the only person (or character) who recorded ‘first hand’ that he was a member of the Essene, and indeed why he is the number 1 primary source for the nature of that Essene sect, which – as it happens has doctrines and behaviors matching how the Flavians would want their Empire’s slaves and lower citizens to behave. He not only provides the perfect role model for Jews to convert to the Roman side, but his work establishes the culture of the humble, poverty-welcoming, oppression-accepting Essene sect that the Flavians would have wanted the lower layers of the Empire’s economy to adopt.

1. It explains a host of other literature: For example it explains the profusion of evidence that Pliny the Younger lies about the date of the eruption of Vesuvius placing it about two months earlier, and thus closer to Titus’ likely inauguration date (again via a letter “to Tacitus”). 

It explains why the plays of Shakespeare are obsessed with Roman narratives and full of unexplained metaphor that can be interpreted as mocking a Flavian origin of Christianity (credit: Joe Atwill).

It explains why the Jewish Talmud mocks the creation of Christianity and appears to refer to Ares/Arrius Piso.

It explains why Celsus apparently referred to a roman father of Jesus.

It explains why Marcion apparently claimed Jesus represented an unknown god, who indeed wasn’t a Jewish God, and that Luke was the only true Gospel.

1. It explains the Essene sect, and the lack of evidence it existed. It explains why Jewish War describes and praises an Essene sect without ever stating that their God is the Jewish God, and says they revere their ‘legislator’ without specifying that this is Moses.

It explains why all three of the only sources claiming firsthand knowledge of the Essene sect are so closely linked to Emperor Titus, and why the Essene philosophy matches Jesus’ teachings, and why its practices are at odds with being Jewish, and incompatible with the Passover ritual. 

It explains why the Essene are described as having a social hierarchy with specifically four levels (i.e. it is a model for the four-tier secrecy cult that the Flavians planned to establish – see the details of the Flavian secrecy cult origin thesis), why those three sources refuse to give specific locations where the Essene lived, and why there is no physical evidence for the Essene existing (with for example Qumran’s library of religious scrolls not even mentioning the sect).

1. It explains the strange behavior of Emperor Constantine and the early Catholic Church. It explains why Constantine went to such lengths to convince people that Jesus was historical, even announcing his mother found Jesus’ cross and that the nails still possessed power over the elements.

It explains why Constantine supposedly convened the Council of Nicaea to address a ‘blasphemy of Arrius’ (see earlier regarding Ares Piso Titus as a name the Flavians might have been intended to be worshipped by) and then spent his entire life suppressing it, yet what little is explained about this blasphemy does not suggest it would have been a threat to him. 

It also explains why the early Catholic Church was famously paranoid, and why it only made the Bible available in a language none of its peoples could read.

1. It explains why the Gospels would contain the exact evidence required to prove that they were created by the Flavian Roman Government. In particular in this scenario, it was to enable the temples of Titus’ secrecy cult, to reveal this under oath of secrecy, thereby convincing dual Jesus-Titus worshippers (who had been led to accept Titus as the 2nd coming thanks to the parallels between Jesus and Titus) to become pure Flavian Emperor worshippers.

Explanatory power is the hallmark of an attractive theory, and in general scientists are agreed that whichever plausible theory has the greatest explanatory power should be preferred. 

As shown above, the Flavian Secrecy Cult theory has explanatory power in abundance. It is the first ever ‘theory of everything’ as regards early Christian and European history, not only accommodating every piece evidence of every type available, but also explaining numerous historical puzzles and conundrums.

Section 11. The APTVS pattern and why I won’t overview it in this article

I have argued in other papers that this pattern in the parallels between Luke and Jewish War is the ‘icing on the cake’, ‘clincher’ or ‘smoking gun’, when it comes to making the case for mutual parodies so it cannot go entirely unmentioned, however this topic is explicitly not the one I wish to discuss in this article.

I have covered it in great detail in other papers, arguably to the detriment of highlighting the importance of all the rest of the evidence. This paper is written with the aim of redressing that balance. My goal here is to correct the misconception that the evidence for mutual parodies between Jewish War and the Gospels is dominated by my claim that the parallels form this pattern spelling out the letters APTVS.

For details of how the mutual parodies appear to predominantly adhere to a detailed, specific and meaningful pattern, which a 1st century priest of a Flavian secrecy cult might reveal to a Jesus-Titus believer to undermine their faith in Jesus and leave them as pure Titus-worshippers, see my 4th and 9th Articles and my book.

Section 12. Evidence seemingly AGAINST the mutual parodies hypothesis

The evidence I have described so far can be divided into that which actively supports the mutual parody thesis, and that which is compatible with the mutual parody thesis. 

In this section I will explore whether I can find and compile any evidence that is falls into neither category: evidence that is simply not compatible with the mutual parodies hypothesis and Flavian secrecy cult thesis.

12.1. The most obvious piece of ‘evidence’ contradicting the mutual parody hypothesis, is that mainstream scholarly opinion disagrees with it. 

I would address this by saying that, although we should not embrace every consensus-challenging theory, we should be wary of a consensus supported by extremely powerful institutions for centuries, that have an extreme vested interest in maintaining that viewpoint. 

Aside from obvious ones like the earth-centric universe (overturned by Galileo) we have many modern examples where – just occasionally – a mainstream consensus view is entirely overturned, such as:

• the belief that species are fixed (the dominant mainstream view until the 1850s).
• that women cannot run marathons (mainstream until 1920s and dominant into the 1960s)
• that radiation exposure improves health (mainstream until the 1940s)
• that smoking is healthy (mainstream until the 1950s)
• that the earth’s continents are fixed (until the 1960s)
• that nuclear power is entirely safe (1970s)
• that fat makes you fat (1980s)
• that spicy food causes stomach ulcers (1990s)
• that most DNA is junk (2000s) 

The pattern, consistently seen throughout human history, is that consensus does not mean truth. Extraordinary claims certainly do demand extraordinary evidence, but it is my view that this paper presents both.

Since it is based on centuries of tradition and vested interests, I would frame this as a prevailing view, rather than a tangible piece of evidence. 

If there is a specific piece of literary or archaeological evidence which cannot be explained by the Flavian Secrecy Cult - taking into account that in this scenario a succession of European rulers had a severe need to suppress the truth and to publish competing narratives of course - this should receive due attention. 

In the rest of this section I will try to identify relevant evidence and consider it reasonably, and since I couldn’t think of any myself, I resorted to asking AI tools to scour the literature and identify some for me.

12.2. AI’s initial attempts to find evidence contrary to the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis:

I asked two AI chatbots (Gemini and Perplexity in this case) to try to find any evidence that does not fit with the Flavian Secrecy Cult scenario.

The arguments it presented are listed below (with my responses showing why it each attempt fails, and why the evidence actually supports the thesis).

I’ll start with some of its weaker attempts, which were: 

The Mythicist scholarly view, that Jesus’ story has its origins in various earlier myth stories. 

The Flavian Secrecy Cult not only aligns with this evidence but provides a reason for it (the Flavians wanted Jesus’ story to attract people of varied faiths).

A chronological error, where Acts contradicts the order of events in Josephus’ later book Antiquities of the Jews (Theudas leads a revolt and then Judas or vice versa). 

Again The Flavian Secrecy Cult not only aligns with this evidence but provides a reason for it (i.e. inversions of narratives are the standard stock of the way the two documents are made to parody each other).

That Luke is too apologetic regarding Roman authority - defending Rome via subtle argument, rather than simply asserting the righteousness of Rome’s justice. Again The Flavian Secrecy Cult not only aligns with this evidence but provides a reason for it (i.e. it was critical to make Jesus’ story amenable – at face value - to Jews who hated Rome).

That the Gospels suggest Jesus is from the heavens above, and has authority superior to that of an earthly king. Again The Flavian Secrecy Cult not only aligns with this evidence but provides a reason for it (i.e. its goal is to lead followers to see Titus as the 2nd coming, and indeed as being from the heavens above, with authority superior to an earthly king.

That although Jewish War presents the holy temple’s destruction as the validation of the Flavian dynasty, Luke and Acts treat is as fulfilment of prophecy before moving on and shifting focus away from it, even criticising it (Acts 7) by arguing that “God does not dwell in human made structures”.

It’s a good observation, but in the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis, the Gospels need to present a face-value message that would be attractive to 1st Century Jews. Those inducted into the concealed relationship between Jesus and Titus, and the hidden messages in the parallels, would be influenced to accept that – as Jewish War puts it – the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple suggests “nobody resided there”. 

So the author of the Gospels would avoid overtly praising the downfall of Jerusalem, but would indeed stress that “God does not dwell in human made structures”. In short this aligns with the mutual parodies and Flavian secrecy cult thesis.

A contradiction where the Gospels don’t suggest Jesus had a brother, but Josephus’ work Antiquities does – his brother James.

If Gemini had thoroughly understood my thesis, it would have noted the involvement of Domitian after Titus’ death. Domitian’s meddling can be seen in John and Acts, where a numerical sequence involving triple triangle numbers, relates the story of Domitian’s favoured Legion (the Gemini or Twin) with Acts’ story of Didymus the Twin and the ship called Gemini the Twin. 

I show (building on Joe Atwill’s work as always) that this aims to promote the idea of a threefold god (holy trinity in its modern incarnation) with Domitian positioned as the third aspect of God. This theology involves implying that Jesus had a Twin (Didymus). This explains why Antiquities chimes in to comment that Jesus had a brother. This evidence doesn’t contradict the Flavian secrecy cult – it reinforces and supports it.

12.3 AI’s first good attempt at presenting evidence contradicting the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis:

Gemini highlighted that there is authentic Pauline literature from before the Flavian era, evidencing (or at least very convincingly claiming) that followers of Christos existed.

The Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis assumes that the Flavians took advantage of existing Pauline literature describing Christ, and constructed Jesus’ life story around it. The theory allows that followers of Christos (the term used by Paul) existed prior to the Flavians, albeit they would have very different beliefs compared to modern Christians. Paul doesn’t call him Jesus, or suggest he lived in Judea, or performed miracles, so they probably wouldn’t have thought this either.

Seen in light of the Flavian Secrecy Cult model, what do the Pauline epistles actually mean? They are only seen as ‘Christian’ because we see them through the light of the Gospels. We tend to see them as a description of Paul establishing “churches”, but a closer look at the text shows that he merely uses the word “assemblies”, focussed on savior figure named Christos. Paul makes no mention of this Christos visiting or living in Judea, or Galilee, or Nazareth, or any miracles or parables. Only a single line, which might not be original, suggests that Christos was Jewish. So there is nothing that conveys the term ‘Church’ in the sense of a temple devoted to a man called Jesus or to a miracle worker.

If we strip away the Gospels entirely, Paul’s “churches” could be anything; mystery-cult fellowships, proto-gnostic cells, or philosophical associations. But the most fascinating possibility is revealed by noting their connection to the Mithras secrecy cult, and the way that Mithras (as evidenced by the Mithras Liturgy) shares a deep symbolic lexicon with that Pauline Literature – examples of which are below:

Mithras Liturgy              

Pauline Correspondence

“Be clothed with the immortal body of light”    

Rom 13:12–14: “Put on the armor of light… put on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Ascension through planetary spheres, angelic gates

2 Cor 12:2–4 “caught up to the third heaven”; Eph 1:20–21 cosmic hierarchy

Cosmic meal / divine food and drink

1 Cor 10–11 “This is my body… this cup is my blood”

“Soldiers of Mithras” and initiation grades

Eph 6:11 “put on the whole armor of God”; 2 Tim 2:3 “soldier of Christ”

Secret revelation, “holy silence”

1 Cor 2:7 “we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery”

Purifying through sacrificial blood

Heb 9:12–14 “by his own blood he entered once for all into the holy place”

Sacred handshake (dexiosis) between initiates

Gal 2:9 “they gave me the right hand of fellowship”

Supporting the intriguing possibility that the authentic Pauline epistles are actually Mithraic literature, observe the following passage from Jewish War, describing an utterly implausible event shortly before the fall of Jerusalem: It alleges that among other magical portents occurring “Upon being led by the priest to be sacrificed at the altar of Jerusalem’s temple, the cow gave birth to a lamb in the midst of the temple court.”

Seen through the lens of the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis, this is parodic commentary on the Gospel’s birth-of-the-Lamb deriving from the Mithraic emphasis on bull sacrifice, combined with Jerusalem’s religion / the old testament.

So the Pauline literature might have been an attempt to rejuvenate or rebrand a religious movement associated with Mithras, and if it truly is Mithraic literature, the Flavians would have had no concerns about rebranding it again for use in their own secrecy cult.

Is this pure conjecture?

Recall how the Flavian Secrecy Cult assumes that it was driven by Vespasian’s goal; to minimise the chances of being toppled and killed like his four recent predecessors, he needed to prevent the Jewish and Civil wars restarting, and thus needed to drive loyalty in two groups: Jews and Legionaries. 

So it makes sense for Vespasian to use Jewish literature, and also literature corresponding to the faith of the Legionaries. But what was the latter?

From archaeology and inscriptions, we see the Mithras cult as overwhelmingly a soldier’s religion; Almost all early temples (1st–3rd cent.) cluster along military frontiers – the Rhine–Danube, Britain, Syria, and North Africa. Hundreds of inscriptions are by centurions, tribunes, and legionaries, often specifying rank. It’s language of brotherhood, had initiates calling one another fratres (“brothers”) with titles like miles Mithrae (“soldier of Mithras”), all aligned with the idea of a cult of disciplined hierarchy.

In short, it would make perfect sense for Vespasian to take Mithraic epistles (which the authentic Pauline epistles are compatible with being), and to overlay a story about a Jewish savior that would seem to fulfil Jewish scripture, thereby making it attractive to both Jews and Legionaries. 

This mirrors perfectly with the creation of different synoptic Gospels in which Mark is well known to be aimed at Gentiles (such as Legionaries), and Matthew which is well known to be aimed at a Jewish audience.

In summary, the evidence offered by the authentic Pauline literature supports two scenarios:

• One where “Christian Churches” predate the Flavian era, and 
• Another where a different religious faith such as Mithras, relating to “Assemblies of Christos” predate the Flavian era, which was reworked and rebranded, via the creation of the Gospel story. 

Therefore once again, this is an example of evidence which is easily accommodated by the Flavian Secrecy Cult model.

So FSC isn’t saying that the Flavians created Christianity?

I should end this discussion by stressing again that FSC theory presumes that (at least the majority of) Pauline epistles are genuinely pre-Flavian. It is a fairly widespread scholarly view that some do not seem to be authentic, and I cannot help but notice that there is a moderately strong correlation between those deemed most suspect and those mentioning Titus, but the point is that at least some of them genuinely predate the Flavian era. 

FSC theory isn’t saying that the Flavians invented Christ, only that the Flavian Government was responsible for the creation of the Gospel story, using the – nearly blank slate – provided by the Pauline literature regarding ‘Christos’. 

The hypothesis is not that Vespasian’s circle forged all of Paul’s writings, but that they appropriated and re-contextualised an already circulating description of “Christos-assemblies”; material whose doctrinal meaning was wide open to interpretation. The Flavian innovation lay in the editorial work, not the initial seed.

A fair criticism might be to demand demonstration that such a grafting process was historically feasible. On that question, several observations follow. 

(1) The Flavian court demonstrably managed religious and literary patronage and religious propaganda on a large scale – Josephus being an obvious precedent. 

(2) The Pauline corpus was already in Rome by the 60s AD, and therefore accessible to any subsequent literary workshop operating under Vespasian or Titus. 

(3) The Pauline letters’ consistent language of “mystery,” “initiation,” and “soldiership” made them especially adaptable to an imperial cult context in which Mithraic and Judaic symbols could be fused. 

(4) The later Gospel narratives, which embed Paul’s abstract “Christos” into an historicized Judean biography of Jesus Christ, can thus be seen as Flavian mythography layered upon pre-Flavian literature.

Finally, even if future scholarship were to confirm that Paul’s assemblies were both honest and independent of Mithraism, and actually described a real faith that had some semblance to Christianity, this is not a problem for the FSC model. The Flavian program functioned by syncretic annexation; taking existing cult idioms, Judaic or Gentile, and weaving them into a new narrative that served Flavian state theology. 

Whether Paul’s “Christos” was Mithraic, Essene, or otherwise, the Flavian contribution is the transformation of an anonymous cosmic savior of non-descript location and era, into a biography of Jesus grounded in a specific location and backdated to a specific time, whose story mirrored the later Flavian triumph in Judea, Jerusalem and Rome. 

Thus, rather than disproving the theory, the pre-Flavian epistles – irrespective of what inspired them – are simply the raw material from which the later secrecy-cult mythology was shaped.

FSC theory proposes that the Flavian Government is responsible for the Gospel story of Jesus the prophet and miracle worker in Judea and the timeline and details of his life - not the idea of Jesus Christ per se.

12.4 AI’s second strong effort: 

In Gemini’s attempts to highlight evidence contrary to the thesis, it highlighted the mainstream view that Mark was the first Gospel, suggesting this fits poorly with my observation that it is in Luke that the parallels between Jesus and Titus are largely arranged in the same order in both texts (and less so in Mark and Matthew).

Whilst I would contend that the timing of Mark is at best a very-qualified consensus view, this topic merits discussion. The issue is that the debate over the timing of the Gospels and use of a Q-document, has almost universally assumed independent authors with good intentions. 

Because of this assumption of independent well-meaning authors, no mainstream position can fully explain how the three texts contain so many examples of near-identical text, and yet lack a consistent order or content, but the “Mark + Q document” origin theory comes close.

In the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis, Matthew and Mark were circulated to attract the Jewish and Legionary audiences that Vespasian needed to influence, and Luke may have been intended to be kept within the temples (because it posed the greatest risk for commoners to notice the Gospel’s links with Jewish War).

The full extent of the parallels with Jewish War, and indeed some of the deepest riddles (such as the Moses-linked discussion where Jesus reframes the 10 commandments in a way that matches Flavian objectives) can only be solved by placing all three texts together and pulling together details that each one contributes, and which the others omit. 

This suggests that the synoptic Gospels might have been written together, or at least as part of a single project, in a manner designed to present such a puzzle, and carefully adjusted, complete with spelling mistakes and slight contradictions, so as to convincingly appear to be from authentic, honest and above all – independent - authors. 

So, we can certainly envisage a scenario where an early draft of Mark was arranged in much the order we find in Luke, with its order deliberately scrambled and various text deleted to form the surviving version of Mark. My thesis is that there probably were multiple stages of editing, and perhaps for that matter a Q-document in the form of an earlier Gospel message written to guide followers to faith in Vespasian rather than Titus.

In short, the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis is not limited to a particular order by which the author worked through various drafts before arriving at a selection of documents which would look convincingly independent and which would contain the key information scattered across them in a suitably cryptic fashion. 

As such, the tension that Gemini proposes, is not in fact there, and the available evidence is accommodated by the Flavian Secrecy Cult model.

12.5 Perplexity’s best effort 

Perplexity’s best effort was to highlight writers such as Tacitus’ who claimed that Nero punished Christians (i.e. prior to the Flavian reign), which is hard to reconcile with the Flavian’s creating Christianity.

Such claims made during Constantine’s reign are easily seen as fitting the FSC thesis because Constantine had such an obvious motive (hiding Rome’s culpability), but Perplexity – very astutely – pointed out that many of them predate Constantine.

To address this it is necessary to consider which Emperors may have had a need to hide a Flavian origins of Christianity, other than the obvious: The Flavians, Constantine, and all of Constantine’s successors.

The period following Domitian’s death saw the rise of emperors whose actions and policies suggest alignment with the Flavian model of emperor worship and divine rulership. The transition from Domitian to Nerva was brief, followed by two emperors who particularly embody this connection:

• Emperor Trajan, often considered a protege of the Flavians, continued imperial cult practices initiated by his predecessors. Though not Flavian by blood, his adoption by Nerva and his close familial ties through marriage linked him to the dynasty’s legacy and its model of divine authority.
• Emperor Hadrian was a notable admirer of Vespasian and an ardent ideological heir to the Flavian dynasty. He consciously emulated Flavian precedent by reinforcing divine rulership through the imperial cult, reusing Flavian architectural styles, and, most importantly, promoting the concept of continuous divine emperorship stretching from Augustus to Vespasian, then through Trajan to himself.

Examining key early accounts of Roman interactions with Christians reveals a striking pattern, both in timing and framing, that distances Christianity’s origins from the Flavians:

Writer

Work/Source

Approx. Date

Emperor(s) Reigning

How Writing Distances Christianity from Flavians

Tacitus

Annals 15.44

115–117

Trajan

Attributes Christian persecution to Nero, predating Flavians.

Pliny the Younger

Letters 10.96–97

111–113

Trajan

Discusses Christians positively; reports on their interrogation.

Trajan

Rescript to Pliny (Letters 10.97)

112

Trajan

Orders against hunting Christians, punishes only persistent refusal to recant.

Suetonius

Lives of the Caesars

ca. 120

Hadrian 

Notes punishing Christians as followers of a “new superstition.”

Hadrian

Rescript to Minucius Fundanus (via Eusebius 4.9)

122–125

Hadrian

Requires lawful trials for Christians, limits mob violence.

Eusebius

Ecclesiastical History IV

311–325

Constantine

Compiles earlier accounts, framing persecutions historically.

Apart from Constantine – whose vested interest lay in promoting Christianity as autonomous from any Roman imperial cult – all other accounts were authored under Trajan or Hadrian, emperors who had clear incentives to obscure any direct Flavian origin of Christianity. It is notable that two key sources even come directly from these emperors themselves.

Hadrian’s explicit assertion of a divine lineage hints at a deliberate ideological effort to consolidate imperial divinity. By supporting Tacitus’s framing of persecution as pre-Flavian, Hadrian ensured that public perception would not question the independence of Christianity so it would continue to attract new followers.

This context offers plausible explanation for the emergence of Marcion’s Gospel during Hadrian’s reign. Marcion’s rejection of Jewish God associations and exclusive promotion of Luke's Gospel might reflect imperial manoeuvres to marginalize the Gospel of John and Domitian.

Collectively, these observations support the idea that the Flavian Secrecy Cult its roots in related efforts by earlier Emperors, and was perpetuated at least some of the Flavian’s successors. Each emperor contributed to a web of secrecy cults, reinterpreting and repackaging earlier myths and religious elements – including those surrounding Jesus – to reinforce imperial divinity and political order.

A concise overview of this lineage would include:

• Augustus, self-styled son of the deified Julius Caesar, endorsing Mithras and fostering savior motifs.
• Vespasian, shaping the gospel narrative of Jesus’s birth under Augustus’s reign.
• Titus, reissuing Josephus’s Jewish War with cultic emphasis on himself and Vespasian.
• Domitian, potentially commissioning John and Acts to establish a triune imperial divine model.
• Trajan, seen as a Flavian protégé, promoting narratives that distance the Flavians from Christianity.
• Hadrian, claiming descent from Augustus through Vespasian and Trajan, further distancing Flavians while endorsing Marcionite texts.
• Constantine, styling his dynasty as the “new Flavian,” abolishing secrecy cults like Mithras, repurposing their temples, adopting Flavian aesthetics, and elevating Christianity centered on a historical Jesus.

Conclusion

even such extremely challenging evidence as multiple sources describing events incompatible with Jesus’ story originating with the Flavian Government, it turns out that this evidence is very much compatible with that scenario.

But it’s the timing of these publications that betrays the hidden agenda. All six publications arise during the reign of three Emperors who had particularly strong identifiable ulterior motive to distance Christianity from Rome (with two by those emperors themselves), and it is thanks to that alignment – six out of six – that this evidence should be seen as supporting the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis.

12.6 ChatGPT’s best effort

ChatGPT’s most pointed attack came as follows: “The utter silence of early critics or Church fathers about any Flavian involvement in Gospel authorship, and the complete absence of ‘leaks’, strongly undermines the plausibility of a Roman-orchestrated secrecy cult. If even one early heresy-hunter had whispered that ‘Rome wrote the Gospels,’ it would radically shift the evidential balance. But no such whisper exists.”

My response: Silence Isn’t Just Compatible With FSC; It’s Predicted, but you’d expect subtle nods everywhere, and that’s what we find.

The very absence of such explicit accusation is precisely what a secrecy cult aims to produce. Indeed, the mystery cult template (Mithras, Isis etc), and surviving Roman imperial cult behaviors all demonstrate that:

• Oaths of secrecy were the norm,
• Written disclosures were prohibited, and
• Death or exile was a normal penalty for betrayal.

So what should we expect from a successful secrecy cult? Take for example the Isis secrecy cult – There are absolutely no surviving accounts of what the their inner secrets were. And Mithras? Virtually nothing bar the Mithras Liturgy which only gives an insight into one of the lower tiers, showing little more than that it aligns with Pauline literature. The secrecy cults were almost entirely swept away during Constantines reign, and what we don’t know about them vastly exceeds what we do. 

But in contrast with these other secrecy cults, the inner secrets of the Flavian Secrecy Cult were a huge threat not just to Constantine, but to every single European ruler for a millennia, so we should expect that if there were any ‘leaks’ during first few centuries AD, these would have been actively suppressed with greater vigor than for the other great secrecy cults.

Whilst we should expect a complete absence of written acknowledgement of a Flavian origin of Christianity, the official record itself provides ample pointers, not in written confessions, but in structure and footprint:

Supporting Clues That Flip the Argument

1. The Gospel of Mark originates in Rome
   All early witnesses; Papias, Irenaeus, Clement and Origen, tie the earliest Gospel (Mark) directly to Rome. They claim Mark was Peter’s “interpreter,” writing from Peter’s preaching in Rome. But why Rome? Why Peter? Why Mark?

The answer is that the Flavian Secrecy Cult needed the Gospels to appear rooted in Jewish tradition, even though it was engineered in Rome.

1. The Church’s name: ‘Roman Catholic’
   This is no incidental geography. Christianity did not merely survive in Rome - it grew from it. The Church openly bears the name of its supposed oppressor. This is not ironic - it’s a vestigial watermark of its imperial origin.
2. Location: Vatican and Domitian’s Palace
   The Vatican Hill is not a random location. The site lies within the Flavian imperial precinct, adjacent to Domitian’s stadium and palace. Domitilla’s catacomb, often tied to early Christian martyr cults, lies on Flavian property. These sites point to imperial sponsorship of early Christianity, not persecution.
3. The Flavian Saints and Domitilla’s Graveyard
   Flavia Domitilla - niece of Domitian - is venerated as an early Christian saint. Why would a Flavian aristocrat become an object of Christian worship so early unless she were central to its construction or internal network? Her burial site is not remote, but in privileged Roman territory.
4. The Frankfurt Silver Inscription
   A 2nd–3rd century silver object unearthed near Frankfurt shows a private Christian invocation, which places ‘Sacred Titus’ foremost, being lauded at the beginning, and only mentions Jesus second. Though debatable, it is very compatible with being a remnant of inner cult ritual hidden in plain sight.
5. The Talmudic Suspicion of Gentile Jesus
   Multiple rabbinic sources associate “Yeshu” with Gentile sorcery, illegitimacy, and Roman-like execution. While often allegorical or redacted, these stories can be argued to preserve whispered suspicions about Jesus being a foreign-backed figure.
6. The Gospels use Imperial terminology and titles.

Didymus’ name for Jesus “My Lord and God” is a literal match with the 3rd Flavian Emperor, Domitian – it’s the title he required to be used in official addresses, unlike other Emperors.

The Priene inscription (9 BCE) hails Emperor Augustus’ birthday as “the beginning of the euangelion [good news] for the world,” and calls him huios theou (Son of God). This is interesting given that Hadrian seems to assert himself as the culmination of a lineage of divine Emperors including Augustus and Vespasian. Mark mirrors this, opening its first line, Mark 1:1 as “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God.” And Luke goes on to reference Augustus and the Ara Pacis imagery that define the emperor as bringer of pax (peace) to the world (Luke 2:14 - “Peace on earth among men with whom he is pleased.”)

Inscriptions for Vespasian and Titus in the East use sōtēr tou kosmou (“Saviour of the world”) or sōtēr tēs oikoumenēs. This is directly mirrored in John 4:42 saying “This is indeed the Saviour of the world.”

Suetonius and Dio report that Vespasian’s healing acts in Alexandria (healing the blind and lame using spit) were said to be done per numen deorum – by divine spirit. The Gospels mirror this, describing Jesus healing the blind and lame using spit, and using the term pneuma hagion (Holy Spirit).

In the Imperial Cult the emperor is surrounded by 24 priests in certain ceremonial depictions (Flavian sodales Augustales). Revelation 4:4 has the same image: 24 elders seated around the throne of God and the Lamb. There’s no doubt it’s talking about Roman Emperors.

Conclusion: Near silence is completely compatible with, and expected in, the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis. Subtle clues everywhere you look would be expected though, and this is what we find.

The FSC theory doesn’t require ancient whistle-blowers; it predicts their impossibility.

If Christianity were born from an imperial ruse to pacify Judea and unify the Legions, then we would expect the Church to be tightly bound to Rome, centered on Flavian sites, revering Flavian martyrs, and bearing Rome’s name, and that’s the evidence we find.

The lack of a written admission or surviving ‘leak’, is precisely what you'd expect from an operation that succeeded. And ironically, the clues that remain – Rome as authorial home, Flavians as saints, Domitian’s backyard as sacred, reveal the fingerprints of the Flavian culprits.
 

Section 13. The way the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis unites competing scholarly positions

I have argued that the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis unifies numerous diverse scholarly viewpoints. Seen through the lens of this thesis, the scholarly positions of Atwill, Vaillant, Carrier, Roman Piso are all largely correct. 

This may seem extraordinary but I can justify it as follows:

13.1 Unifying Atwill, Vaillant, and Roman Piso’s differing views regarding who was responsible for the Gospels: 

• Vaillant proposes that Christianity was Vespasian’s project, and the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis takes this as largely correct, caveating that he merely started it.
• Atwill proposes that Christianity was Titus’ project. The Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis positions this as also largely correct, in that the surviving texts are mainly designed to promote worship of Titus as God, suggesting the texts were edited under Titus after his father’s death
• Roman Piso proposes the name Arrius Piso is evidenced as the originator of Christianity along with related nicknames and in-jokes, and claims that Josephus was fictional. The Flavian Secrecy Cult highlights evidence of the same or similar name (Ares Piso) but identifies it as most probably a secret name by which perhaps one of the Flavian Emperors was to be secretly worshipped, or most plausibly all of  them – i.e. potentially a way of referencing their ‘divine Piso lineage’ as a whole, and in doing so provides evidence supporting the view that Josephus was fictional.

In short, the Flavian Secrecy Cult shows how all three apparently conflicting positions can be correct in these respects.

13.2 Unifying the position held by Richard Carrier, Steve Mason,  Richard Pervo, Theodore Weedon and Brad McAdon that the Gospels are derivative of Jewish War, with the position of J.P. Holding that Jewish War is derivative of the Gospels. 

• The Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis unifies these seemingly contradictory viewpoints, by showing that if BOTH positions are correct, this has remarkable explanatory power. It suggests Luke and Jewish War are textually interdependent stories co-written, to reference and parody each other. This fourth hypothesis – which seems to have never been publicly suggested prior to my work – acts as a unifier.

13.3 Unifying the position held by (again) Richard Carrier, Ken Olson, Louise Feldman, etc that references to Jesus’ story in Josephus’ works were ‘additions’ forcefully added into non-matching narrative, with the position of Alice Whealey, John Meier, Steve Mason, etc that these references were intended by Josephus.

• The Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis shows how BOTH can be true. It shows why the author of Josephus’ works had a need to forcefully “insert” references to Jesus’ story into Jewish War – this was to ensure that Jewish War could be revealed as a parody of Jesus’ story, and needed to scatter the clues to make them less obvious, and indeed position them precisely within otherwise irrelevant parts of the narrative, so that they would form a pattern (I said I would avoid mentioning the APTVS pattern, but here it is unavoidable). 

By implication this explanation also applies to the other two versions of Jewish War (the Slavonic tradition of Jewish War aka ‘Slavonic Josephus’ and the longer version of the first half of Jewish War - Antiquities). As such the references to Jesus are BOTH rudely inserted ‘additions’ and were intended at the outset by the original author (stated as being Josephus). 

The caveat is that those who concluded that the references are ‘additions’, incorrectly assume that this was done after publication. The Flavian Secrecy  Cult thesis explains the contradiction by showing why the author had to rudely ‘insert’ such references, towards the end of the drafting process.

13.4 Unifying Mythicists and Flavianists: 

• Mythicists such as Richard Carrier argue that the earliest ‘Jesus’ was a heavenly/celestial figure and the Gospel story is the result of merging earlier myths (mithras etc) to complete Setuagint narratives – essentially a crafted mosaic of earlier ideas translating military victory into theological fulfilment directed at Jews and Gentiles, although with some difficulty in explaining what the motive was.
• By contrast Flavianists don’t disregard links to earlier myths, but emphasise the links between Jesus and the Flavian Emperors, and again experience difficulty explaining what the motive was.

The Flavian Secrecy Cult hypothesis unites these competing viewpoints by showing that in these respects both are correct. It suggests use of a pre AD 70 Pauline kernel and post 70 AD Gospel writing, where earlier myths were intentionally merged and written to seem to complete Talmudic scenes, merging military motifs to attract a Jewish and Gentile audience. 

The difference is that the Flavian Secrecy Cult model identifies a motive for this – namely to meet the Flavian Emperor’s objectives of promoting a story suiting Jewish and Legionary audiences and attracting adherents of diverse religious backgrounds, that could help lead followers to see himself as the 2nd coming.

• Where Mythicism arguably sees contradictory earlier messages from various sects (Pauline, proto-gnostic, synagogue-adjacent), in the Flavian Secrecy Cult these dissenting and diverse early voices are the raw material that the Flavian post war propaganda team intentionally merged, so that every reader could see their own faith reflected in Jesus’ story.

13.5 Unifying Mythicist with Christian viewpoints on some topics:

• Where Mythicists point to uncertainties and contradictions as signs of sloppiness and incompetence, whilst Christians assume the multiple interpretations permitted by the texts are there for them to work at solving, or there so that the meanings could be revealed to them at a future time. 

The Flavian Secrecy Cult unifies these observations (contradictions noted in Mythicism vs the promise of hidden meaning in Christianity) with noting these, but identifies them as a feature, not a bug. Contradictions are there because the text presents different messages to different audiences – the naïve beginner sees Jesus as a human son of man, the inducted worshipper sees him as the divine son of god, the elevated ranks see him as the first coming of Titus, and the top rank sees Jesus as a fictional parody about Titus. What was written to be inspirational to the lower ranks is revealed as in-jokes to the higher ones. Spelling mistakes and inconsistencies are also needed to make the different Gospels seem thoroughly authentic and independently written. 

• Christians see providence through Empire, with the text of the Gospels shaped by post-70 political forces, and the NT acting as fulfilment of OT scriptures. The Catholic Church even now recognises the presence of human literary crafting, typology from the Septuagint, community/redaction layers, and that texts serve pastoral aims in specific concepts. By contrast Mythicists emphasize literary construction, and scepticism about a singular ‘historical Jesus’.

The Flavian Secrecy Cult unites these views, but in doing so  it adds an identification for who created the Gospels and why. 

• Modern Christians almost universally adopt the position that early Christians were physically persecuted by the Romans, whilst more modern scholarship, e.g. by Candida Moss, shows that this idea is a myth.

The Flavian Secrecy Cult unifies these positions by showing that successive Roman Governments had a motive for promoting this myth, whilst in reality Christians were mentally persecuted by being guided to become mind-slaves worshipping their Emperor in the belief he was a supreme God.

13.6 Unifying certain views from a wide range of other scholarship positions:

I conclude by briefly citing more authors where some of their key positions align with the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis:

• Price, Gradel, Ando and Zissos’ writings established that imperial cult dynamics were robust and sophisticated, which indicates a Flavian ‘appropriation’ of this existing religious model is plausible.
• Adam Winn described how the Gospel of Mark acts as a response to Roman Imperial propaganda that infringed on the beliefs of early Christians, which aligns with the Flavian Secrecy Cult’s identification for a reason why Roman government propaganda would infringe on early faith in Jesus, and a reason why the Gospels would seek to distance themselves from alignment with the roman government.
• Dr Josephson published his book showing that the parallels between Jewish War and Luke are even more intense than suggested by Atwill, with strong positional alignment (their locations in Luke and in Jewish War) to those highlighted in my work.

Conclusion                                                                                     

The possible relationships between the Gospels and Jewish War can be broken down as follows:

1. Neither derives from the other. Any interaction is negligible, and any shared motifs caused by drawing on a common stock of literature and general knowledge.

2. Jewish War derive from, or parodies, the Gospel story, e.g. in Luke (but not vice versa).

3. The Gospels derive from, or parody, Jewish War (but not vice versa).

4. The Gospels and Jewish War are mutually interdependent texts.

In principle we could also split the mutual parodies scenario up. For example we could contrast those scenarios where the mutual parody was included in support of establishment of a Flavian Secrecy Cult, and other scenarios where this was done for some unknown reason, or perhaps even by two unrelated authors sequentially updating their documents to parody the other for – again – no known reason. But I think there is little point. The Flavian Secrecy Cult is the only theory that would explain why the texts would mutually parody each other, and the only theory that needs them to parody each other.

 My goal in this paper was to collate the evidence supporting the Flavian Secrecy Cult thesis, and its core idea that Jewish War and Luke mutually parody each other, aside from the APTVS pattern.

I had planned to keep this to a relatively compact paper, but as I reviewed my existing publications, I realised that the amount of evidence available was overwhelming.

The Flavian Secrecy Cult not only fits, but in some cases offer the simplest explanation for, every piece of evidence that has relevance to the origin of Christianity.

Summarizing it cannot be done briefly, and this article represents my best effort to do so.

Notes:

[1] Most translations say ‘demon’. Credit to Joe Atwill for noting that the word used is ‘daimonion’, mirroring Jewish War.

[2] To paraphrase Atwill, parallels such as these reveal that when Luke describes Jesus cleansing and healing the sick, this is parodying how Titus massacred the Jews, by his own record a million of them in total (also known as ethnic cleansing).

[3] To my knowledge there are only three other references to ‘good news’ in Jewish War, namely paragraph 449 which was discussed at the beginning of this book, and 319 and 393 which I am ignoring since they do not relate to the publication of Vespasian’s victories.

[4] Kings 1:19-21. Note also Elisha is Elisha Shaphat, and earlier in Jewish War Titus has killed Jesus Shaphat.

[5] I have not added this capitalization. As Atwill points out – the original Greek text has this phrase in capitals, signifying its importance. 

[6] As with other text I include within <> markings, this detail is provided by the less well-known Slavonic tradition of Jewish War (more commonly called the Slavonic Josephus), for which the only surviving copies are translations in Old Slavonic. The Slavonic tradition has the same story with nearly all the same paragraphs present, but is much less verbose. 

Apart from the interesting omission of the ‘Jesus/Titus’ men fishing for men’ parallel in that anomalous group between the T and V) this tendency of the Slavonic tradition to omit information does not seem to undermine the APTVS pattern, and indeed it contains several additional references to Jesus’ story which serve to make the P in the APTVS pattern stand out more clearly (e.g. an analog of the near-famous “Testimonium Flavianum” found in the version of Jewish War described in Antiquities of the Jews). Some historians dismiss these as ‘additions’ by later Christian copyists even though they appear in all copies and don’t align with the views of early Christians. As readers of this book will note, references to Jesus’ story ‘rudely’ inserted into otherwise flowing narrative were exactly what the original author would have done to help ensure the parallels form the APTVS pattern.

[7]  A similar comment is also found in Luke 19:37, but Luke 21 is more focused on this on this specific point.