There has always been and there will always be for ages yet to come, one religion for the masses and another religion for the scholars.

Richard Ingalese, Occultist

Paul, Friend of the Romans 3

In Thessalonica, Corinth and Ephesus
Before the Jerusalem Church

Abstract

Saul had gone to Tarsus which was less than 100 miles from Antioch across the Mediterranean. He was telling stories about a new dying and rising god, like Attis with whom the gentiles were familiar, which were gladly received. On the law of Moses, Acts says James’s decrees had been delivered, so Paul, who must have had copies, merely had to produce them to show that circumcision was not mandatory if James had accepted abrogation of the Law. The decrees must have said the opposite of Luke’s pretence—the law had to be obeyed. That Paul circumcised Timothy proves James’s real decree. Paul acted in full harmony with the law, even though Luke claimed the law—and so circumcision—was not obligatory for gentiles. The career of Paul of Tarsus.

Paul in Thessalonica, Corinth and Ephesus

The troubles of Acts 17:1-9 in Thessalonica are caused by jealous Jews, but by the angry locals in 1 Thessalonians 2:14. In Acts 17:6, the expression “these that have turned the world upside down”, is typically New Testament Greek—rendered in translation so as to mitigate its real meaning. The noun from which we get the verb translated “turned upside down” is translated in other, less contentious contexts, as “a rising up”, a “revolt” or a “sedition” (Acts 21:38). It is even used of the resurrection of Jesus, making us suspect that “resurrection” might have been Nazarene code for “insurrection”. The verb itself is known only in the bible, yet despite the obvious derivation from the corresponding noun it is watered down to “stir up”, “disturb” or “unsettle”.

It is evident here that the citizens had heard of the Nazarene revolt and are saying “the revolutionaries from Palestine have come here”. Our deduction is confirmed in the next verse where they say “these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus”. The Thessalonians had obviously heard of the Nazarene revolt and the claims of Jesus, king of the Jews. Jason, of whom we know nothing, is blamed for harbouring the preachers. Jason, like Jesus, is a Greek equivalent to, or form of, the name Joshua, and it quite possibly denoted him as a leading local Essene.

In Acts 17:10-15, a great deal seems to have been abridged. The success at Beroea is, as usual, followed by anger and Paul has to leave. The brethren escort him, not to the Aegean only a few miles away, but to the Adriatic because a long journey is implied. Paul also claims later to have been to Illyricum (Rom 15:19) and this is the only time we know of when he might have gone there. From there he sails south to Athens where he recalls the companions he left behind. It looks for all the world like an escape, taking the longer route across the peninsula to fool the pursuers and to get as far away as possible.

Luke gives Paul a speech in Athens, a historic but not a great commercial city at that time. Paul himself refers to it in 1 Corinthians 1:17, 2:1, expressing regret that he had made a speech in the Greek style. So Luke’s speech is composed in the Greek style with classical poetical allusions and no mention of Jesus except at the very end, but otherwise of basic Essenic content.

Paul arrives in Corinth and meets a proselyte called Aquila, a “Jew, a man of Pontus by race”, who had just arrived from Italy, exiled by Claudius after the messianic unrest over a man called “Chrestus”. The trouble might have arisen among Jews because the Nazarenes were claiming that Jesus was the messiah. Orthodox Jews, like Joseph Caiaphas of the gospels, thought it invited retribution from the Romans to talk of Jewish kings. Consequently, the retribution came and Jews were expelled from Rome after the Bar Kosiba uprising. But here we are in 50 AD. Aquila and Priscilla are Roman not Jewish names adding to the view that they were Jewish proselytes. It seems they were already converts to the Nazarene cause.

Paul has his customary initial success in the synagogue followed by rejection and in a fit of pique he resolves never to preach again to Jews. Paul is sheltered in the house of a man called Titus Justus. Justus is often an Essene title because they considered themselves the Righteous Ones, but Titus is a Roman name and he seems to be a godfearer being described as a “man who worshipped God”. Some manuscripts, however, omit the name and some call him Titius not Titus. If this Titus is the same as the one who wrote the epistle, possibly the surname which he earned through righteousness was being applied unchronologically here.

Despite Paul’s outburst, the president of the synagogue is converted and Paul remains in Corinth for 18 months. The long period of stable teaching is justified in Acts by a spurious vision of “the Lord”, presumably Jesus rather than God whose title “the Lord” had always until then been.

In Acts 18:12, Gallio is mentioned, apparently as a new Proconsul, dating the event quite precisely to 52 AD. The purpose of Acts 18:12-17 is to paint the Jews as the natural opponents of the Christians, and to make the Romans the Christians’ allies. The New Testament books consistently show the Christians and the Roman authorities as united against the machinations of the Jews. So Gallio is not concerned by Jewish complaints against the Christians.

Having been vindicated by Gallio because they had no case to answer, “they all” got hold of the president of the synagogue, who had presumably brought the complaint to Gallio, and beat him up. Who are “they all?” Not the Romans. The pagan Greek mob? Why should they bother about a Jewish quibble? The only admissible sense is that “they all” are the Christians and some manuscripts make it plainer that Greek Christian converts are meant. And Gallio did not even bother about that.

Acts 18:18 to 18:23 are so condensed they are little more than notes and hint that the author of Acts never properly finished the work himself. Without specifically mentioning Jerusalem (though some manuscripts do) they imply that Paul goes to the church in Jerusalem. Nothing of the visit is related and yet Paul is depicted as a Nazarite, having a vow. However, it could have been Aquila who had the vow.

The mention of Apollos is instructive. He was a Jew though his name is Greek and the explanation is that he was from Alexandria, the Greek metropolis in Egypt, which had a large Jewish population throughout this time. Apollos is described as being “mighty in the scriptures”, “learned” and instructed in the “way of the Lord”. This leads the reader to believe he was already a Christian but he was not. He spoke of the things concerning Jesus knowing only the baptism of John.

What does this mean? How did the baptism of Jesus differ from the baptism of John? Since it evidently did, how could such a learned man know about Jesus, but know only the baptism of John? The only explanation is that the man did not know the Jesus of the gospels but only what was expected of the messiah who was expected according to John. Apollos was a Nazarene, but did not know that for some people the messiah had come in the person of the Jesus of the gospels. It seems Apollos was being a cosmopolitan John the Baptist, still explaining that the messiah was due soon. Christians have continued to believe this for 2000 years but for them it is a second coming, not the original one as John the Baptist preached and evidently so too did Apollos. Apollos derives from the Greek name Apollo, the sun god, perhaps an apt name for an Essene or Essene convert since they greeted the rising sun with hymns and prayers.

Priscilla and Aquila instruct Apollos correctly. The purpose of the story is that there were many people influenced by John the Baptist still. Not all Nazarenes had rushed to believe the failed revolutionary, Jesus, was the messiah. Some rejected the claims of Jesus’s followers preferring to believe, even after the death of John, that the messiah was still to come. Luke hopes with this story to persuade them that they should be accepting the baptism of Jesus.

There is, though, another reason for Luke’s adding this passage—to boost his hero, Paul. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians that as the Corinthian church grew, some members believed that Apollos was its founder. Luke relates this story to prove that Apollos was not even a proper Christian when he first met Paul after the church in Corinth had been founded. Since Apollos was introduced to Christianity by Priscilla and there is at least a suggestion that she had been converted by Paul, Apollos becomes a third generation Christian after Paul. Either the incident was included because the dispute in Corinth still raged or because the belief that Apollos had founded the Corinthian church had already become legendary and had to be squashed.

One might be inclined to believe now that churches existed in Greece and Asia based on the teachings of the Essenes, in short “the baptism of John”. They were Nazarene churches but not Christian ones. Luke, in Acts, is effectively laying claim for them for his hero. This is the implication of Acts 19:1-7.

Apollos might well have founded the church of Corinth—as a Nazarene church baptizing for repentance in expectation of the coming kingdom. The quarrel within the Corinthian church arose because Paul re-baptized them as Christians placing the emphasis, not on repentance in expectation of the messiah but on faith in Jesus, the messiah who had already come. Luke is trying to refute the allegation that must have been circulating that Paul had claimed an already formed Nazarene church by rebaptizing the members. Why otherwise should he need to explain that Paul had rebaptized only 12 men, or rather “disciples”, a word Luke always uses for Nazarenes—followers of John? He says “only 12” proving he is being apologetic. He says at Ephesus, not at Corinth, and he says after Apollos had gone to Corinth himself.

All of it is meant to defend Paul against charges which we no longer specifically know. The insinuation is that he sought out Nazarene churches which had almost everything in common with the Christians, and had easy pickings persuading them that they should simply be baptized anew into belief in the risen messiah rather than the one who had not yet come. Christian myth required Paul to struggle endlessly for his conversions, suffering oppression by the Jews, just like Jesus, but persevering until he won out. In fact, he was often poaching the recruits of the Nazarene followers of John or some other Essene and plainly would have made himself unpopular with their leaders.

Acts 19:4 makes it clear that by this stage Paul had made the baptism of repentance of John the Baptist, the Nazarenes and the Essenes into a baptism of faith in Jesus. In Acts 20:21, we get both formulae for baptism, repentance and faith, but repentance was to God and the faith was in Jesus. Here we find an emphasis on the new Christian practice to supplement baptism—the laying on of hands (Acts 19:6), the beginning of the ordination of priests and the apostolic succession. Paul however was not present at Pentecost and so the Holy Ghost must have allocated him his dispensation of Holy Spirit separately.

Luke might even be apologising for a more serious misdemeanour by Paul. Paul is arguing, in 1 Corinthians 1:13-16, against those who were asking, “Were you baptized in the name of Paul?”. Here is an allegation that Paul was baptizing in his own name, or to accept Luke’s explanation (Acts 19:13-16), in the names of Jesus and Paul. Luke’s excuse is that the story arose from others who had exorcised demons in the name of Jesus and Paul.

Now the story of the “vagabond” Jews who were exorcists is an obvious reference to other Essenes and possibly other Christians but, just as the genuine Christians of Jerusalem were unpopular to Paul, they were of a different and disliked faction. The exorcists were Saeva, a chief priest, and his seven sons. Now he was obviously not a priest of the Jerusalem temple. Was he then an Essene priest—a Zadokite? His name, though slightly distorted is, in Hebrew, Seven and he had the seven sons, though six of them disappear in Acts 19:16. Seven was (from Persian religion) the sacred number of perfection of the Essenes, so there is some suggestion that they were indeed Essenes. These men were probably rivals to Paul.

Note that in Mark, Jesus himself did not object to a stranger exorcising in his name, but here demons take no notice and ravage the presumptuous exorcists. If the name “Jesus”, a Greek name, was recognised by a Palestinian demon, why was it not recognised by a Greek one?

The whole episode shows that the Ephesians were gullible. They were impressed by charlatans and magicians. This characteristic explains the success enjoyed by Paul in his 2-3 years spent in Ephesus.

However Ephesus was the holy city of the great goddess Diana, and craftsmen whose living was to make silver images of the goddess feared that the new fad might lose them their living. Luke depicts Paul wanting to debate with the angry crowd but being restrained by disciples and friends, some of them the “chief officers of Asia!” It is common in the stories of Paul that he turns out to have friends in high places, despite all the scourgings and stonings he is said to have endured.

This riot is quelled by a diplomatic town clerk. It occurred in the theatre, a large building, where official meetings were held. The meeting will have been called to discuss the matter officially and became heated.

In Acts 20, Paul is not concerned to get to Jerusalem for the Passover but for Pentecost. In fact, it was Pentecost and not the Passover that seems to have been the main feast of the Essenes. It was the feast of the Renewal of the Covenant. The Elders of the church of Ephesus are called (Acts 20:17), in Paul’s parting speech, bishops (Acts 20:28), in Greek “episcopoi”, which translates the Essene senior rank of mebaqqer or overseer. These men were not senior priests as bishops became but overseers or administrators. In the scrolls, mebaqqers were the honourable leaders and teachers of the village Essenes, though “The Mebaqqer” was the practical leader of the order.

Before the Jerusalem Church

The fellowship of which Paul and co were members was much bigger than the author of Acts is letting on. In Acts 21, we find that there are disciples at Ptolemais and at Tyre but there has been no mention of the founding of churches there because these congregations of Nazarenes already existed. They were Essenes.

Paul relates his successes in proselytising (Acts 21:19) but the Jerusalem church is not fooled. He might have collected money for the movement, but money was not their main interest—they were the Poor Ones—and they knew he had been admitting gentiles without their being obliged to accept the law. The whole of this part of Acts would be senseless if the Jerusalem church had really allowed Paul to accept uncircumcised converts.

Acts seeks to present the Jerusalem church led by James the Just as deceitful, telling Paul one thing when they meant another. But by his own admission this was Paul’s own characteristic. The leaders of the Jerusalem church want Paul to prove his good faith and that the accusations of his detractors are false. The charge was that Paul taught against the law:

Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law, and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Acts 21:21

This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place.
Acts 21:27

Christians tell us that the Jerusalem church told Paul it was all right to convert gentiles without them having to accept every jot of the law. They must have told everyone else the law was an absolute requirement. When one man pleads that everyone is wrong except him one begins to suspect insanity or duplicity. Paul was not insane. The only credible inference is that Paul had flouted the instructions of the church leadership. They must have known that by asking Paul to undergo a solemn purification he would be hoist on his own petard—and so he was.

In Acts 20:21, thousands of Nazarenes (“Jews that believed”) were “zealous for the law”. In Josephus, Jews who were zealous for the law were freedom fighters against the Romans in the Jewish War. They were the Zealots.

The crowd recognize Paul, and are outraged that he should have been so openly hypocritical and in the temple too. He is saved by Roman soldiers and taken into the Antonia Tower. As he is being escorted into the fortress, he surprises the Roman captain by speaking to him in Greek. Here we get an incident so bizarre that critics consider it must be true. The Roman immediately thinks Paul is a Jewish rebel called the “Egyptian!” Josephus mentions the Egyptian and this is thought by some to show that Luke or his editor had read Josephus, but it could be an independent reference.

Why should an Egyptian speak Greek, you might ask, but the great cities of Egypt at that time were all Greek speaking cities, having been set up by Alexander the Great and the Ptolemies. The spread of English around the world under British colonialism was a similar phenomenon. The rebellion of “the Egyptian” must have been quite similar to that of Jesus himself. He led 4000 guerillas from the wilderness in an attack on Jerusalem. The Greek translated in Acts as “assassins” really means “knifemen” but might also be derived from a Semitic word meaning “deliverer” or “saviour”.

Curious that the number was 4000, the number at Jesus’s mass feedings and the number of Essenes according to the classical writers.

Like Jesus, the Egyptian led his followers to the Mount of Olives, expecting God to break down the walls of Jerusalem just as he had for Joshua at Jericho. It is hard to believe that this almost unknown man did not have the same idea as Jesus—that God would bring in his kingdom when Jerusalem had been recaptured. Is it a coincidence that Egypt might have been a name for the Essene headquarters at Qumran, so that the Essenes could justifiably have been called Egyptians?

No Christian seems to wonder why the Jews would be led by an Egyptian. In fact, they would only be led by a Jew. They hated being ruled by the Romans and even hated Herod the Great, an Idumaean proselyte, who actually benefited the people by putting a depressed country back to work with his large projects. The Egyptian must have been a Jew and Paul’s reply in Acts 21:39 is not, “I am not an Egyptian but a Jew”, but, “I am not a Jew from Egypt but a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia”. Since, according to Matthew, Jesus came from Egypt where his family had taken refuge from Herod the Great, he too could have been called an Egyptian!

It is far from impossible that the Egyptian actually was Jesus! Luke has introduced this reference to him out of historical sequence to obfuscate the true nature of Jesus and his Nazarenes. Paul might in reality have been accused by the Roman of being a follower of the Egyptian, meaning Jesus, and Paul sought to deny it by saying he came from Tarsus, no mean city, implying that in comparison he thought the Egyptian cities were mean, and he would not be likely to be following any Egyptian.

Luke wants to disguise all this to pretend Jesus was never an anti-Roman rebel and that anyone who thought he was must have mistaken him for this other man. Even Paul was mistaken for him. The deception is phony because, though the main cities of Egypt were Greek speaking, so was most of the eastern Mediterranean and, not only should the captain have not been surprised to hear Greek, but there is no reason why he should have therefore thought the speaker was an African. Indeed, in the Greek the artifiality is even greater because the Roman captain is not merely surprised but incredulous. He is made to say to Paul something more like, “You mean to tell me you aren’t the Egyptian”! Luke is hamming up the part.

But, if Jesus was the Egyptian, what of the references to the Egyptian in Josephus? They might have been deliberately misplaced by Christian editors when they got control of the publication of books in the fourth century to disassociate Jesus from the rebellion.

In Josephus’s book, the Jewish War, the Egyptian has 30,000 men and a major battle is needed to overthrow him. In his other book, Antiquities of the Jews, the Jerusalem garrison launch forth in a sudden sally killing 400 rebels and capturing 200. These curiously incompatible accounts could both be true if our thesis is true that this is the rebellion of Jesus described in The Hidden Jesus. Jesus fought two battles within a few days. One he won and one he lost. The first battle was won by Jesus and the Nazarenes supported by large numbers of pilgrims whence the 30,000 men, the second was won by the Romans when they sent for reinforcements. The 400 dead rebels would have been beheaded and their skulls piled up as a warning at Golgotha. The 200 would have been crucified with Jesus. Josephus might be explaining to us that the widows in Acts might have numbered up to 600!

It is inconceivable that the captain would have allowed Paul to address the mob, especially if the circumstances really were that a seditionist had just been fomenting dissent and he suspected his captive of being the same man. The Roman did not hold the Empire together for 500 years by pussy-footing. Paul would have been frog-marched straight into the tower for questioning.

The speech is false. Though it begins like Stephen’s speech it is primarily another account of the conversion of Luke’s hero, one of three in the same book. It has no purpose and makes no sense. Such insertions usually disguise something, but here it is hard to know what, unless it is that Paul was at this point revealed as a Roman agent. After Paul revealed that he was born a Roman (Acts 22:28), he must have explained to the governor what he had been doing, but the explanation could not be given by Luke. Instead Luke gave the story of the conversion. This would have been at Acts 22:28, but possibly an editor thought it more dramatic to move it forward so that it is an address to the mob rather than a few officials.

The Ananias (Acts 22:12) Paul mentions in his speech is a “devout man according to the law”, a formula which I suspect denotes an Essene. In Acts 22:14, we get the “Just One”, an Essene honorific title. Note also that in Acts 22:16, baptism is the baptism of John—for the remission of sins in preparation for the coming of God’s kingdom—not the baptism of faith in Jesus. Christians like to think it is indeed the baptism of Jesus because it ends with “calling on his name”. But it means calling on God, not Jesus. The author of Acts seems to leave it deliberately ambiguous here but historically, since Paul introduced the idea of Jesus as a demi-god, he could not have been baptized using the prescription he formulated.

Page Tags: Paul, Romans, Apostle, Saul, Barnabas, Antioch, Lystra, Mercury, Gentiles, James, Judgement, Jesus, Acts, Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus, Circumcision, Apostles, Jerusalem Church, Sanhedrin, Jews, Christianity, Nazarenes, Pharisee, Roman, Plot, Agrippa, Christ, Christians, Essene, Essenes, Gospels, Paul at Rome, Jewish, God, Greek, Law, Luke, Paul

Last uploaded: 19 April, 2008.