THE SADDUC
Very little attention has been given to Judas the Galilean's second-in-command. This omission stems from the paucity of information concerning him. That being said, three individuals have characteristics consistent with the Sadduc. But before introducing them, the Sadduc must be fully defined, and this from the writings of Josephus.
...yet there was one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty. ...For Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophical sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil governments with tumults at present, and laid the foundation of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal; concerning which I shall discourse a little, and this the rather, because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction. (Ant. 18.4; 9-10) (Emphasis mine)
This is the only mention of the Sadduc in Josephus, the only Jewish historian of his time. It would seem a daunting task to identify this Sadduc, but with our knowledge of Judas the Galilean, it may be quite possible. From the above passage, we can glean three bits of pertinent information concerning Sadduc: the name Sadduc itself, that he was a Pharisee and the fact that he preached the same message as Judas the Galilean, that is, freedom from earthly rulers. Josephus also added his own commentary concerning Judas and the Sadduc and their movement, calling it an infection. This, too, will be examined.
The followers of Judas and Sadduc were said to be infected with the Fourth Philosophy. This derogatory statement by Josephus is similar to other negative comments about the early Christians. Tacitus wrote the following concerning the fire at Rome which occurred in 64 CE.
Nero set up as culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for the moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome.... (Annals, xv. 44) (Emphasis mine)
This sentiment by Tacitus is supported by Suetonius, who wrote that the Jews who followed "Chrestus" caused disturbances in the city of Rome. This disturbance can be dated at approximately the rise of Claudius, or 41 CE. (1) Thus, the Jewish Christians were reviled by a large section of the Gentile population in Rome. This revulsion of Jewish Christianity was not limited to just Judea and Rome. Pliny the Younger wrote about the Jewish Christians in Bithynia, around the year 112 CE.
The contagion of this superstition has spread not only in the cities, but in the villages and rural districts as well; yet it seems capable of being checked and set right. (Pliny. Epp. X (ad Traj.), xcvi) (Emphasis mine)
This infection ascribed to the Fourth Philosophy was mirrored in the descriptions of the early Jewish Christians in Rome and beyond. (Pliny's Christians were probably Gentile because they generally recanted, an act Jewish Christians did not do.) And it should be noted that both Tacitus and Pliny commented on how the true Christians would undergo torture as opposed to betraying God. This same virtue was also attached to the Fourth Philosophy.
Josephus also wrote that the infection had spread to the younger generation who were zealous for it. This passage may have been used by the author of Acts to describe the followers of James.
Then they [James and the elders] said to Paul, "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you [Paul] teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs." (Acts 21:20-21) (Emphasis mine)
Although the whole of Acts is an attempt to misdirect, there are some passages which appear genuine. This dialogue between James and Paul did not actually happen as Paul had been removed from the movement in 44 CE (See Part II), but the description of James' disciples is consistent with Paul's dreaded "circumcision group" (Gal. 2:11-13). In essence, the Jewish Christians and the Fourth Philosophy were one in the same group. This realization will help us in our quest for the Sadduc's true identification.
Now we will entertain the three pertinent pieces of information Josephus wrote concerning the Sadduc. First, the name Sadduc is a very powerful clue. According to Eisenman, Sadduc or Saddok is a "term linguistically related both to the word 'Sadducee' in Greek and the 'Zaddik' in Hebrew." (2) This Zaddik terminology is associated with the idea of Righteousness.
'Kabbalah' means that which is received, the received tradition. It is the Jewish mystical tradition. One of its better known tenets is the idea of 'the Zaddik' or 'the Righteous One'. James is known in almost all early Christian texts as 'the Just' or 'Just One', and this eponym is, in fact, equivalent to that of the 'Zaddik' in Jewish Kabbalah. (3)
In a sense, Eisenman is tying the Zaddik definition to James, the brother of Jesus. Indirectly, although he never claims it, Eisenman is also comparing James to the Sadduc. James, for sure, is one of three individuals who qualify for examination concerning the Sadduc, but it must be remembered that other people in first-century Judea would have been considered Righteous or even be labeled as the "Righteous One". For now, let us just be assured that the Sadduc had a reputation for being Righteous.
Second, Josephus stated that Sadduc was a Pharisee. In describing the Fourth Philosophy, Josephus also wrote that "these men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty; and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." (Ant. 18.23) The only thing that separated Judas and Sadduc from the other Pharisees was a political desire for autonomy. Most Pharisees had learned to live with Herodian and Roman political rule as long as such rule did not hinder their religious life. So the average Pharisee divided the political from the religious. Judas and the Sadduc could not divorce the realities of everyday life from the commands of God. In fact, to them, the Roman rule was intolerable. They could only follow God.
The other Pharisees, outside of Judas' Fourth Philosophy, would have questioned the wisdom of tackling the Roman Empire, but there was probably also a bit of admiration thrown in as well. In the Gospels, Jesus was often invited into the Pharisees' homes and was warned by them on at least one occasion about Herod's intentions to kill him (Luke 13:31). Thus, even the Gospels show that there was a relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees. How then did the Pharisees get such a bad rap? The answer to that question concerns a rewrite of Judas' life (the Gospels) and the identification of Paul as a Pharisee in Philippians 3:5. Philippians has been attributed to Paul by many scholars, but the claim attesting to his imprisonment is patently false (Phil. 1:12-14). As will be delineated in Part II, Paul never was placed in chains in Rome as described by Acts chapter 28. Thus, the claim of him being a Pharisee must also be questioned as too convenient. The early Church tried to place all evil intents upon the Pharisees. For example, Jesus was constantly being hounded by the Pharisees while Paul persecuted the Church while associated with the Pharisees. This picture completely misrepresented the actual situation as will be proved throughout this book. For now, let us just be content in knowing that Judas and Sadduc were radical Pharisees and that the Gospel Jesus was on good terms with many Pharisees.
Third, Josephus confirmed that the Sadduc had a very close tie to Judas the Galilean. Josephus wrote that both preached against the Roman taxation and both "exhorted the nation to assert their liberty." Therefore, Sadduc was much more than a religious figure to back the radical message of Judas. Sadduc was standing right beside Judas, preaching the same brand of radical Judaism. This makes sense as the entire movement combined the political with the religious. Even though they were all zealous for God's Law, they also preached a revolution against the earthly powers. Righteousness and freedom were entwined.
That is the sum of Josephus' comment concerning Sadduc. And very little has been written about him by scholars. Knowing what we do about the relationship between the historical Judas the Galilean and the Gospel Jesus of Nazareth, a list of three candidates must be examined in our search for the historical Sadduc. The three are all figures from the pages of the New Testament, all quite familiar to the average reader. They are: Cephas (Peter), James the Just or the brother of the Lord, and John the Baptist. Each will be considered below.
CEPHAS OR PETER
In my first book, Judas the Galilean: the Flesh and Blood Jesus, I associated Cephas with Sadduc. On the surface, this was the obvious choice as Peter was the lead apostle throughout the Gospels. Certainly, if Jesus had a second-in-command, it had to be Peter. In Matthew 16:16-19, Jesus praised Peter for the identification of himself as the Christ:
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter [Rock], and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Emphasis mine)
This seems quite straightforward. Jesus was giving Peter power after his own death. Therefore, Peter must have been the second-in-command or Sadduc. However, since we know that the Gospels and Acts were a rewrite of Judas and the Fourth Philosophy, it may be wise to further examine this relationship between Jesus and Peter. From the above passage, Jesus claimed that Peter's faith in him was not taught by man but by God. This sounds an awful lot like Paul's own praise concerning his Gospel. In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul distinguished his Gospel from that of the Pillar apostles (Cephas, James and John).
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
In both cases, the message to Peter and Paul was not derived from any man but was given by revelation by God. In Paul's case, it came from Christ Jesus, who resided in heaven. This Pauline message was no doubt placed into the Gospel story to make Peter's faith stand out. It is interesting to note that the Galatians' declaration was made to distinguish Paul from Cephas and James. Paul claimed a superior message to that of the Pillars as his message came directly from the Risen Christ. And if that were the case, then it can be assumed that Peter's message from the earthly Jesus never really occurred.
Cephas' age must also be examined in relation to Sadduc. Josephus wrote that Sadduc teamed up with Judas the Galilean in 6 CE. We also know that Cephas' quarrel with Paul as described in Galatians, occurred around 44 CE. Could Cephas have been roaming the Mediterranean world for that long? It is possible but not likely. If Sadduc were 30 years old in 6 CE, then he would have been 68 years old in 44 CE. Travel today is exhausting. Travel in those days was certainly not for the physically impaired. An aged man around 70 would not have been the first choice for missionary travels. Therefore, the age question does not favor Cephas.
But why would the Gospel writer invent the successor story? Why would Peter be placed in this situation if Sadduc was someone else? This will be answered as we explore James and John the Baptist.
JAMES THE JUST, THE BROTHER OF THE LORD
Was James the Just the true successor to Jesus? To determine this, we must go back to the oldest known document concerning James. That document is the letter to the Galatians, written approximately 45 CE by Paul. In that letter, Paul stated that three years after his conversion, he met privately in Jerusalem with Cephas and James, the brother of the Lord. Fourteen years later, Paul once again traveled to Jerusalem and met with the Pillar apostles: James, Cephas and John. From this, we know that James was one of the top three leaders. In an earlier letter to the Corinthians, Paul said that the resurrected Jesus appeared to Cephas, the Twelve and then to James. All this proves is that James was important, not necessarily the leader or the Sadduc.
However, after discussing the Jerusalem Council, Paul revealed the true role of James in the Church.
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (Gal. 2:11-13) (Emphasis mine)
Paul's take on this event may be very skewed and self-serving. He called Peter a hypocrite and a coward because he followed the instructions of James. First of all, the instructions from James must have included information concerning Paul's true teachings, of which Peter was unaware. Paul boasted in how he shaped his message when with Jews or with Gentiles. "To the Jews, I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law, I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." (1 Cor. 9:19-23) It is very likely that Cephas (Peter) did not realize what Paul was preaching to his Gentile followers. Cephas and his Jewish friends turned their backs upon Paul when informed of his true teachings by James' ambassadors. This not only shows that Paul's gospel was alien to the Jerusalem leaders but that James led the movement at this time, in 44 CE. Josephus wrote of a similar event, where Eleazar was sent from Galilee in 44 CE to correct the teachings of Ananias. (Ant. 20.34-48) Eleazar was no doubt also sent out by James to combat this Pauline-style philosophy (Judaism without the law and circumcision).
In fact, James also certified teaching credentials in the early Church. Paul bitterly complained about this certification in 2 Cor. 3:1-3:
Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letters, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
Paul had a way of buttering up his audience. He told his congregation that they were his letter from Christ. Therefore, he did not need a letter from the Jerusalem Church or from James. The Corinthians may have bought this line, but the Jerusalem apostles would not have approved. In fact, this section of Corinthians proves that Paul's name did not appear on the approved teachers list.
From Paul, we know that James led the Church, at least from the Jerusalem Council (38-39 CE?) to the argument at Antioch (44 CE). Yet James' role in the early Church is somewhat hidden in the book of Acts. But even this document has to eventually admit his preeminence. In the Jerusalem Council, after hearing all the facts, James, not Peter, decided the issue concerning the Gentiles. "It is my [James] judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." (Acts 15:19) This has been misconstrued by Christians throughout the ages to mean that James approved of Paul's methods. That is not true as James did not fully understand Paul's gospel at this time. James wanted circumcision and the entire law presented to the Gentiles, but he also could accept God-fearing Gentiles, those who did not follow the entire law. However, it is obvious that James preferred full conversion. (Paul's gospel dissuaded Gentiles from circumcision and the law.)
James led the Jerusalem Church in Acts Chapter 15, but he was not introduced until Acts chapter 12. Robert Eisenman convincingly proves that James was actually written out of the early chapters of Acts, the early history of the Church. The election of Matthias to replace the mythical Judas Iscariot was simply a rewrite of James replacing Jesus (Judas the Galilean). The stoning of Stephen was actually a worked over version of the stoning of James. (Note that Saul was mentioned right after Stephen in Acts and was in action shortly after the stoning of James, per Ant. 20.214.) In addition, the early chapters of Acts had Peter and John preaching at the Temple, but never mentioned James. In short, the book of Acts very successfully minimized the role of James in the early Church. However, by reading between the lines, James' preeminence becomes obvious.
Many other early documents point towards the leadership of James. Robert Eisenman presents a compelling case for the supremacy of James in his book, James, the Brother of Jesus. A few of his proofs will be reproduced below. The first comes from Eusebius, who quotes Hegesippus, an early Church historian who lived from 90-180 CE.
But James, the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of this name, was surnamed the Just by all of his days of our Lord until now, received the Government of the Church with [from] the Apostles. (4)
Eusebius then quotes Clement of Alexandria, who lived from 150-215 CE. Note that even though Clement followed the Gospel script for the Central Three (as opposed to Paul's Central Three), he still did not deny that another James, surnamed the Just, was chosen as the leader.
Peter, James and John after the Ascension of the Savior, did not contend for the Glory, even though they had previously been honored by the Savior, but chose James the Just as Bishop of Jerusalem. (5)
These early Christian historians readily admitted that James occupied the most important position in the early Church. They do seem to imply that the office was voted upon by the Apostles as opposed to have been given by the earthly Jesus. However, the following passage from the Gospel of Thomas overtly states that Jesus directly honored James with the leadership role.
The disciples said to Jesus: "We know that you will depart from us. Who is it that shall be great over us [after you are gone]?"
Jesus replied to them: "In the place where you are to go [Jerusalem], go to James the Just for whose sake Heaven and Earth came into existence." (Logion 12)
In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus directly appointed James. Regardless of whether James was directly appointed by Jesus or was voted upon by the Apostles, the point is clear: James was the undisputed leader of the early Church. This is very important as James was the brother of Jesus. Like the Maccabean dynasty, brothers served after brothers. In this respect, the Jesus movement mirrored the Maccabees. And it should be noted that the Fourth Philosophy also had relatives of Judas in important positions. Judas' own two sons (Simon and James) were crucified and another son, Menahem, marched into Jerusalem as a Messiah and cleansed the Temple. Judas' grandson, Eleazar, led the Sicarii in their last stand against Rome at Masada.
In my second book, New Testament Lies, I associated James with Sadduc, based upon the righteousness concept and James' age. According to Epiphanius, James died at the age of ninety-six in 62 CE. This would bring his birth date to 35 BCE. By the time Sadduc joined Judas the Galilean in 6 CE (maybe earlier), James would have been approximately forty years old. This was certainly old enough to be taken as a Righteous Teacher or a Holy Man.
So it is obvious that James was a follower of Judas from the census and was elected the movement's leader after the death of Jesus (Judas the Galilean). But does that make him Sadduc? James was elected to replace Judas, not Sadduc. The Sadduc was still alive and in charge. James played second fiddle to Sadduc until the Sadduc's death. It was at this time that Cephas replaced Sadduc. Thus, by 40 CE, James and Cephas were the leaders of the Jewish Christian movement. It is our task to determine who guided the movement after Judas the Galilean's death in 19-21 CE.
JOHN THE BAPTIST
Only one other credible candidate exists for the role as Sadduc: John the Baptist, the man who introduced the Gospel Jesus to the world. I had extreme difficulty identifying John as the Sadduc (my third book!) due to the clever way the Gospels separated Jesus from his true past by a generation. The same held true for Sadduc. For two thousand years, historians have incorrectly assigned John the Baptist’s introduction to 28-29 CE. We will reassign him to 6 CE. According to the Slavonic Josephus, John came baptizing during the later years of Archelaus, right before the census of Cyrenius.
And at that time a certain man was going about Judaea, [dressed] in strange garments. He donned the hair of cattle on those parts of his body which were not covered with his own hair. And he was wild of visage. And he came to the Jews and called them to freedom, saying, "God hath sent me to show you the lawful way, by which you will be rid of [your] many rulers. But there will be no mortal ruling [over you], only the Most High, who hath sent me."
And when they heard this, the people were joyful. And all Judaea and the environs of Jerusalem were following him. And he did nothing else for them, except to immerse them in Jordan's stream, and dismiss them, bidding them refrain from their wicked deeds, and a king would be given to them, saving them and humbling all the unsubmissive, while he himself would be humbled by no one. Some mocked his voices, others believed them. And when he was brought before Archelaus and the experts of the Law were assembled, they asked him who he was and where he had been up till then. In answer he said, "I am a man. Where the divine spark leads me, I feed on the roots of reeds and the shoots of trees." When those [men] threatened him with torture if he did not cease those words and deeds, he said, "It is you who should cease from your foul deeds and adhere to the Lord, your God."
And arising in fury, Simon, an Essene by origin [and] a scribe, said, "We read the divine scriptures every day, and you have [just] now come in like a beast from the woods dare to teach us and to lead people astray with your impious words." And he rushed forward to tear his body apart.
But he, reproaching them, said, "I am not revealing to you the mystery which is [here] among you, because you have not wished it. Therefore, there will come [down] on you an unutterable calamity, because of you and your people." Thus he spoke and left for the other side of the Jordan. And as no one dared to prevent him, he was doing just what he had done before. (After War 2.110) (Emphasis mine)
Many striking similarities exist between this Baptist, who was inserted into the War, and the description of the Fourth Philosophy as detailed in the Antiquities. It is interesting that the War does not include this mention of the Baptist and also omits the Sadduc, while Antiquities mentions the Sadduc as being Judas the Galilean's co-teacher. It seems as though the Slavonic War is supplementing the War with its own version of the Sadduc, one which fits perfectly with the Antiquities' version.
The Baptist called the people to freedom while the Sadduc "exhorted the nation to assert their liberty." (Ant. 18.4) The Baptist taught that only God, not mortals, should rule over you. This is echoed in Antiquities where Judas and the Sadduc "say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." (Ant. 18.23) In the Slavonic Version, the Baptist played second fiddle to the king who was to come while the Sadduc was the second to the Messiah figure, Judas the Galilean. (Ant. 18.4) This Baptist also was new to the political arena as he was not familiar to the experts in the Law. This would have made the Baptist a younger man, approximately the same age as Judas the Galilean, or about thirty years of age in 6 CE. In addition, like the Fourth Philosophy, the Baptist was willing to undergo torture. (Ant. 18.23-24) And finally, he was attacked by an Essene and others who supported Archelaus (Sadducees). This would most likely make the Baptist a Pharisee, just like the Sadduc. (Ant. 18.4) In every way, the Slavonic version of the War likens the Baptist to the Sadduc.
In addition, the placement of the Slavonic version of the Baptist is right before the introduction of Judas the Galilean. Eight verses after the Baptist section, Josephus wrote:
Under his [Coponius] administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders. (War 2.118) (Emphasis mine)
In this passage about Judas the Galilean, it must be noted that he, like the Baptist, preached that mortal men should not replace God as their Lord. This was a hallmark belief of the Fourth Philosophy. The description of Judas does remind us of the Gospel Jesus, in that Judas was so different from all the other teachers. In Antiquities, Josephus goes as far as attributing a philosophy to Judas and Sadduc, the Fourth Philosophy. (Ant. 18.9) (The other three were the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes.) Thus, Judas and Sadduc stood out from all other teachers. From the above, I think it is obvious that John the Baptist and Jesus were really the Sadduc and Judas the Galilean.
The Slavonic Josephus placed the Baptist's introduction at 6 CE, but it also devoted two other passages to him. One was about the death of Philip (34 CE) and the other mirrored the Gospel John story and the John of Antiquities. This would date the death of the Slavonic Baptist at 35-36 CE, the same dating as the passage in Antiquities. The Antiquities' passage will be reproduced below.
Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into any difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly, he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure against him. (Ant. 18.116-119) (Emphasis mine)
Josephus does recognize that John was referred to as the Baptist by the people. This Baptist exhorted the Jews to "exercise virtue" both towards themselves and to God. His baptism was with water and this water represented cleansing, but there was nothing miraculous about the liquid. The baptism was purely for purification of the body; the soul was purified beforehand by repentance and by acting right or by righteousness. This is a far cry from the Christian concept of justification by faith alone. To the Baptist, one was only justified by walking right before God, and this included following the law.
It is interesting that John had great influence over the crowds in 35-36 CE. According to the Gospels, John was put to death before Jesus, somewhere from 30-32 CE. Obviously, the Gospel story does not tell the truth concerning John. John the Baptist was the most popular teacher in Judea at this time (35-36 CE), and the crowds would do anything he wished. Where was Jesus? Where was James?
In answer to the above questions, Judas the Galilean (Jesus) had been put to death under Pilate many years earlier, around 19-21 CE. This means that John the Baptist (Sadduc) ruled in his place for about fifteen years, until John's own death around 36 CE. After Judas (Jesus) suffered crucifixion, James took his place, but James would have been the second-in-command to John the Baptist until John's death. Only at that time did James become the movement's leader. His second-in-command would have been Cephas. This will be detailed below.
THE LEADERSHIP OF THE EARLY JEWISH CHRISTIANS
The following pairings will show the approximate dates of each leadership pair.
4 BCE and earlier - Matthias and Judas led their students in the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing, an awakening for the movement. It is my contention that Matthias or the event may have been associated with the Root of Planting, a term taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls. (The Fourth Philosophy did not write the Scrolls but they did use them to their own advantage. Some Scrolls were found at Masada and the heaviest coin usage at Qumran occurred during the heyday of the Fourth Philosophy, from 4 BCE to 68 CE.) (6) With the death of Matthias, Judas headed to Galilee. Matthias was replaced by the Sadduc, anywhere from 4 BCE to 6 CE.
6 - 19 or 21 CE - This period of the Jewish Christian movement brimmed with excitement as both Judas (Jesus) and Sadduc (John the Baptist) roamed the countryside. They preached the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. In 19 CE, Judas marched to Jerusalem and was hailed as Messiah by the crowds. However, the Kingdom on earth did not prevail and Jesus was crucified.
19 or 21 - 36 CE - After Judas' (Jesus') death by crucifixion, James became second-in-command to John the Baptist. Acts chapter 1 obscured the election of James by reporting that a Matthias (a playful usage of the above Matthias) replaced Judas Iscariot. In Chapter 17, I will prove that a Judas Iscariot never lived but was purely an invention of the Gospel writers as a way to hide Judas the Galilean and James. Robert Eisenman proves that the election of James was the real event, not the election of a Matthias. (7)
Even though James replaced Judas (Jesus), the movement was still headed by John the Baptist. This is hard to accept considering the Gospels insist that John died before Jesus. But history does not jibe with the Gospel account. John lasted until 36 CE, many years after the Gospel story and many more years after the real crucifixion as outlined above, around 19-21 CE. Even within the pages of Acts, the truth emerges. Peter preached a strong sermon after the death of Jesus.
When the people heard this [sermon], they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do."
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call."
With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:37-41) (Emphasis mine)
The above passage combines some truth with some Pauline teachings. Since John was the leader, it only makes sense that the cornerstone practice of the movement would be baptism. This water baptism was in reality just a purification of the body as the soul was cleansed through righteousness (repentance). The author of Acts does try to combine this water baptism with Paul's Holy Spirit baptism, but this was never part of the early Jewish Christian movement. This too can be explained using the New Testament.
In the first letter to the Corinthians, written somewhere around 40 CE, Paul complained that his followers were split among several factions.
My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." ...What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. (1 Cor. 1:11-12; 3:5-6)
This passage was written by Paul probably after the Jerusalem Council (38-39 CE) and before his removal from the movement in 44 CE. During this period, Paul was careful to hide his true feelings and thoughts concerning the Fourth Philosophy. Therefore, his words seemed conciliatory. After all, Paul desired that his congregations follow his preaching. This becomes crystal clear when reading Corinthians, where four different factions vied for converts. Paul had his followers, Christ (the original Judas the Galilean) had his, as did Cephas (representing James), but Apollos has never been adequately explained before. With his name, Paul used water baptism. Acts 18:24-25 stated that Apollos was "a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John." From this passage we can infer that Apollos knew of John's water baptism but had never heard of the Holy Spirit baptism, even though he knew of Jesus' teachings. This shows that the Jewish Christians did not practice the Holy Spirit baptism. Thus Acts 2:38 incorrectly attributed Paul's Holy Spirit baptism to Peter's preaching.
It should also be noted that around 40 CE, the cult of John was still quite powerful. That is why some still followed his teachings. Remember, Paul complained of the factions who followed Cephas and Apollos. At 40 CE, there was not a universal leader of the movement. Even though John was dead, many of his disciples did not want to follow anyone else. That is why there was such a strong emphasis on the death of John the Baptist before Jesus in the Gospels. This disunity within the Fourth Philosophy had to be hidden. This disunity also explains the Pseudoclementine Recognitions, where John's movement was criticized. "Yea, some even of the disciples of John, who seemed to be great ones, have separated themselves from the people, and proclaimed their own master as Christ. (Chapter LIV - Jewish Sects) This second-century document recognized a group which still considered John the Baptist as Messiah. This further strengthens the point that John lived much beyond the lifetime of Jesus. The Sadduc outlived Judas the Galilean.
36 - 38 CE - This was a time for consolidation of power. When one reads Paul's letter to the Galatians, it appears as if the Council of Jerusalem was called simply to decide Paul's place in the church. Paul stated that he went to Jerusalem in "response to a revelation" and presented his Gospel before the Pillar apostles. (Gal. 2:2) In Jerusalem, Paul claimed that he was "given the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter [Cephas] had been given the task of preaching the gospel to the Jews." (Gal. 2:7) It is quite possible that the most important part of the so-called council of Jerusalem was to install Cephas as the second-in-command. Any dealings with Paul would have been secondary in nature. Besides, at this point in Paul's relationship with James, Paul was still hiding his own gospel. In 1 Corinthians 9:20, Paul made it quite clear that he told the Jews what they wanted to hear, not his own unique gospel.
So is it possible that the Council of Jerusalem was used by James as a way to consolidate power. John the Baptist had just been put to death and his fervent followers may have been clinging to his memory. It was James' task to place all emphasis back upon the resurrected Jesus, making himself a caretaker leader until the Messiah's return in power and glory. It is interesting to note that the fourth-century Church historian, Epiphanius, stated that James ruled the Church for 24 years until his death in 62 CE. (8) This would have made James leader of the Church from 38 CE until 62 CE. This is generally the time period covered by the book of Acts, although the Acts' version is a twisted jumble of time and events.
I had previously overlooked the Epiphanius claim of 24 years as this did not jibe with the death of Jesus and the rise of James. Even in the traditional timeline, Jesus died in 30-33 CE and James would have been appointed leader shortly thereafter. The 38 CE date seemed way too late. And this dating is even further away from my timeline, where Judas the Galilean (Jesus) suffered crucifixion around 19-21 CE. The one thing that I and all others missed was the Sadduc, or John the Baptist. John led the movement until his death in 35-36 CE.
If the Council of Jerusalem were used by James as a way to consolidate power, then it occurred around 38-39 CE. It was here that the new more intense mission was launched. Under John the Baptist, the emphasis was upon repentance. The new strategy would be for the return of Jesus in power and glory. That is why the passages about John the Baptist in the Gospels appear to talk about the return of the resurrected Jesus. (See Matt. 3:11-12, where Jesus will come to separate the wheat from the chaff.)
Using this more exact time for the Council of Jerusalem at 38-39 CE, we can therefore calculate Paul's conversion into the movement. If Paul converted 17 years before the Council, then he became a member around 21-22 CE. Paul also would have had five to six years in the movement after the Council, as he was thrown out in 44 CE, per the argument with Cephas over Paul's Gentile gospel. In all, Paul was a member of the Fourth Philosophy for 22 to 23 years.
38 - 62 CE - The Fourth Philosophy was guided by James and Cephas. As the years rolled on, it was more difficult to keep the young disciples under control. It was not easy to wait for the coming of a dead Messiah. Many, like Theudas, tried to prod God into action, but this simply led to their own deaths. In time, the movement would splinter and at the death of James in 62 CE, all hell would soon break loose.
1. Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Claudius 25.
2. Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, p. 17.
3. Ibid., p. 133.
4. Eusebius, The History of the Church, Tiberius to Nero, Book 2.23.4.
5. Ibid., Book 2.1.3.
6. Daniel T. Unterbrink, Judas the Galilean, p. 83.
7. Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, pp. 154-184.
8. Ibid., p. 467. Eisenman quotes Epiphanius (Haeres 78.13.2 and 14.5) and notes that the death of Jesus would be 38 CE, the approximate year of John the Baptist's death, per Josephus. Eisenman has not recognized the relationship between John and the Sadduc and therefore is a bit misdirected on the year of "Jesus'" death.
Very little attention has been given to Judas the Galilean's second-in-command. This omission stems from the paucity of information concerning him. That being said, three individuals have characteristics consistent with the Sadduc. But before introducing them, the Sadduc must be fully defined, and this from the writings of Josephus.
...yet there was one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty. ...For Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophical sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil governments with tumults at present, and laid the foundation of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal; concerning which I shall discourse a little, and this the rather, because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction. (Ant. 18.4; 9-10) (Emphasis mine)
This is the only mention of the Sadduc in Josephus, the only Jewish historian of his time. It would seem a daunting task to identify this Sadduc, but with our knowledge of Judas the Galilean, it may be quite possible. From the above passage, we can glean three bits of pertinent information concerning Sadduc: the name Sadduc itself, that he was a Pharisee and the fact that he preached the same message as Judas the Galilean, that is, freedom from earthly rulers. Josephus also added his own commentary concerning Judas and the Sadduc and their movement, calling it an infection. This, too, will be examined.
The followers of Judas and Sadduc were said to be infected with the Fourth Philosophy. This derogatory statement by Josephus is similar to other negative comments about the early Christians. Tacitus wrote the following concerning the fire at Rome which occurred in 64 CE.
Nero set up as culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for the moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome.... (Annals, xv. 44) (Emphasis mine)
This sentiment by Tacitus is supported by Suetonius, who wrote that the Jews who followed "Chrestus" caused disturbances in the city of Rome. This disturbance can be dated at approximately the rise of Claudius, or 41 CE. (1) Thus, the Jewish Christians were reviled by a large section of the Gentile population in Rome. This revulsion of Jewish Christianity was not limited to just Judea and Rome. Pliny the Younger wrote about the Jewish Christians in Bithynia, around the year 112 CE.
The contagion of this superstition has spread not only in the cities, but in the villages and rural districts as well; yet it seems capable of being checked and set right. (Pliny. Epp. X (ad Traj.), xcvi) (Emphasis mine)
This infection ascribed to the Fourth Philosophy was mirrored in the descriptions of the early Jewish Christians in Rome and beyond. (Pliny's Christians were probably Gentile because they generally recanted, an act Jewish Christians did not do.) And it should be noted that both Tacitus and Pliny commented on how the true Christians would undergo torture as opposed to betraying God. This same virtue was also attached to the Fourth Philosophy.
Josephus also wrote that the infection had spread to the younger generation who were zealous for it. This passage may have been used by the author of Acts to describe the followers of James.
Then they [James and the elders] said to Paul, "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you [Paul] teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs." (Acts 21:20-21) (Emphasis mine)
Although the whole of Acts is an attempt to misdirect, there are some passages which appear genuine. This dialogue between James and Paul did not actually happen as Paul had been removed from the movement in 44 CE (See Part II), but the description of James' disciples is consistent with Paul's dreaded "circumcision group" (Gal. 2:11-13). In essence, the Jewish Christians and the Fourth Philosophy were one in the same group. This realization will help us in our quest for the Sadduc's true identification.
Now we will entertain the three pertinent pieces of information Josephus wrote concerning the Sadduc. First, the name Sadduc is a very powerful clue. According to Eisenman, Sadduc or Saddok is a "term linguistically related both to the word 'Sadducee' in Greek and the 'Zaddik' in Hebrew." (2) This Zaddik terminology is associated with the idea of Righteousness.
'Kabbalah' means that which is received, the received tradition. It is the Jewish mystical tradition. One of its better known tenets is the idea of 'the Zaddik' or 'the Righteous One'. James is known in almost all early Christian texts as 'the Just' or 'Just One', and this eponym is, in fact, equivalent to that of the 'Zaddik' in Jewish Kabbalah. (3)
In a sense, Eisenman is tying the Zaddik definition to James, the brother of Jesus. Indirectly, although he never claims it, Eisenman is also comparing James to the Sadduc. James, for sure, is one of three individuals who qualify for examination concerning the Sadduc, but it must be remembered that other people in first-century Judea would have been considered Righteous or even be labeled as the "Righteous One". For now, let us just be assured that the Sadduc had a reputation for being Righteous.
Second, Josephus stated that Sadduc was a Pharisee. In describing the Fourth Philosophy, Josephus also wrote that "these men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty; and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." (Ant. 18.23) The only thing that separated Judas and Sadduc from the other Pharisees was a political desire for autonomy. Most Pharisees had learned to live with Herodian and Roman political rule as long as such rule did not hinder their religious life. So the average Pharisee divided the political from the religious. Judas and the Sadduc could not divorce the realities of everyday life from the commands of God. In fact, to them, the Roman rule was intolerable. They could only follow God.
The other Pharisees, outside of Judas' Fourth Philosophy, would have questioned the wisdom of tackling the Roman Empire, but there was probably also a bit of admiration thrown in as well. In the Gospels, Jesus was often invited into the Pharisees' homes and was warned by them on at least one occasion about Herod's intentions to kill him (Luke 13:31). Thus, even the Gospels show that there was a relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees. How then did the Pharisees get such a bad rap? The answer to that question concerns a rewrite of Judas' life (the Gospels) and the identification of Paul as a Pharisee in Philippians 3:5. Philippians has been attributed to Paul by many scholars, but the claim attesting to his imprisonment is patently false (Phil. 1:12-14). As will be delineated in Part II, Paul never was placed in chains in Rome as described by Acts chapter 28. Thus, the claim of him being a Pharisee must also be questioned as too convenient. The early Church tried to place all evil intents upon the Pharisees. For example, Jesus was constantly being hounded by the Pharisees while Paul persecuted the Church while associated with the Pharisees. This picture completely misrepresented the actual situation as will be proved throughout this book. For now, let us just be content in knowing that Judas and Sadduc were radical Pharisees and that the Gospel Jesus was on good terms with many Pharisees.
Third, Josephus confirmed that the Sadduc had a very close tie to Judas the Galilean. Josephus wrote that both preached against the Roman taxation and both "exhorted the nation to assert their liberty." Therefore, Sadduc was much more than a religious figure to back the radical message of Judas. Sadduc was standing right beside Judas, preaching the same brand of radical Judaism. This makes sense as the entire movement combined the political with the religious. Even though they were all zealous for God's Law, they also preached a revolution against the earthly powers. Righteousness and freedom were entwined.
That is the sum of Josephus' comment concerning Sadduc. And very little has been written about him by scholars. Knowing what we do about the relationship between the historical Judas the Galilean and the Gospel Jesus of Nazareth, a list of three candidates must be examined in our search for the historical Sadduc. The three are all figures from the pages of the New Testament, all quite familiar to the average reader. They are: Cephas (Peter), James the Just or the brother of the Lord, and John the Baptist. Each will be considered below.
CEPHAS OR PETER
In my first book, Judas the Galilean: the Flesh and Blood Jesus, I associated Cephas with Sadduc. On the surface, this was the obvious choice as Peter was the lead apostle throughout the Gospels. Certainly, if Jesus had a second-in-command, it had to be Peter. In Matthew 16:16-19, Jesus praised Peter for the identification of himself as the Christ:
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter [Rock], and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Emphasis mine)
This seems quite straightforward. Jesus was giving Peter power after his own death. Therefore, Peter must have been the second-in-command or Sadduc. However, since we know that the Gospels and Acts were a rewrite of Judas and the Fourth Philosophy, it may be wise to further examine this relationship between Jesus and Peter. From the above passage, Jesus claimed that Peter's faith in him was not taught by man but by God. This sounds an awful lot like Paul's own praise concerning his Gospel. In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul distinguished his Gospel from that of the Pillar apostles (Cephas, James and John).
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
In both cases, the message to Peter and Paul was not derived from any man but was given by revelation by God. In Paul's case, it came from Christ Jesus, who resided in heaven. This Pauline message was no doubt placed into the Gospel story to make Peter's faith stand out. It is interesting to note that the Galatians' declaration was made to distinguish Paul from Cephas and James. Paul claimed a superior message to that of the Pillars as his message came directly from the Risen Christ. And if that were the case, then it can be assumed that Peter's message from the earthly Jesus never really occurred.
Cephas' age must also be examined in relation to Sadduc. Josephus wrote that Sadduc teamed up with Judas the Galilean in 6 CE. We also know that Cephas' quarrel with Paul as described in Galatians, occurred around 44 CE. Could Cephas have been roaming the Mediterranean world for that long? It is possible but not likely. If Sadduc were 30 years old in 6 CE, then he would have been 68 years old in 44 CE. Travel today is exhausting. Travel in those days was certainly not for the physically impaired. An aged man around 70 would not have been the first choice for missionary travels. Therefore, the age question does not favor Cephas.
But why would the Gospel writer invent the successor story? Why would Peter be placed in this situation if Sadduc was someone else? This will be answered as we explore James and John the Baptist.
JAMES THE JUST, THE BROTHER OF THE LORD
Was James the Just the true successor to Jesus? To determine this, we must go back to the oldest known document concerning James. That document is the letter to the Galatians, written approximately 45 CE by Paul. In that letter, Paul stated that three years after his conversion, he met privately in Jerusalem with Cephas and James, the brother of the Lord. Fourteen years later, Paul once again traveled to Jerusalem and met with the Pillar apostles: James, Cephas and John. From this, we know that James was one of the top three leaders. In an earlier letter to the Corinthians, Paul said that the resurrected Jesus appeared to Cephas, the Twelve and then to James. All this proves is that James was important, not necessarily the leader or the Sadduc.
However, after discussing the Jerusalem Council, Paul revealed the true role of James in the Church.
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (Gal. 2:11-13) (Emphasis mine)
Paul's take on this event may be very skewed and self-serving. He called Peter a hypocrite and a coward because he followed the instructions of James. First of all, the instructions from James must have included information concerning Paul's true teachings, of which Peter was unaware. Paul boasted in how he shaped his message when with Jews or with Gentiles. "To the Jews, I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law, I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." (1 Cor. 9:19-23) It is very likely that Cephas (Peter) did not realize what Paul was preaching to his Gentile followers. Cephas and his Jewish friends turned their backs upon Paul when informed of his true teachings by James' ambassadors. This not only shows that Paul's gospel was alien to the Jerusalem leaders but that James led the movement at this time, in 44 CE. Josephus wrote of a similar event, where Eleazar was sent from Galilee in 44 CE to correct the teachings of Ananias. (Ant. 20.34-48) Eleazar was no doubt also sent out by James to combat this Pauline-style philosophy (Judaism without the law and circumcision).
In fact, James also certified teaching credentials in the early Church. Paul bitterly complained about this certification in 2 Cor. 3:1-3:
Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letters, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
Paul had a way of buttering up his audience. He told his congregation that they were his letter from Christ. Therefore, he did not need a letter from the Jerusalem Church or from James. The Corinthians may have bought this line, but the Jerusalem apostles would not have approved. In fact, this section of Corinthians proves that Paul's name did not appear on the approved teachers list.
From Paul, we know that James led the Church, at least from the Jerusalem Council (38-39 CE?) to the argument at Antioch (44 CE). Yet James' role in the early Church is somewhat hidden in the book of Acts. But even this document has to eventually admit his preeminence. In the Jerusalem Council, after hearing all the facts, James, not Peter, decided the issue concerning the Gentiles. "It is my [James] judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." (Acts 15:19) This has been misconstrued by Christians throughout the ages to mean that James approved of Paul's methods. That is not true as James did not fully understand Paul's gospel at this time. James wanted circumcision and the entire law presented to the Gentiles, but he also could accept God-fearing Gentiles, those who did not follow the entire law. However, it is obvious that James preferred full conversion. (Paul's gospel dissuaded Gentiles from circumcision and the law.)
James led the Jerusalem Church in Acts Chapter 15, but he was not introduced until Acts chapter 12. Robert Eisenman convincingly proves that James was actually written out of the early chapters of Acts, the early history of the Church. The election of Matthias to replace the mythical Judas Iscariot was simply a rewrite of James replacing Jesus (Judas the Galilean). The stoning of Stephen was actually a worked over version of the stoning of James. (Note that Saul was mentioned right after Stephen in Acts and was in action shortly after the stoning of James, per Ant. 20.214.) In addition, the early chapters of Acts had Peter and John preaching at the Temple, but never mentioned James. In short, the book of Acts very successfully minimized the role of James in the early Church. However, by reading between the lines, James' preeminence becomes obvious.
Many other early documents point towards the leadership of James. Robert Eisenman presents a compelling case for the supremacy of James in his book, James, the Brother of Jesus. A few of his proofs will be reproduced below. The first comes from Eusebius, who quotes Hegesippus, an early Church historian who lived from 90-180 CE.
But James, the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of this name, was surnamed the Just by all of his days of our Lord until now, received the Government of the Church with [from] the Apostles. (4)
Eusebius then quotes Clement of Alexandria, who lived from 150-215 CE. Note that even though Clement followed the Gospel script for the Central Three (as opposed to Paul's Central Three), he still did not deny that another James, surnamed the Just, was chosen as the leader.
Peter, James and John after the Ascension of the Savior, did not contend for the Glory, even though they had previously been honored by the Savior, but chose James the Just as Bishop of Jerusalem. (5)
These early Christian historians readily admitted that James occupied the most important position in the early Church. They do seem to imply that the office was voted upon by the Apostles as opposed to have been given by the earthly Jesus. However, the following passage from the Gospel of Thomas overtly states that Jesus directly honored James with the leadership role.
The disciples said to Jesus: "We know that you will depart from us. Who is it that shall be great over us [after you are gone]?"
Jesus replied to them: "In the place where you are to go [Jerusalem], go to James the Just for whose sake Heaven and Earth came into existence." (Logion 12)
In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus directly appointed James. Regardless of whether James was directly appointed by Jesus or was voted upon by the Apostles, the point is clear: James was the undisputed leader of the early Church. This is very important as James was the brother of Jesus. Like the Maccabean dynasty, brothers served after brothers. In this respect, the Jesus movement mirrored the Maccabees. And it should be noted that the Fourth Philosophy also had relatives of Judas in important positions. Judas' own two sons (Simon and James) were crucified and another son, Menahem, marched into Jerusalem as a Messiah and cleansed the Temple. Judas' grandson, Eleazar, led the Sicarii in their last stand against Rome at Masada.
In my second book, New Testament Lies, I associated James with Sadduc, based upon the righteousness concept and James' age. According to Epiphanius, James died at the age of ninety-six in 62 CE. This would bring his birth date to 35 BCE. By the time Sadduc joined Judas the Galilean in 6 CE (maybe earlier), James would have been approximately forty years old. This was certainly old enough to be taken as a Righteous Teacher or a Holy Man.
So it is obvious that James was a follower of Judas from the census and was elected the movement's leader after the death of Jesus (Judas the Galilean). But does that make him Sadduc? James was elected to replace Judas, not Sadduc. The Sadduc was still alive and in charge. James played second fiddle to Sadduc until the Sadduc's death. It was at this time that Cephas replaced Sadduc. Thus, by 40 CE, James and Cephas were the leaders of the Jewish Christian movement. It is our task to determine who guided the movement after Judas the Galilean's death in 19-21 CE.
JOHN THE BAPTIST
Only one other credible candidate exists for the role as Sadduc: John the Baptist, the man who introduced the Gospel Jesus to the world. I had extreme difficulty identifying John as the Sadduc (my third book!) due to the clever way the Gospels separated Jesus from his true past by a generation. The same held true for Sadduc. For two thousand years, historians have incorrectly assigned John the Baptist’s introduction to 28-29 CE. We will reassign him to 6 CE. According to the Slavonic Josephus, John came baptizing during the later years of Archelaus, right before the census of Cyrenius.
And at that time a certain man was going about Judaea, [dressed] in strange garments. He donned the hair of cattle on those parts of his body which were not covered with his own hair. And he was wild of visage. And he came to the Jews and called them to freedom, saying, "God hath sent me to show you the lawful way, by which you will be rid of [your] many rulers. But there will be no mortal ruling [over you], only the Most High, who hath sent me."
And when they heard this, the people were joyful. And all Judaea and the environs of Jerusalem were following him. And he did nothing else for them, except to immerse them in Jordan's stream, and dismiss them, bidding them refrain from their wicked deeds, and a king would be given to them, saving them and humbling all the unsubmissive, while he himself would be humbled by no one. Some mocked his voices, others believed them. And when he was brought before Archelaus and the experts of the Law were assembled, they asked him who he was and where he had been up till then. In answer he said, "I am a man. Where the divine spark leads me, I feed on the roots of reeds and the shoots of trees." When those [men] threatened him with torture if he did not cease those words and deeds, he said, "It is you who should cease from your foul deeds and adhere to the Lord, your God."
And arising in fury, Simon, an Essene by origin [and] a scribe, said, "We read the divine scriptures every day, and you have [just] now come in like a beast from the woods dare to teach us and to lead people astray with your impious words." And he rushed forward to tear his body apart.
But he, reproaching them, said, "I am not revealing to you the mystery which is [here] among you, because you have not wished it. Therefore, there will come [down] on you an unutterable calamity, because of you and your people." Thus he spoke and left for the other side of the Jordan. And as no one dared to prevent him, he was doing just what he had done before. (After War 2.110) (Emphasis mine)
Many striking similarities exist between this Baptist, who was inserted into the War, and the description of the Fourth Philosophy as detailed in the Antiquities. It is interesting that the War does not include this mention of the Baptist and also omits the Sadduc, while Antiquities mentions the Sadduc as being Judas the Galilean's co-teacher. It seems as though the Slavonic War is supplementing the War with its own version of the Sadduc, one which fits perfectly with the Antiquities' version.
The Baptist called the people to freedom while the Sadduc "exhorted the nation to assert their liberty." (Ant. 18.4) The Baptist taught that only God, not mortals, should rule over you. This is echoed in Antiquities where Judas and the Sadduc "say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." (Ant. 18.23) In the Slavonic Version, the Baptist played second fiddle to the king who was to come while the Sadduc was the second to the Messiah figure, Judas the Galilean. (Ant. 18.4) This Baptist also was new to the political arena as he was not familiar to the experts in the Law. This would have made the Baptist a younger man, approximately the same age as Judas the Galilean, or about thirty years of age in 6 CE. In addition, like the Fourth Philosophy, the Baptist was willing to undergo torture. (Ant. 18.23-24) And finally, he was attacked by an Essene and others who supported Archelaus (Sadducees). This would most likely make the Baptist a Pharisee, just like the Sadduc. (Ant. 18.4) In every way, the Slavonic version of the War likens the Baptist to the Sadduc.
In addition, the placement of the Slavonic version of the Baptist is right before the introduction of Judas the Galilean. Eight verses after the Baptist section, Josephus wrote:
Under his [Coponius] administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders. (War 2.118) (Emphasis mine)
In this passage about Judas the Galilean, it must be noted that he, like the Baptist, preached that mortal men should not replace God as their Lord. This was a hallmark belief of the Fourth Philosophy. The description of Judas does remind us of the Gospel Jesus, in that Judas was so different from all the other teachers. In Antiquities, Josephus goes as far as attributing a philosophy to Judas and Sadduc, the Fourth Philosophy. (Ant. 18.9) (The other three were the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes.) Thus, Judas and Sadduc stood out from all other teachers. From the above, I think it is obvious that John the Baptist and Jesus were really the Sadduc and Judas the Galilean.
The Slavonic Josephus placed the Baptist's introduction at 6 CE, but it also devoted two other passages to him. One was about the death of Philip (34 CE) and the other mirrored the Gospel John story and the John of Antiquities. This would date the death of the Slavonic Baptist at 35-36 CE, the same dating as the passage in Antiquities. The Antiquities' passage will be reproduced below.
Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into any difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly, he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure against him. (Ant. 18.116-119) (Emphasis mine)
Josephus does recognize that John was referred to as the Baptist by the people. This Baptist exhorted the Jews to "exercise virtue" both towards themselves and to God. His baptism was with water and this water represented cleansing, but there was nothing miraculous about the liquid. The baptism was purely for purification of the body; the soul was purified beforehand by repentance and by acting right or by righteousness. This is a far cry from the Christian concept of justification by faith alone. To the Baptist, one was only justified by walking right before God, and this included following the law.
It is interesting that John had great influence over the crowds in 35-36 CE. According to the Gospels, John was put to death before Jesus, somewhere from 30-32 CE. Obviously, the Gospel story does not tell the truth concerning John. John the Baptist was the most popular teacher in Judea at this time (35-36 CE), and the crowds would do anything he wished. Where was Jesus? Where was James?
In answer to the above questions, Judas the Galilean (Jesus) had been put to death under Pilate many years earlier, around 19-21 CE. This means that John the Baptist (Sadduc) ruled in his place for about fifteen years, until John's own death around 36 CE. After Judas (Jesus) suffered crucifixion, James took his place, but James would have been the second-in-command to John the Baptist until John's death. Only at that time did James become the movement's leader. His second-in-command would have been Cephas. This will be detailed below.
THE LEADERSHIP OF THE EARLY JEWISH CHRISTIANS
The following pairings will show the approximate dates of each leadership pair.
4 BCE and earlier - Matthias and Judas led their students in the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing, an awakening for the movement. It is my contention that Matthias or the event may have been associated with the Root of Planting, a term taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls. (The Fourth Philosophy did not write the Scrolls but they did use them to their own advantage. Some Scrolls were found at Masada and the heaviest coin usage at Qumran occurred during the heyday of the Fourth Philosophy, from 4 BCE to 68 CE.) (6) With the death of Matthias, Judas headed to Galilee. Matthias was replaced by the Sadduc, anywhere from 4 BCE to 6 CE.
6 - 19 or 21 CE - This period of the Jewish Christian movement brimmed with excitement as both Judas (Jesus) and Sadduc (John the Baptist) roamed the countryside. They preached the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. In 19 CE, Judas marched to Jerusalem and was hailed as Messiah by the crowds. However, the Kingdom on earth did not prevail and Jesus was crucified.
19 or 21 - 36 CE - After Judas' (Jesus') death by crucifixion, James became second-in-command to John the Baptist. Acts chapter 1 obscured the election of James by reporting that a Matthias (a playful usage of the above Matthias) replaced Judas Iscariot. In Chapter 17, I will prove that a Judas Iscariot never lived but was purely an invention of the Gospel writers as a way to hide Judas the Galilean and James. Robert Eisenman proves that the election of James was the real event, not the election of a Matthias. (7)
Even though James replaced Judas (Jesus), the movement was still headed by John the Baptist. This is hard to accept considering the Gospels insist that John died before Jesus. But history does not jibe with the Gospel account. John lasted until 36 CE, many years after the Gospel story and many more years after the real crucifixion as outlined above, around 19-21 CE. Even within the pages of Acts, the truth emerges. Peter preached a strong sermon after the death of Jesus.
When the people heard this [sermon], they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do."
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call."
With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:37-41) (Emphasis mine)
The above passage combines some truth with some Pauline teachings. Since John was the leader, it only makes sense that the cornerstone practice of the movement would be baptism. This water baptism was in reality just a purification of the body as the soul was cleansed through righteousness (repentance). The author of Acts does try to combine this water baptism with Paul's Holy Spirit baptism, but this was never part of the early Jewish Christian movement. This too can be explained using the New Testament.
In the first letter to the Corinthians, written somewhere around 40 CE, Paul complained that his followers were split among several factions.
My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." ...What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. (1 Cor. 1:11-12; 3:5-6)
This passage was written by Paul probably after the Jerusalem Council (38-39 CE) and before his removal from the movement in 44 CE. During this period, Paul was careful to hide his true feelings and thoughts concerning the Fourth Philosophy. Therefore, his words seemed conciliatory. After all, Paul desired that his congregations follow his preaching. This becomes crystal clear when reading Corinthians, where four different factions vied for converts. Paul had his followers, Christ (the original Judas the Galilean) had his, as did Cephas (representing James), but Apollos has never been adequately explained before. With his name, Paul used water baptism. Acts 18:24-25 stated that Apollos was "a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John." From this passage we can infer that Apollos knew of John's water baptism but had never heard of the Holy Spirit baptism, even though he knew of Jesus' teachings. This shows that the Jewish Christians did not practice the Holy Spirit baptism. Thus Acts 2:38 incorrectly attributed Paul's Holy Spirit baptism to Peter's preaching.
It should also be noted that around 40 CE, the cult of John was still quite powerful. That is why some still followed his teachings. Remember, Paul complained of the factions who followed Cephas and Apollos. At 40 CE, there was not a universal leader of the movement. Even though John was dead, many of his disciples did not want to follow anyone else. That is why there was such a strong emphasis on the death of John the Baptist before Jesus in the Gospels. This disunity within the Fourth Philosophy had to be hidden. This disunity also explains the Pseudoclementine Recognitions, where John's movement was criticized. "Yea, some even of the disciples of John, who seemed to be great ones, have separated themselves from the people, and proclaimed their own master as Christ. (Chapter LIV - Jewish Sects) This second-century document recognized a group which still considered John the Baptist as Messiah. This further strengthens the point that John lived much beyond the lifetime of Jesus. The Sadduc outlived Judas the Galilean.
36 - 38 CE - This was a time for consolidation of power. When one reads Paul's letter to the Galatians, it appears as if the Council of Jerusalem was called simply to decide Paul's place in the church. Paul stated that he went to Jerusalem in "response to a revelation" and presented his Gospel before the Pillar apostles. (Gal. 2:2) In Jerusalem, Paul claimed that he was "given the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter [Cephas] had been given the task of preaching the gospel to the Jews." (Gal. 2:7) It is quite possible that the most important part of the so-called council of Jerusalem was to install Cephas as the second-in-command. Any dealings with Paul would have been secondary in nature. Besides, at this point in Paul's relationship with James, Paul was still hiding his own gospel. In 1 Corinthians 9:20, Paul made it quite clear that he told the Jews what they wanted to hear, not his own unique gospel.
So is it possible that the Council of Jerusalem was used by James as a way to consolidate power. John the Baptist had just been put to death and his fervent followers may have been clinging to his memory. It was James' task to place all emphasis back upon the resurrected Jesus, making himself a caretaker leader until the Messiah's return in power and glory. It is interesting to note that the fourth-century Church historian, Epiphanius, stated that James ruled the Church for 24 years until his death in 62 CE. (8) This would have made James leader of the Church from 38 CE until 62 CE. This is generally the time period covered by the book of Acts, although the Acts' version is a twisted jumble of time and events.
I had previously overlooked the Epiphanius claim of 24 years as this did not jibe with the death of Jesus and the rise of James. Even in the traditional timeline, Jesus died in 30-33 CE and James would have been appointed leader shortly thereafter. The 38 CE date seemed way too late. And this dating is even further away from my timeline, where Judas the Galilean (Jesus) suffered crucifixion around 19-21 CE. The one thing that I and all others missed was the Sadduc, or John the Baptist. John led the movement until his death in 35-36 CE.
If the Council of Jerusalem were used by James as a way to consolidate power, then it occurred around 38-39 CE. It was here that the new more intense mission was launched. Under John the Baptist, the emphasis was upon repentance. The new strategy would be for the return of Jesus in power and glory. That is why the passages about John the Baptist in the Gospels appear to talk about the return of the resurrected Jesus. (See Matt. 3:11-12, where Jesus will come to separate the wheat from the chaff.)
Using this more exact time for the Council of Jerusalem at 38-39 CE, we can therefore calculate Paul's conversion into the movement. If Paul converted 17 years before the Council, then he became a member around 21-22 CE. Paul also would have had five to six years in the movement after the Council, as he was thrown out in 44 CE, per the argument with Cephas over Paul's Gentile gospel. In all, Paul was a member of the Fourth Philosophy for 22 to 23 years.
38 - 62 CE - The Fourth Philosophy was guided by James and Cephas. As the years rolled on, it was more difficult to keep the young disciples under control. It was not easy to wait for the coming of a dead Messiah. Many, like Theudas, tried to prod God into action, but this simply led to their own deaths. In time, the movement would splinter and at the death of James in 62 CE, all hell would soon break loose.
1. Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Claudius 25.
2. Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, p. 17.
3. Ibid., p. 133.
4. Eusebius, The History of the Church, Tiberius to Nero, Book 2.23.4.
5. Ibid., Book 2.1.3.
6. Daniel T. Unterbrink, Judas the Galilean, p. 83.
7. Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, pp. 154-184.
8. Ibid., p. 467. Eisenman quotes Epiphanius (Haeres 78.13.2 and 14.5) and notes that the death of Jesus would be 38 CE, the approximate year of John the Baptist's death, per Josephus. Eisenman has not recognized the relationship between John and the Sadduc and therefore is a bit misdirected on the year of "Jesus'" death.