Before launching into the subject-matter of this essay, I would like to make a few remarks about the magnificent dictionaries of Professor William Smith and his European colleagues. These ten dictionaries were published in London and Boston in the last-half of the 1800s, when Victorian-era intellectualism had reached its peak. My set consists of first-edition originals, purchased by a now-deceased great-uncle of mine, a medical doctor with an insatiable appetite for ancient history. Uncle "Whit" often made little pencil notations in the margins. My father purchased Uncle Whit's library from his widow, and I, in turn, have inherited much of it from my father. I can recall the time over 30 years ago when I first realized what a treasure that I possessed in these dictionaries. I knew that if I ever wanted to look up any fact about the ancient world, whatever it might be, I certainly had the references in my library. I simply could not have "polished" or "refined" my writings about Apollonius of Tyana and The Cosmic Tree in the way that I have been able to do, without access to these dictionaries; and in that sense, these priceless dictionaries have taken on a sort of "karmic" destiny in my life. Never have I seen another set of these dictionaries. Undoubtedly in libraries like that of Congress, there exist other sets; but even if so, I would think that they are not available for research work by the general public. My mother used to have an abridged version of Smith's Bible Dictionary, and I was able to compare them. But her single-volume abridgement was minuscule compared to the original, and hers was the only abridged edition that I ever saw of any of these dictionaries, which are:

A Dictionary of the Bible (3 volumes)
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (3 volumes)
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (2 volumes)
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (2 volumes)

Each volume consists of about 1,000 pages, printed in small 6-point type, as well as numerous graphics, charts and maps. They are thus difficult to read, not to mention transcribe, and occasionally I have to grab a magnifying glass to check on something. If these dictionaries were reprinted today, using modern page and type sizes, they would require at least 30,000 pages, since one of the original pages would be equivalent to about 3 modern pages. To my knowledge they have never been archived in their entirety on the Internet, which is most unfortunate, as all of this minutely detailed information would be an invaluable research resource for many people.

Often I'll be sitting here, contemplating one aspect or another of ancient history, and just out of curiosity pick up one of the pertinent dictionaries to see what I can find. Or, I'll just thumb through one of them at random for "accidental" information. Browsing through the section on the Alexanders one day, quite by chance I came across the information about the important "son" of Apollonius, Alexander Peloplaton, and the "successor" of Apollonius, Alexander Paphlagonaeus of Abonoteichos. Since neither one of these men is mentioned in the dictionary section devoted to Apollonius, I would otherwise never have learned about these two of his "descendants".

And so it was that recently I was searching for some "accidental" information concerning the crucifixion of "the Jesus Christ". I consulted both the quite lengthy dictionary account of Jesus, and also the biography of Pontius Pilate, some of which I have transcribed below, bringing me back to the immediate subject at hand.

There can be no doubt that Apollonius of Tyana was the one who was crucified in Jerusalem on "Good" Friday, 30 CE. The image on the Shroud of Turin exactly matches the younger marble bust of Apollonius at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli in Italy. If the image on the Shroud of Turin is truly that of a separate individual known as "Jesus Christ", then this "Jesus Christ" and Apollonius resembled each other like identical twin brothers, even including Apollonius' signature "Number 11 Scar" over both their left eyebrows. This is, of course, completely implausible. If I, for example, were to chance upon my "double" on this Earth, I seriously doubt that my "double" would have a little scar in the middle of the bridge of his nose as I do. Thus, this identity of Apollonius with the image on the Shroud of Turin is the "clincher" in the case for the identification of Apollonius with "the Jesus Christ". This Shroud, or Mandylion, was taken to Edessa, Assyria, by Thaddaeus in about 50 CE; and Damis/Thomas retired to Edessa's acclaimed Schola Persica after the death of Apollonius. Surely Damis was aware of the existence of the Mandylion, and I would also wager that Empress Julia Domna herself viewed the original Mandylion whilst it was guarded at Edessa (modern Sanliurfa, Turkey).

The Islamic Quran notes that Jesus did not actually die on the cross but was only "made to appear as one who had been crucified"; and there are Moslems, and others, who feel that someone, perhaps Judas, was actually substituted and crucified in the place of Jesus. If that is true, then only Apollonius of Tyana could have been substituted for this elusive "Jesus"; and (déjà-vu all over again) we would be back to that old bugaboo question of where was this Jesus in history outside of the New Testament? And in the case of an Apollonius substitution on the cross, this event in Apollonius' life would have been so unexpected and beyond his control, there would have been no reason for Damis to have omitted it from the scrapbook notes, as he omitted the authentic crucifixion, for which Apollonius would have had none other than himself to blame in the first place and would have been somewhat ashamed for that sordid, forgettable episode in his and Damis' lives (or, Philostratus omitted it from the notes of Damis in order to eliminate all connections of Apollonius to Jesus, thus avoiding "controversy"). In short, it would be ludicrous to suppose that Apollonius was substituted on the cross for "Jesus"!

And, it follows, no one was substituted for Apollonius either. As is stated below, Pilate sympathized with this prisoner and made every attempt to save him from death. If Pilate had truly wanted to save him, then when the prisoner Apollonius met privately with Pilate early Friday morning in the privacy of Herod's palace, Pilate could easily have substituted another prisoner for Apollonius. But Pilate didn't do that, for whatever reason, since the image on the Shroud of Turin proves that Apollonius was crucified and almost died but was resuscitated in the tomb of Joseph of Aramithea.

Here are the narratives provided by Professor Smith for the hours preceding the crucifixion, as published under his dictionary entries regarding "Jesus" and "Pilate". Keep in mind that all these references to "Jesus" should actually read "Apollonius". I'll interrupt these narratives from time to time to interject some commentary, but first let me "set the stage" for this account.

On what we now call "Palm Sunday" Apollonius and his followers entered Jerusalem and instigated a riot at the Temple when they overturned the tables of the money-changers, as is related in the New Testament. A warrant was issued for the arrest of the "ringleader" of this "disturbance". Turncoat disciple Judas Iscariot, for 30 pieces of silver, agreed to spy for Herod, Pilate and the Romans. Probably Apollonius and his "disciples" were "on the run" and "hiding out" early in the week. They assembled for dinner in "The Upper Room" on Thursday evening to make plans and discuss secret strategy; they were, after all, only one "cell" of a greater undercurrent of revolution against the Romans and their puppets in Palestine, against whom John The Baptist had also been a rabble-rouser before his capture and execution a year earlier. Apollonius, who rarely slept, often engaged in contemplative midnight prayers, so he probably told the others that following dinner, he was going to "meditate" in the Garden of Gethsemane. After they all left the dining room, Judas sneaked off to tell "the police" where they could find Apollonius. Apollonius was arrested probably around 3 AM and taken to the local "jail". Immediately "everybody who was anybody" was notified, despite the fact that it was still "the middle of the night". High-Priest Caiaphas was notified. Pilate and Herod were notified. At the general time of this incident, there was high tension in Jerusalem. As University of Texas Professor L. Michael White told PBS-TV, "Messiahs were a dime a dozen." The charismatic but criminal, messianic revolutionary Jesus Barabbas was already in prison for anti-Roman activities. Authorities like Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod were afraid of "terrorism"!

The captive Apollonius was first taken to the house of Caiaphas, who was certainly and unexpectedly aroused from his sleep. Meanwhile, in Herod's Palace, surely Herod and Pilate and their families were simultaneously being awakened by Roman soldiers. Candles were lighted, people were getting dressed, servants were summoned to prepare an early breakfast. Nerves were tense. It was probably around 5 AM when these sections of Professor Smith's narrative, with its obvious Christian bias, commence.

A Dictionary of the Bible By Professor William Smith & Others, London 1863, Volume I, Pages 1068-1069.

The first interrogatory to which our Lord was subject (John xviii.19-24) was addressed to Him by Caiaphas, probably before the Sanhedrim had time to assemble. It was the questioning of an inquisitive person who had an important criminal in his presence, rather than a formal examination. The Lord's refusal to answer is thus explained and justified. When the more regular proceedings begin, He is ready to answer. A servant of the high-priest, knowing that he should thereby please his master, smote the cheek of the Son of God with the palm of his hand. But this was only the beginning of horrors.

At the dawn of day the Sanhedrim, summoned by the high-priest in the course of the night, assembled, and brought their band of false witnesses, whom they must have had ready before. These gave their testimony, but even before this unjust tribunal it could not stand; it was so full of contradictions. At last two false witnesses came, and their testimony was very like the truth. They deposed that He had said, "I will destroy this temple, that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands" (Mark xiv.58). The perversion is slight but important; for Jesus did not say that He would destroy (see John ii.19), which was just the point that would irritate the Jews. Even these two fell into contradictions.

The high-priest now with a solemn adjuration asks Him whether He is the Christ, the Son of God. He answers that He is, and foretells His return in glory and power at the last day. This is enough for their purpose. They pronounce Him guilty of a crime for which death should be the punishment.

[COMMENT: It is more than merely "difficult" for me to believe that Apollonius actually would have told this council that he was the "Son of God" who would return on the "last day". Apollonius never boasted that he was "superior" to any other man, only that he was a "good man" or "godly man" whose powers of mind and spirit had evolved into a higher state of being and consciousness than those of the ordinary citizen. Thus, I suspect that subsequent oral traditions confused another "messiah" with "the Jesus Christ" in this appearance before the Sanhedrim. RS]

It appears that the Council was now suspended or broken up; for Jesus is delivered over to the brutal violence of the people, which could not have occurred whilst the supreme court of the Jews was sitting. The prophets had foretold this violence, and also the meekness with which it would be borne. And yet this "lamb led to the slaughter" knew that it was He that should judge the world, including every one of His persecutors. The Sanhedrim had been within the range of its duties in taking cognizance of all who claimed to be prophets. If the question put to Jesus had been merely, Art Thou the Messiah?, this body should have gone into the question of His right to the title, and decided upon the evidence. But the question was really twofold, "Art Thou the Christ, and in that name dost Thou also call Thyself the Son of God?" There was no blasphemy in claiming the former name, but there was in assuming the latter. Hence the proceedings were cut short. They had closed their eyes to the evidence, accessible to all, of the miracles of Jesus, that He was indeed the Son of God, and without these they were not likely to believe that He could claim a title belonging to no other among the children of men (John xviii.19-24; Luke xxii.63-71; Matt. xxvi.59-68; Mark xiv.55-65).

[COMMENT: Note above that the Sanhedrim had been interviewing, as it were, all those who claimed to be "prophets" and presumably also "messiahs". Other "rogue messiahs" like Jesus Barabbas had previously been summoned before this council and subsequently thrown into prison. NB: This word is spelled "Sanhedrim" in Professor Smith's dictionary; an alternate modern spelling is "Sanhedrin". RS]

Although they had pronounced Jesus to be guilty of death, the Sanhedrim possessed no power to carry out such a sentence (Josephus, Ant. xx.6).

[COMMENT: The short passage in Josephus about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection has been shown to be a forgery. Josephus did not mention this matter of the death penalty in connection with these specific events, but only in general when discussing the Sanhedrim itself. RS]

So as soon as it was day, they took Him to Pilate, the Roman procurator. The hall of judgment, or praetorium, was probably a part of the tower of Antonia near the Temple, where the Roman garrison was. Pilate, hearing that Jesus was an offender under their law, was about to give them leave to treat him accordingly; and this would have made it quite safe to execute Him. But the council, wishing to shift the responsibility from themselves, from a fear of some reaction amongst the people in favour of the Lord, such as they had seen on the first day of that week [Palm Sunday Temple Riot. RS], said that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death; and having condemned Jesus for blasphemy, they now strove to have Him condemned by Pilate for a political crime, for calling Himself the King of the Jews. But the Jewish punishment was stoning; whilst crucifixion was a Roman punishment, inflicted occasionally on those who were not Roman citizens; and thus it came about that the Lord's saying as to the mode of His death was fulfilled (Matt xx.19, with John xii.32, 32).

From the first Jesus found favour in the eyes of Pilate; His answer that His kingdom was not of this world, and therefore could not menace the Roman rule, was accepted, and Pilate pronounced that he found no fault in Him.

[COMMENT: As is noted below in the section on Pilate, the first interview between Pilate and "the prisoner" took place privately. Probably Pilate's wife was eavesdropping on the conversation. This would have been the only chance for Apollonius to have explained to Pilate that he was not a "Jewish Messiah" but a Roman citizen from Cappadocia. This is impossible to know with certainty; but if Pilate "found favour" with Apollonius, the fact that Apollonius was a Cappadocian would have greatly influenced Pilate to be lenient with Apollonius. RS]

Not so easily were the Jews to be cheated of their prey. They heaped up accusations against Him as a disturber of the public peace (Luke xxiii.5). Pilate was no match for their vehemence. Finding that Jesus was a Galilean, he sent him to Herod to be dealt with; but Herod, after cruel mockery and persecution, sent Him back to Pilate.

[COMMENT: The Sea of Galilee was only about 10-12 miles, a four-hour journey by foot, from the town of Nazareth. Thus, the terms Galilean and Nazarene might be considered synonymous, much like Texan and Dallasite. See my essay concerning Nazareth for additional information. RS]

Now commenced the fearful struggle between the Roman procurator, a weak as well as cruel man, and the Jews. Pilate was detested by the Jews as cruel, treacherous, and oppressive. Other records of his life do not represent him merely as the weakling that he appears here. He had violated their national prejudices, and had used the knives of assassins to avert the consequences. But the Jews knew the weak point in his breastplate. He was the merely worldly and professional statesman, to whom the favour of the Emperor was life itself, and the only evil of life a downfall from that favour. It was their policy therefore to threaten to denounce him to Caesar for lack of zeal in suppressing a rebellion, the leader of which was aiming at a crown.

[COMMENT: The Roman Government tolerated a lot of dissent and "rhetoric" amongst their provincial citizens. Everyone was allowed to worship "God" as he or she saw fit, and the Roman bureaucrats like Pilate tried as much as possible not to offend the religious sensibilities of their diverse citizenry. However, a "pretender to the throne" was something entirely different. If one were accused of trying to "usurp the crown", then one were found guilty of treason and subject to the death penalty. Thus, this accusation by the Jews would have frightened Pontius Pilate. RS]

In his way Pilate believed in Christ; this, the greatest crime of a stained life, was that with which his own will had the least to do. But he did not believe, so as to make him risk delation [public submission, RS] to the Master and all its possible consequences. He yielded to the stronger purpose of the Jews, and suffered Jesus to be put to death. Not many years after, the consequences, which he had stained his soul to avert, came upon him. He was accused and banished, and like Judas, the other great accomplice in this crime of the Jews, put an end to his own life.

The well-known incidents of the second interview are soon recalled. After the examination by Herod, and the return of Jesus, Pilate proposed to release Him, as it was usual on the feast-day to release a prisoner to the Jews out of grace. Pilate knew well that the priests and rulers would object to this; but it was a covert appeal to the people, also present, with whom Jesus had so lately been in favour. The multitude, persuaded by the priests, preferred another prison, called Barabbas.

[COMMENT: Here it is quite obvious that Pilate was sympathetic to the plight of Apollonius and perhaps even understood at this point that Apollonius had a local "fan base", so to speak. RS]

In the meantime the wife of Pilate sent a warning to Pilate to have nothing to do with the death of "that just man", as she had been troubled in a dream on account of Him. Obliged, as he thought, to yield to the clamours of the people, he took water and washed his hands before them, and adopting the phrase of his wife, which perhaps represented the opinion of both them formed before this time, he said, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it." The people imprecated on their own heads and those of their children the blood of Him whose doom was thus sealed.

Pilate released unto them Barabbas "that for sedition and murder was cast into prison whom they had desired". This was no unimportant element in their crime. The choice was offered them between the one who had broken the laws of God and man, and One who had given His whole life up to the doing good and speaking truth amongst them. They condemned the latter to death, and were eager for the deliverance of the former. "And in fact their demanding the acquittal of a murderer is but the parallel to their requiring the death of an innocent person, as St. Ambrose observes: for it is but the very law of iniquity, that they which hate innocence should love crime. They rejected therefore the Prince of Heaven, and chose a robber and a murderer, and an insurrectionist, and they received for the object of their choice; so was it given them, for insurrections and murders did not fail them till the last, when their city was destroyed in the midst of murders and insurrections, which they now demanded of the Roman governor" (Williams On the Passion, p. 215).

[COMMENT: The reactionary Sadducees, lackeys of the Sanhedrim, chose to pardon an insurrectionist because they, too, wanted to be free from Roman rule. First John The Baptist and later Jesus Barabbas were their Jewish revolutionary heroes. At this point, Apollonius must have sensed with absolute certainty that he was about to die. Fortunately, as it turned out, he barely escaped, by the skin of his teeth, with help from stormy weather and a Cappadocian Roman soldier named Longinus who was in charge of the crucifixion. We can only speculate as to whether Longinus was acting secretly on Pilate's behalf or whether he acted merely in order to save a fellow Cappadocian countryman. RS]

Now came the scourging, and the blows and insults of the soldiers, who, uttering truth when they thought they were only reviling, crowned Him and addressed Him as King of the Jews.

[COMMENT: It is my conviction that the Crown of Thorns is what caused the "Number 11 Scar" above Apollonius' left eyebrow. The reason that this scar is so prominent on the Shroud of Turin is that it was a bleeding "fresh" gash to the face. RS]

According to John, Pilate now made one more effort for His release. He thought that the scourging might appease their rage, he saw the frame of Jesus bowed and withered with all that it had gone through; and, hoping that this moving sight might inspire them with the same pity that he felt himself, he brought the Saviour forth again to them, and said, "Behold the Man!" Not even so was their violence assuaged. He had made Himself the Son of God, and must die. He [Pilate] still sought to release Jesus; but the last argument, which had been in the minds of both sides all along, was now openly applied to him: "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend." This saying, which had not been uttered till the vehemence of rage overcame their decent respect for Pilate's position, decided the question. He delivered Jesus to be crucified (Matt. xxvii.15-30; Mark xv.6-19; Luke xxiii.17-25; John xviii.39,40, xix.1-16).

[COMMENT: In The Life of Apollonius of Tyana by Flavius Philostratus there is only one reference to the land of the Jews. In the early summer of 69 CE, less than a year before the destruction of Jerusalem by Roman General Titus, with military assistance from Josephus and troops from Cappadocia, Titus' father General Vespasian, soon to be crowned Emperor, was camped with the Roman troops outside Jerusalem. Vespasian heard that Apollonius was in Alexandria, and he sought a meeting with Apollonius. He invited Apollonius to come to Jerusalem to confer with him. But Apollonius "declined to enter a country which its inhabitants polluted both by what they did and by what they suffered"; and Vespasian was required to travel to Alexandria. Considering all these brutal events of "Good" Friday, it is not surprising that Apollonius did not desire to return to such a country whose inhabitants had tried their best to kill him, not once but twice (the other time being at Nazareth when the Nazarenes attempted to fling him off a cliff). Apollonius' opinion of these Jews was a bit similar in nature to the remarks of Mr. Williams included above. RS]

John mentions that this occurred about the sixth hour [Noon. RS], whereas the crucifixion, according to Mark, was accomplished at the third hour [9 AM. RS]; but there is every reason to think, with Greswell and Wieseler, that John reckons from midnight, and that this took place at six in the morning, whilst in Mark the Jewish reckoning from six in the morning is followed, so that the crucifixion took place at nine o'clock, the intervening time having been spent in preparations.

[COMMENT: These days, it is fairly commonly agreed that the crucifixion took place at Noon; and that the ensuing stormy weather of the early afternoon allowed the body to be taken down from the cross around the ninth hour, or 3 PM. Crucifixion was a slow death by suffocation, and the brevity of this time on the cross certainly played a crucial part in the survival of Apollonius. Several others, it might be noted, were also said to have survived crucifixions, so this was not impossible. RS]

A Dictionary of the Bible, Volume II, Pages 873-874.

It was the custom for the procurators to reside at Jerusalem during the great feasts, to preserve order, and accordingly, at the time of our Lord's last passover, Pilate was occupying his official residence in Herod's palace; and to the gates of this palace Jesus, condemned on the charge of blasphemy, was brought early in the morning by the chief priests and officers of the Sanhedrim, who were unable to enter the residence of a Gentile, lest they should be defiled, and unfit to eat the passover (John xviii.28). Pilate therefore came out to learn the purpose, and demanded the nature of the charge. At first they seem to have expected that he would have carried out their wishes without further inquiry, and therefore merely described our Lord as a kakopoios (disturber of the public peace), but as a Roman procurator had too much respect for justice, or at least understood his business too well to consent to such a condemnation, and as they knew that he would not enter into theological questions, any more than Gallio afterwards did on a somewhat similar occasion (Acts xviii.14), they were obliged to devise a new charge, and therefore interpreted our Lord's claims in a political sense, accusing him of assuming the royal title, perverting the nation, and forbidding the payment of tribute to Rome (Luke xxiii.3; an account plainly presupposed in John xviii.33).

It is plain that from this moment Pilate was distracted between two conflicting feelings: a fear of offending the Jews, who had already grounds of accusation against him, which would be greatly strengthened by any show of lukewarmness in punishing an offence against the imperial government, and a conscious conviction that Jesus was innocent, since it was absurd to suppose that a desire to free the nation from Roman authority was criminal in the eyes of the Sanhedrim.

[COMMENT: This is highly significant logic here. Of course, it would have been absurd to suppose that the prisoner was a "Jewish criminal" because the Sanhedrim itself probably desired to be free from Roman rule! And Pilate knew this. RS]

Moreover, this last feeling was strengthened by his own hatred of the Jews, whose religious scruples had caused him frequent trouble, and by a growing respect for the calm dignity and meekness of the sufferer. First he examined our Lord privately, and asked Him whether He was a king? The question which He in return put to His judge, "Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" seems to imply that there was in Pilate's own mind a suspicion that the prisoner really was what He was charged with being; a suspicion which shows itself again in the later question, "Whence art thou?" (John xix.8), in the increasing desire to release Him (12), and in the refusal to alter the inscription on the cross (22). In any case Pilate accepted as satisfactory Christ's assurance that His kingdom was not of this world, and therefore not to be founded by this world's weapons, though he could not understand the assertion that it was to be established by bearing witness to the truth. His famous reply, "What is truth?" was the question of a worldly-minded politician, sceptical because he was indifferent, one who thought truth an empty name, or at least could not see "any connexion between truth and policy". (Dr. C. Wordsworth, Comm. in loco).

With this question he brought the interview to a close, and came out to the Jews and declared the prisoner innocent. To this they replied that His teaching had stirred up all the people from Galilee to Jerusalem. The mention of Galilee suggested to Pilate a new way of escaping from his dilemma, by sending on the case to Herod Antipas, tetrarch of that country, who had come up to Jerusalem to the feast, while at the same time this gave him an opportunity for making overtures of reconciliation to Herod, with whose jurisdiction he had probably in some recent instance interfered. But Herod, though propitiated by this act of courtesy, declined to enter into the matter, and merely sent Jesus back to Pilate dressed in a shining kingly robe (Luke xxiii.11), to express his ridicule of such pretensions, and contempt for the whole business.

[COMMENT: Twice the soldiers stripped Apollonius naked, first to clothe him in this kingly robe and again to remove this robe and restore his regular clothes. Also, he was later stripped naked whilst on the cross. As a matter of custom, the Jews would often strip a man naked, especially a "foreign" speaker of Aramaic, in order to inspect his penis for evidence of circumcision. Since the Jews were curious about this practice in general, then surely they inspected Apollonius to determine if he were circumcized and thus "one of them". When they saw that Apollonius was not circumcized, then they knew at once that he was no "King of the Jews" but an impostor, even though he spoke their language, his dialect being similar to that of the dialect of Nazareth and Galilee. But if the Jews realized this, then so also did the Romans and the Cappadocian Longinus. RS]

So Pilate was compelled to come to a decision, and first, having assembled the chief priests and also the people, whom he probably summoned in the expectation that they would be favourable to Jesus, he announced to them that the accused had done nothing worthy of death, but at the same time, in hopes of pacifying the Sanhedrim, he proposed to scourge Him before he released Him. But as the accusers were resolved to have His blood, they rejected this concession, and therefore Pilate had recourse to a fresh expedient. It was the custom for the Roman governor to grant every year, in honour of the passover, pardon to one condemned criminal. The origin of the practice in unknown, though we may connect it with the fact mentioned by Livy (v.13) that at the Lectisternium "vinctis quoque dempta vincula". Pilate therefore offered the people their choice between two, the murderer Barabbas and the prophet whom a few days before they had hailed as the Messiah.

FOOTNOTE: Compare BARABBAS. Ewald suggests that the insurrection of which St. Mark speaks must have been that connected with the appropriation of the Corban (supra), and that this explains the eagerness with which the people demanded his release. He infers further, from his name, that he was the son of a Rabbi (Abba was the Rabbinic title of honour), and thus accounts for the part taken in his favour by the members of the Sanhedrim.

To receive their decision he ascended the Bema, a portable tribunal which was carried about with a Roman magistrate to be placed wherever he might direct, and which in the present case was erected on a tessellated pavement in front of the palace, and called in Hebrew Gabbatha, probably from being laid down on a slight elevation. As soon as Pilate had taken his seat, he received a mysterious message from his wife, according to tradition a proselyte of the gate, named Procla or Claudia Procula (Evang. Nicod. ii), who had "suffered many things in a dream", which impelled her to entreat her husband not to condemn the Just One. But he had no longer any choice in the matter, for the rabble, instigated of course by the priests, chose Barabbas for pardon, and clamoured for the death of Jesus; insurrection seemed imminent, and Pilate reluctantly yielded. But before issuing the fatal order, he washed his hands before the multitude, as a sign that he was innocent of the crime, in imitation probably of the ceremony enjoined in Deut. xxi., where it is ordered that when the perpetrator of a murder is not discovered, the elders of the city in which it occurs shall wash their hands, with the declaration, "Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it." Such a practice might naturally be adopted even by a Roman, as intelligible to the Jewish multitude around him.

As in the present case it produced no effect, Pilate ordered his soldiers to inflict the scourging preparatory to execution; but the sight of unjust suffering so patiently borne seems again to have troubled his conscience, and prompted a new effort in favour of the victim. He brought Him out bleeding from the savage punishment, and decked in the scarlet robe and crown of thorns which the soldiers had put on Him in derision, and said to the people, "Behold the man!" hoping that such a spectacle would rouse them to shame and compassion. But the priests only renewed their clamours for His death, and, fearing that the political charge of treason might be considered insufficient, returned to the first accusation of blasphemy, and quoting the law of Moses (Lev. xxiv.16), which punished blasphemy with stoning, declared that He must die "because He made himself the Son of God".

But this title uios theou augmented Pilate's superstitious fears, already aroused by his wife's dream (mallon ephobethe, John xix.7); he feared that Jesus might be one of the heroes or demigods of his own mythology; he took Him again into the palace, and inquired anxiously into his descent ("Whence art thou?") and his claims, but, as the question was only prompted by fear or curiosity, Jesus made no reply. When Pilate reminded Him of his own absolute power over Him, He closed his last conversation with the irresolute governor by the mournful remark, "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above; therefore, he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

[COMMENT: Pilate and Apollonius had a second private meeting in the palace. But by then it was already too late to save Apollonius, no matter what they may have said to one another; and it is presumptuous of other writers to put words into their mouths. Perhaps Pilate reassured Apollonius that Longinus would be present at the inevitable crucifixion to insure that Apollonius survived. Who knows? RS]

God had given to Pilate power over Him, and power only, but to those who delivered Him up God had given the means of judging of His claims; and therefore Pilate's sin, in merely exercising this power, was less than theirs who, being God's own priests, with the Scriptures before them, and the word of prophecy still alive among them (John xi.50, xviii.14), had deliberately conspired for His death. The result of this interview was one last effort to save Jesus by a fresh appeal to the multitude; but now arose the formidable cry, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend"; and Pilate, to whom political success was as the breath of life, again ascended the tribunal, and finally pronounced the desired condemnation.

FOOTNOTE: The proceedings of Pilate in our Lord's trial supply many interesting illustrations of the accuracy of the Evangelists, from the accordance of their narrative with the known customs of the time. Thus Pilate, being only a procurator, had no quaestor to conduct the trial, and therefore examined the prisoner himself. Again, in early times Roman magistrates had not been allowed to take their wives with them into the provinces, but this prohibition had fallen into neglect, and latterly a proposal made by Caccina to enforce it had been rejected (Tac. Ann. iii.33,34). Grotius points out that the word anepempsen, used when Pilate sends our Lord to Herod (Luke xxiii.7) is "propria Romani Juris vox : nam remittitur reus qui alicubi comprehensus mittitur ad judicem aut originis aut habitationis" (see Atford, in loco). The tessellated pavement (lithostrowton) was so necessary to the forms of justice, as well as the bema, that Julius Caesar carried one about with him on his expeditions (Suet. Jul. c.46). The power of life and death was taken from the Jews when Judaea became a province (Josephus, Ant. xx.9,§1). Scourging before execution was a well-known Roman practice.

For the record, here is the forged passage about Jesus that was included in Josephus' writing later, probably by Eusebius. In the Paul Maier translation of Josephus, which I have (1988), this short passage is accompanied by a footnote.

JESUS. At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

FOOTNOTE: This, the most famous passage in Josephus, is also the most controversial. The standard text of Antiquities XVIII.63 reads as follows:

'About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was the achiever of extraordinary deeds and was a teacher of those who accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When he was indicted by the principal men among us and Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him originally did not cease to do so; for he appeared to them on the third day restored to life, as the prophets of the Deity had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared.'

Although this passage is so worded as early as Eusebius (c. A.D. 324), scholars have long suspected a Christian interpolation, since Josephus would not have believed Jesus to be the Messiah or in his resurrection and have remained, as he did, a non-Christian Jew. In 1972, however, Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem announced his discovery of an Arabic manuscript by the tenth-century Malkite historian Agapius, in which this Josephan passage is expressed in a manner appropriate to a Jew, and which corresponds so precisely to previous scholarly projections of what Josephus originally wrote that it is substituted in the text above. While the final sentence is not in Agapius, Pines justifiably concludes that it was in the original Josephan text.

It is difficult for me to believe that if Josephus actually did include such a short passage about Jesus, like the one which was substituted in the Maier translation, considering the impact of this Jesus on that period of history, that Josephus didn't include additional details. Why did Josephus ignore Jesus but emphasize John The Baptist? The answer is that Apollonius of Tyana was not a Jew and thus of no interest to Josephus in writing his history of the Jews. On the other hand, it is generally accepted that this short passage was a forgery, probably by Eusebius, who detested the memory of Apollonius, especially when Apollonius was reputed to have been the real man upon whom the Jesus legend had been based.

However, Josephus also mentioned, in passing, a Jesus in connection with some events that took place during the reign of Nero (54-68 CE).

Upon Festus' death, Caesar [Nero. RS] sent Albinus to Judea as procurator. But before he arrived, King Agrippa had appointed Ananus to the priesthood, who was the son of the elder Ananus. This elder Ananus, after he himself had been high priest, had five sons, all of whom achieved that office, which was unparalleled. The younger Ananus, however, was rash and followed the Sadducees, who are heartless when they sit in judgment.

[COMMENT: The Sadducees were primarily the ones who were threatening Pontius Pilate with treason against Rome if he did not execute the seditious Apollonius. RS]

Ananus thought that with Festus dead and Albinus still on the way, he would have his opportunity. Convening the judges of the Sanhedrin, he brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law, and condemned them to be stoned to death.

The people of Jerusalem who were considered the most fair-minded and strict in observing the law were offended by this. They secretly urged King Agrippa to order Ananus to desist from any further actions of this sort. Some of them even went to meet Albinus, who was on his way from Alexandria, and informed him that Ananus had no authority to convene the Sanhedrin without his permission. Albinus angrily wrote to Ananus, threatening vengeance. King Agrippa, because of this action, deposed Ananus from the high priesthood, which he had held for three months. He replaced him with Jesus, son of Damnaeus, and Jesus, son of Gamaliel, after that.

These two high priests feuded as a result, and their partisans hurled stones at each other, typical of the lawless confusion in the city. When Albinus heard that Gessius Florus was coming to replace him, he cleared the prisons by executing those who deserved death. But he released -- for a bribe -- those guilty of lesser offences, thus infesting the land with brigands. He also stole private property, burdened the nation with excessive taxes, and committed every sort of villainy.

Just now, too, the temple was finally completed, leaving 18,000 workers unemployed, although they did pave Jerusalem with white stone.

Gessius Florus, whom Nero sent as successor to Albinus, made the latter look like a paragon of virtue by comparison. Joining in partnership with the brigands to receive a share of the spoils, he virtually paraded his lawless wickedness before the nation. He stripped whole cities, ruined entire populations, and compelled us to go to war with the Romans. The war, in fact, began in the second year of his procuratorship and in the twelfth of Nero's reign. The details may be read in the books that I have written on The Jewish War.

Here, then, is the end of my Antiquities, which records Jewish history in Egypt, Syria, and Palestine from man's creation to Nero's twelfth year [66 CE. RS]. No one else, either Jew or gentile, would have been equal to this task. God-willing, I will in the future write of the later events in our history up to the present day, which is the thirteenth year of Domitian Caesar and the fifty-sixth of my life [93-94 CE. RS].

Thus, when Josephus finished his Antiquities, whilst living in Rome as "Flavius" Josephus, it was contemporaneous in time to the trial of Apollonius before Domitian, which occurred in 92 CE. Certainly Josephus was well aware of all the "controversy" surrounding this "magician" Apollonius of Tyana!

Note above how Josephus described James: "a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ". This stoning to death of James would have occurred in about 55 CE, when James would have been approximately 50 years old. The word "Christ" means "Messiah"; it is not a proper name but a title of respect. Apollonius had no brother named "James" who lived in Jerusalem. Apollonius as "Jesus" had a twin brother named Thomas, not James! And St. Jude Didymus Thomas was Damis of Ninevah, Assyria! "James The Just" was how the brother of the Jewish Jesus was known, so this reference to James as a brother of Jesus must obviously refer to James The Just.

If so, then who was James The Just's "messianic" brother Jesus?

A Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1, Pages 165-166.

BARABBAS, son of Abba, a robber (lestes, John xviii.40), who had committed murder in an insurrection (Mark xiv.7; Luke xxiii.19) in Jerusalem, and was lying in prison at the time of the trial of Jesus before Pilate. When the Roman governor, in his anxiety to save Jesus, proposed to release him to the people in accordance with the custom that he should release one prisoner to them at Passover, the whole multitude cried out, Aire touton apoluson de emin ton Barabban: which request was complied with by Pilate.

According to many of the cursive, or later manuscripts, in Matt. xxvii.16, his name was Iesous Barabbas; Pilate's question there running, tina thelete apolusow emin; Iesous Barabban, e Iesous ton legomenon Christon; and this reading is supported by the Armenian version, and cited by Origen (on Matt. vol. v. 35). It has in consequence been admitted into the text by Fritzeche and Tischendorf. But the contrast in ver. 20, "that they should ask [for] Barabbas, and destroy Jesus" seems fatal to it.

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition, 1966

abbot, noun (Anglo-Saxon abbod; Late Latin & Greek, abbas; Aramaic, abba, father), a man who is head of a monastery; father superior.

The Jewish Jesus was known as the "Son of God" and "Son of Man". The latter was an ancient Jewish title bestowed upon certain illustrious historical and religious figures in Jewish history. Professor Smith devotes quite a number of pages to a discussion of these two phrases, but in Volume III on page 1359 we find these brief excerpts: "In a general sense every descendant of Adam bears the name 'Son of Man' in the Holy Scripture... . But in a more restricted signification, it is applied by way of distinction to particular persons. Thus the prophet Ezekiel is addressed by Almighty God as Ben-Adam, or 'Son of Man' about 80 times in his prophecies. ... In a still more emphatic and distinctive sense the title 'Son of Man' is applied in the Old Testament to the Messiah. And, inasmuch as the Messiah is revealed in the Old Testament as a Divine Person and the Son of God, it is a prophetic pre-announcement of His incarnation."

And on page 1355, we find: "SON. The term 'son' is used in Scriptural language to imply almost any kind of descent or succession, as ben shanah, or 'son of a year', i.e. a year old; ben kesheth, 'son of a bow', i.e. an arrow. The word bar is often found in N.T. in compositions, as Bar-timaeus."

The word ben is the most commonly used Hebrew word to express "son of", although the implication above is that bar was occasionally used. Bar was most likely the Aramaic form of ben; hence, its rare usage in Hebrew. In Arabic the word is bin as in Osama bin Laden. Also in the above definition of Barabbas we read that this name means "son of Abbas". And as was noted, "abba" was a Rabbinic title of honor (c.f. footnote Ewald above). In Aramaic "abba" means "high priest". In the modern Coptic/Ethiopic language of Amharic, descendant-language of ancient Egyptian Coptic at the time of Apollonius, the word for father is abbat; for daddy, abbayyo; for bishop, abun; and for the River Nile, abbay. Just as English has both Germanic and Latin influences, so also does Amharic have Hebrew and Aramaic influences. It is clear from all of this that the root-word abba designates a "father-figure" or a "father-superior".

Thus, Jesus Barabbas was Jesus Bar Abbas, Son of Abbas, Son of the Father, Son of the Father Superior in Heaven. Jesus Barabbas was the Jewish "Messiah"!

Please allow me the great pleasure to present a revolutionary scenario, never before postulated, to my knowledge. One "can't prove a thing", so to speak, but that is no excuse not to consider it.

Mary and Elizabeth were cousins. The "Lord" appeared to Elizabeth and impregnated her with his divine seed. A few months later, Elizabeth retired to a desert mountain cave to prepare for the birth of her child. Her cousin Mary accompanied her to the cave. At the exact sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, the "Lord" visited the Virgin Mary and impregnated her with his divine seed. Three months later, Elizabeth gave birth to John The Baptist. Six months after that, Mary, wife of the high-priest Joseph, gave birth to Jesus Bar Abbas. Twelve years later Jesus visited the Temple and astonished the priests with his knowledge. This was his "Bar Mitzvah", as it were. Then he disappeared from history until the age of 30, which was 18 years later, when he reappeared for about 3 more years until 30 CE.

Several years after the birth of Jesus Bar Abbas, Mary had a second child, who turned out to be a "just man", unlike his insurrectionist older brother Jesus. This second boy was named James and eventually became known as James The Just. Both these boys were sons of one of the high-priests of the Sanhedrim. Thus, when the Sadducees were asked by Pilate to choose for pardon between the foreign "Galilean Nazarene" Apollonius and the local religious insurrectionist, son of the high-priest of the Sanhedrim, who was rabble-rousing to free his country from Roman occupation, is it any surprise that they chose to spare the life of Jesus Barabbas?

Apollonius may or may not have ever had any contact with Jesus Barabbas. It is immaterial. But we may rest assured that Apollonius never considered himself to be a "Son of Man" or "Son of God", but just a "good man" who tried, by his force of will and self-discipline, to be equal to a "god" on Earth.

Robertino Solàrion
Dallas, Texas
26 November 2002