In search for the Holy Grail, continued

Let us continue from the point that if the shroud and Marcionian texts were hidden in Edessa at the same, then they were in the possession of the same group. If they were not hidden at the same time, then around 600 AD in Edessa were found two independent hides: one containing the shroud and the other containing heretic texts with canonical copies of Paul’s letters. I find this unlikely: one should initially expect only one unlikely event. If Marcionian texts were not found, then there is a problem how Paulicians adopted clearly Marcionian (or Gnostic) views long after these heresies had all but disappeared, and there is no link between Paulicians and Khorasan, Iran, where a small community of Marcionians is said to have survived. I think the best explanation is that the shroud and the texts were hidden some time after 144 AD by Marcionians. After excommunication in 144 AD Marcion went to Anatolia and he did found a heretic sect there. A natural time for hiding the shroud and the text is 155-56 AD when there were persecutions of Christians, e.g., Polycarpos died as a martyr. This is a natural time since neither the Church, nor later Gnostics of the third to fourth century, nor Paul of Samosata (3rd century) seem to know anything of the shroud. However, Gnostic texts (Valentinian) do mention bright white light and the rite of the bridal chamber, and also the image (each person has a heavenly counterpart, the image) and resurrection of the image as distinct of resurrection of a person.

            Accepting this hypothesis we get to the group that had the shroud in their possession. It would be the group of perfects that Paul mentions in the 1. Corinthians 2:6-10: ^“6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature (or perfect), but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. ⁷ No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery (or secret) that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.”  Paul’s seven authentic letters contain much of the ideas that later were called Gnostic. Paul has a strong dualism between the heavenly soul and the earthly body where the desires of the body are the evil to be conquered (Rom 7:23: “but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me”). He is basically against sex, not only homosexualism (Rom 1:26-27 and using prostitutes 1. Cor 6:15: “¹⁵ Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!”, but also proposing celibacy (1. Cor 7:1: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”), much like Gnostics and Cathars, who mostly did marry but the perfect practised celibacy.

            Paul subscribes to the theory of world times (i.e., a time is 1000 or 2000 years. Paul waited for the end of the times in the near future and it does not mean the end of the world) as is shown in Ephes 1:21: “…not only in the present age but also in the one to come.” Paul writes of making the two into one, one of the Gnostic ideas in the Gospel of Thomas, Ephes 2:16: “and in one body to reconcile both of them”. ⁴⁹ And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we^[a] bear the image of the heavenly man.Paul also mentions the image, an essential Gnostic concept. 1. Cor 15:49: “⁴⁹ And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we^[a] bear the image of the heavenly man.” Paul uses the allegory of clothes often appearing in Gnostic texts: “and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.”

            There is, in an early form, even the concept of two gods, the real God and the demiurg. In Ephes 2:2: “² in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.” This is the ruler of this word who was condemned when Jesus was crucified in gospels, the Demiurg. Of Jews Paul says: 1. Thess 2:14-16: “suffered from the Jews ¹⁵ who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone ¹⁶ in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.”

            We see that Paul’s letters do have Gnostic ideas. Naturally Paul was not a Gnostic, but in a technical sense neither was Marcion. Marcion’s herecy was to reject the Old Testament, which implied throwing away the prophecies that predicted Jesus. Still, after the Bar Kochba rebellion it was natural for Marcion to discard Judaism and Jewish dreams of an earthly Messiah. Marcion may well have been a member of the second generation of the insider group of Paul, the group talking secrets among themselves.

            We have to meet the real Paul. Probably Robert Eisenman first noticed that Paul must have been a Herodian. Paul persecutes Christians and is apparently the leader of the group that stones Stephen one year after Jesus’ crucifixion. There are two proposed dates for the crucifixion, 30 AD and 33 AD. This dating cannot be much moved (Eisenman once proposed that the crucifixion happened 21 AD, but this is not possible, Pilate was in office in Judea 27-36 AD.) The dating of the crucifxion is based on the only fixed date in Acts: Acts 18:12 informs that Paul was tried in court when Gallion was the proconsul of Achaea. This time is known, it was 51/52 AD. Paul travelled to Corinth after the Jerusalem Council and the trips cannot have taken very many years. The Council is set to 50 AD or 48 AD. Paul tells that Sephan was stoned 17 years before the Council, but as Jews counted partial years as full, it5 can mean 16 years. Thus, Stephen was stoned either 34 AD or 31 AD. I personally prefer the traditional date, 34 AD. This is because Flavius Josephus in Against Apiop calculates that the building of Solomon’s temple started 968 BC. If so, then exactly one thousand years from this date is 33 AD. Flavius Josephus was one of the commanders in the First Jewish-Roman war and he was a Hasmonean from mother’s side. He was the only other Hasmonean male at that time in addition to Herod II Agrippa, who did not want to rise against Rome. This makes Josephus the main candidate for the King Messiah of the war of 66-73 AD. There had to be a King Messiah in this uprising, especially as Josephus tells of the signs of the end of times, like the comet of 66 AD. As there had to be the King Messiah, there also had to be the prophet Messiah, Jesus, the Suffering Servant of the Lord who would in one day redeem the sins of the people. There is no better candidate for the King Messiah than Josephus. Therefore his calculation of the building year of Solomon’s temple fixes the start of the times to 968 AD and the prophet Messiah had to be sacrificed in 33 AD.

            Accepting this traditional year as the year of crucifixion we get an interesting situation for the whereabouts of Paul. After Stephen was stoned Paul tells in his letters that he went for three years to Arabia. Nobody has suggested any reason why he went there, at least I have not noticed such explanations apart from a vague proposal that he went to Sinai, maybe to pray. But there was a better reason for him to leave. The group that stones Stephen were priests and herodians, as Pharisees warn Jesus that priests and herodians want to kill him. The priests would have been the temple guards and the Herodian leader of the group was Paul. They killed a man, but Romans had reserved the capital punishment to the Roman procurator. In 34 AD (as in 31 AD) the procurator of Judea was Pilate, while in Damascus ruled a client tetrarch, Philip the Tetrarch, from Herodes family. Also there Jews could not kill a man. Paul had to escape until the danger of being arrested passed. In 37 AD Caligula become emperor by killing Tiberius. Caligula was a good friend of Herod I Agrippa. After three years from 34 AD, that is, in 37 AD, Paul could refer to the emperor and avoid a sentence. Paul returned to Damascus.

            Why did Paul not escape to Tarsus, or return to Tarsus, if that was his home city as Acts say? Probably because it was not his home city.  Acts also say that Paul worked with his hands as a tent maker, but reading the sevel authentic letters of Paul does not in any way suggest that Paul worked in any other trade than evangelization. In the letters he clearly tells that he was supported by certain congregations even if some other congregations did not support him. He makes it very clear that they should support him, and everywhere he collects a gift, to the poor of Jerusalem. Why should the poor of Jerusalem be supported by Gentile Christians who were equally poor, or poorer? Jesus and the disciples were supported by rich women, like Mary of Magdalena. The Poor did not mean poor. Both the Jerusalem Christians and Essenes called themselves with this name. The members of the Essene (and Jewish Christian) sects were poor as they had given all their property to the sect, but the sect was very rich, as is shown by the Copper Scroll. There is no whatsoever reason to think that the treasures listed in the Copper Scroll were not real. Such sects tend to gather large riches, especially so if the get gifts from outside, like from Paul’s Christians.

            Jews needed money at that time as they were preparing for a war. The war of 66-73 AD did not start because of the bad behavior of the last Roman proconsul. The war was messianic and ment to start when the comet appeared. It was the war of the end of the astrological era and the start of the era of Pisches, Fish. The Jewish Messiah was predicted becoming the world ruler. Jews got weapons in a slow way by making to Romans weapons that did not fulfill Romans standards and then taking these weapons to their own rebels. This candestine way of arming the rebels takes time many years.  But I do not think Paul’s money gifts went to armament. They most probably went to funding the future building of a new temple. The Essenes had decided (or it was the Books of Daniel and Zechariah) that the temple, Herod’s temple, is polluted and must be destroyed. A new temple was to be built. 

            Thus, Paul was not from Tarsus and did not work as a tent maker. But he was Roman from birth which strongly suggests he was from the Herod family. Paul also mentions that Herodian in Rome was his kinfolk and he had friends in the household of Nero, some with distinctly Hasmonean names, like Aristobulus. Some of these friends are known in Roman history as dark characters. Acts tells that Paul grew up with Herod the Tetrarch, who was raised up in Rome. Thus, Paul was raised up in Rome, a priviledge deserved to the members of a client dynasty.

            But these are not the main reasons why I think Paul was a herodian. The main arguments are that he persecuted disciplines of Jesus and by the gospels the priests and herodians wanted to kill Jesus. There had to be a Herodian in the stoning of Stephen. The second strong argument is that when Paul was a captive the Roman prefect wanted money from him. Thus, Paul had to have money, or connections. You would not expect a simple tent maker from Tarsus who had spent all time in missionary work to have any money. But in Rome Paul had his own house, so he could afford it. The third argument is that Paul had an audience by Herod II Agrippa and Berenice and the meeting went in a friendly atmosphere. Later Paul was transported with a huge escort of soldiers. Nero received Paul on a minor affair. That is not how a poor tent maker would be treated, that suits to one from the royal family. Paul was a Herodian. We can take this as a fact.

            Let us notice a curious thing about Paul. In gospels Jesus says that his disciples will be persecuted, yet Christians had not been persecuted without Paul. Paul was the one who persecuted Jewish Christians at the beginning. Then he started preaching to Gentiles (and also to some Jews, though James the Just forbid it in the Jerusalem Council). He angered Jews by not demanding the Gentiles to be circumcised, yet he thought them the Holy Script. This was a crime in Judaism. Paul did it on purpose. He even says that if he had taught circumcision there had not been any offence. He wanted the offence. This explains why Paul did not tell his Christians of the decisions of the Jerusalem Council: that Gentile Christians could follow the Noahide laws and even that would be acceptable. But Paul wanted persecution of Christians because in the Messianic scenario there was to be persecution. It is also likely that Paul did not want the Gentiles to be saved but to be cursed. He does say something of this type. In Rom 9:3 he says: “For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race.” This is real patriotism. Paul would do any sin if that helps the Jews. He would for instance lie: Rom 3:7, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Indeed, he could do any evil: Rom 3:8, “Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!” Preaching the Holy Script to Gentiles without requiring them to be circumcised was an offence to Jews and Paul did it for the purpose of fulfilling the signs of the end of times.

            As Paul must have been Herodean, from the king dynasty, we can most probably find him from the works of Josephus. Robert Eisenman in James, the brother of Jesus identified Paul as Saulus ben Antipater. He had a sister with a son who was the public treasurer (in Jerusalem) and might have heard of a plot against Paul as Actsa tell. He also had a brother Costobar. Josephus tells of these brothers:  “Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favour among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves.” The Wikipedia page on Costobarus discards Eisenman’s theory as a fringe theory and impossible as it would move Paul’s conversion decades forward. I also earlier was sceptical of this theory, Eisenman has many false theories, but recently have found it quite possible, even compelling. Firstly, there is no reason to expect that the text of Josephus on the brothers refers to the time before Paul converted to Christianity. From his letters it is clear that the congregations accused him of plundering them. He wants to be supported and asks for money. Indeed, 2. Cor 11:20-21 has this interesting statement: “In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. ²¹ To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!” Is the one weak who refrains from extorting those who do not defend themselves, or is he weak who cannot resist the temptation?

            If Paul is Saul ben Antipater, then there also must be Costobarus, his brother. How would you consider this derivation: Costobar=Bar Costo=Bar Casta as vowels were not marked. Further Bar Casta=Bar Catas=Barcatas=Barnabas. Barnabas was a Jew from Grete and a close coworker of Paul. Barnabas was rich as he made a large donation to the Church of Jerusalem. Paul and especially Barnabas built the Church in Grete, but what does the pseudoepigraphic letter to Titus say (Titus 1:12: “One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” Maybe he did not mean it of Barnabas, but it might fit Costobar. Anyway, there is no more reason to think Barnabas was from Grete than that Paul was from Tarsus. if Paul was Saul ben Antipater, then probably Costobar was Barnabas as Paul had very few circumcised co-workers.

            Josephus tells that Saul and Costobar were still active at the time of the war and tried to ask Herod II Agrippa to send his army to Judea to stop the zealots. Naturally had Agripps II done so, he would have sent his army from his client kingdom to an area ruled by Romans and most probably he would have had to fight Romans and he had ended up as the leader of the zealot revolt. That was the goal of the conspirators: Herod II Agrippa was the first candidate to be the King Messiah. The original King Messiah had certainly been his father Herod I Agrippa, who was born soon after the comet of 11 BC, who most probably adviced Caligula to set his statue to the temple (which would have started a rebellion), was a friend and advisor of Caligula and the maker of the emperor of Rome in the case of Claudius, but who still tried to build a wall around Jerusalem showing a clear intention of rebelling against Rome. Herod I Agrippa died when he tried to declare being more than a human (i.e., the Messiah). But Herod II Agrippa was too wise and did not send his army to Judea. That left Josephus as the only King Messiah candidate from the Hasmonean family.

            Josephus also tells how Saul and Costobar were trapped by Zealots and Romans rescued them. This only indicates that Saul and Costobar acted as friends of Rome (as did Paul the Apostle), not that they in reality were friends. They created unrest. Today one would say, they destabilized the country in order to push it to a war. Paul and Barnabas certainly destabilized the country with their preaching.

            Saul ben Antipater was the grandson of Mariamne II Boethus. The leader of the rebellion of 66 AD was Jesus ben Gamla. He was made the high priest (for a short time) by his wife, Martha bat Boethus. She was the richest woman in Jerusalem and she bought the high priest position to Jesus. She was from the Boethus family, possibly the daughter of Eleazer Boethus. This Eleazer may have been Lazarus of the gospels. He had two sisters: Mary (Mariamne II) and Martha, and his father was Simon Boethus. Assuming that Mariamne II was Mary Magdalena, the companion of Jesus, she was much older than Jesus, but she was the link of Jesus to the royal conspiracy of Herod I Agrippa. One might say that Mariamne was the controller of Jesus. She anoited Jesus, as is fit for a former queen and the daughter of the Hight Priest. She was the first to see resurrected Jesus. She was certainly an insider, if there was a plot.

            But there was a plot: the messianic plot to conquer the world. At that time Rome was incredably strong. Nero’s legions had no problem in winning Boudica in Britain in 61 AD. Nero’s legions could not be defeated without a plot. In 66 AD Nero was in a singing tour in Greece and won all competitions. He was not alarmed when he heard of the rebellion in Judea. He sent there his most able general, Vespasian, and Vespasian took Jotapata in 67 AD and its commander, Flavius Josephus, was taken as a captive. Vespasian wanted to send Josephus to Nero, who surely would have beheaded him, but Josephus made the prophesy that Vespasian will be the emperor. So it happened also. One of these prophesies that are fulfilled and for that reason always suspicious.

            There is a nice book of this time by Philipp Vanderberg called Nero, written 1981. The year is 68 AD. Nero had spent all state money in building Domus Aurelius and his gilded statue. Vindex started a rebel in Gallia. Vindex, the Roman rebel commander, was rumored to have 100,000 men. Vindex had sent several letters to 73-year old Galba in Spain asking this old soldier to agree to be the emperor. Galba originally refused, but finally agreed. He was tricked: Vindex did not have more than 30,000 men and was easily defeated by Nero’s legions lead by Verginius. Vindex committed suicide, Galba escaped to a small Spanish town.

            Then happened the first of these strange things: Nero’s newly appointed commander Rubius Galleus switched to Galba’s side. I think Galleus must have been paid. There is no sense to switch to the lost side. Another strange thing happened. Somebody had paid the praetorian guards. Nero escaped and finally committed suicide. Verginius stepped aside.

            The praetorian guards had been promised that Galba will give them a huge payment. Galba did not know of this promise and could not fulfill. Thus, the praetorian guards turned against Galba and he was killed. Ohto become emperor. The strange thing here is that Ohto had no money, he was in great debts and he was no soldier or ambitious person. He had not made the promise that Galba will pay. That was made by Nymphidius, but though Vanderberg suggests that Nymphidius was behind this plot to trick Galba and himself wanted to be the emperor, it was not Nymphidius who killed Galba. It was Ohto’s men. I think Nymphidius was also tricked. He died in the events. Ohto could not be behind this plot. It is very clearly shown from what happened next.

            Some legions had raised Vitellius to be the emperor. Ohto marched an army against Vitellus. There was a rumor that the men of Vitellius would change side, so the men of Ohto just walked towards them in a friendly manner. Vitellius’ men did not change side, obviously nobody had paid them, instead the praetorian guards in Ohto’s troops run away. Maybe they had been paid. Ohto committed suicide, though he had another army already marching towards Italy. What I think happened? Ohto had been promised that Vitellius men will be paid and as they were not, he did not think the second army was coming to help him. Indeed, it was not: there came Vespasian, whom the legions of the east had made the emperor. Ohto was not the one to pay Vitellius’ men. Ohto had only debts and the state coffers were empty. We see here a hidden hand with deep pockets.

            Vespasian did have to fight Vitellius, but he won. It is natural that Vitellius’ men were not paid by the hidden hand as Ohto certainly was not a competent leader against Vespasian. But Vespasian was Nero’s best soldier, so he won. Ohto had been an excellent emperor for money lenders: being in great debt, fun of luxorius life, not competent, and probably very easy to handle as a puppet king. Had Vespasian lost in Judea, or even if the war in Judea had been a tie, then when Vespasian left with the legions to meet Ohto, a King Messiah could make a peace with Ohto and the senate would command Vespasian to stop.

            It was not a bad plan, but it failed. If this was the plan to gain the rule of Rome through Ohto, oh yeas, he was the former husband of Poppea Sabina, the wife of Nero, who was pro-Jewish, then we can expect an equally complicated plan for gaining power in Judea. First the zealots are angered by Paul’s teaching and taxes and start a revolt. Then this revolt is captured and either Herod II Agrippa or Flavius Josephus take the lead and become the king. Ohto, being in the leach of money lenders, agrees for a peace. It could have worked.

            Let us return to the secret of Jesus. Paul in his letters does reveal a secret. It is in Ephesians 3:4-6: “In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, ⁵ which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. ⁶ This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” This does not sound so bad, but as Jesus is the rule in heaven, there has to be a ruler on earth. The body of Jesus on the earth for Paul is the Church, but the Church does not bring the punishment of the end of the days. That punishment is brought by the rider on the white horse and blood is up to knees, because what Paul really means is Mica 5:15: “I will take vengeance in anger and wrath on the nations that have not obeyed me” because that is what the King Messiah is expected to do.

            As for the Holy Grail, thew Turin Shroud, whatever way the image was created to the shroud, it is there and the should had to be in the possession of some group. The two burying Jesus were Joseph of Arimathia and Nicodemus. The last one is probably Naqdimon ben Gurion, a known miracle maker. Both were wealthy and more of the group of people like Mariamne II, Herod I Agrippa, Saul ben Antipates, Flavius Josephus, Martha Boethus than the 12 disciples of Jesus. Consequently, if the should was made by Nicodemus by some (not quite miraculous) way, it would have been in the possession of this group. If Paul was Saul ben Antipater, then that is where we expect the shroud went, and further on to Marcion. After all, the first Church father Polycarpos told Marcion: “I know who you are, the first son of Satan”.

            There are so clear similarities between the magic makers of Jesus’ time and Kabbalah that they must belong to the same tradition. Kabbalah could not take these features from Christian Gnosticism. There had to be earlier Jewish Gnostisicm of the Sethian Gnosticism type. It become the kernel of Jewish Messianism of the Middle Ages, but the topic is too wide to discuss in  this post. Let us just comment that Paul refest to a human sacrifice in 1. Cor 13:3: “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”

            This finishes the Secret of the Holy Grail.