<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Chapter: Eleazar Lazarus: The Real Christ
I first noticed that there is a parallel between the two Mount of
Olive captures in terms of the relative time when they occur. The
New Testament's capture takes place immediately before Jesus, the
symbolic temple of the New Testament, is destroyed. The Mount of
Olives capture in War of the Jews likewise takes place immediately
before the destruction of the temple. However, whereas the identity
of the man who was captured on the Mount of Olives in the New
Testament is well known, in Josephus' version the captured individual
is described only as a "certain young man."
I wondered if it might be possible, as 1 had with the demoniacs
of Gadara, to learn the name of this "certain young man." It was during
the effort to determine this that the way in which the New Testament
and War of the Jews use parallelism to identify their unnamed
characters finally became clear to me.
This use of parallelism came directly from the Hebrew Bible
and, in a sense, its use in the New Testament was to be expected. As
the authors of the New Testament borrowed concepts such as the
Exodus, the Passover lamb, and the Messiah, it was logical for them
to copy its use of intertextual parallels as well.
<b>The Hebrew Bible was structured as an organic whole and can
be thought of a "a series of concentric circles with some interlocking
rings," as Freedman puts it.</b>" For instance, the Torah and the
book of Joshua (which together form the Hexateuch) have an overall
mirror-image literary structure in which the main themes of
books from Genesis up to Exodus 33 are then mirrored in parallel
structures in the books from Exodus 34 to Joshua 24.
The creators of the Hebrew Bible also used structural parallels
at a micro level. For instance, in a technique known as pedimental
composition,100 two passages that contain many parallels are used
to provide a literary "frame" by sandwiching a third central passage
between themâfor example, Leviticus 18 and 20 provide such a
"frame" for the central passage in Leviticus 19. <b>The consequence of
these traditional literary techniques is that the Jewish reader does
not read a text in what might be thought of as a rational, straightforward,
and linear manner. On the contrary, the Jewish reading is
intertextual. The use of similar phrasing, formulas, places, clothing,
and so on are used to create layers of associative meaning, as contrasts,
and to provide continuity and color. </b>In some cases the authors
create what Robert Alter has called "type scenes" âso, for example,
Abraham's servant meeting a young woman by a well is then
later paralleled by Moses meeting a young woman by a well, and the
reader is invited to contemplate the similarities, differences, and
continuities.
<b>In Hebrew literature, these typological relationships are a source
of open-ended speculation and debate. </b><b>To the Romans this perhaps
seemed part of the barbarous mysticism that provoked the Jewish
Zealots to revolt.</b> <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>So they "improved" the nature of their parallels in
the New Testament from the open-ended types found within the
Hebrew canon to ones that were very precise in their logical and
chronological relationships, and in the identities that they reveal.</b></span>
<b>The authors of the Gospels were very aware of the typology in
Hebraic literature and were, in effect, showing that they were able to
produce a more perfect, more complex form of it. </b>Moreover, there
was a profound irony in the authors' requiring the Gospels and War
of the Jews to be read in the manner of Judaic literature in order to
learn that they had created a false Judaism.
The insight that Josephus was using typological parallels
occurred when I noticed that Josephus' tale regarding the capture of
the unnamed "certain young man" on the Mount of Olives is parallel
to another passage within War of the Jews, the passage above, in
which Eleazar is whipped and escapes crucifixion. Josephus identified
the two stories as being parallel by having each passage tell the
same story, their only differences being in location and that the "certain
young man" is unnamed in the Mount of Olives version.
For clarification, I present the following list of the parallels
between the two passages:
 In each, besieged Jews are encircled by a wall.
 In each, the Jews attack the siege wall.
 In each case the Romans foresee the attack.
 In each, a Jew is literally carried away by a single Roman in a
  manner that is physically impossible.
 In each, the man who is carried away is in his armor.
Within the works of Josephus there are thousands of passages.
These are the only two that share these parallel characteristics. Josephus
thus notified the "intelligent reader," that is, the reader with a
good memory, that the two stories are parallel. Further, there is a
simple point of logic that the authors require the reader to apprehend,
this being that since the passages are parallel, the unnamed
"certain young man" who is carried away in one must have the same
name as the "certain young man" named Eleazar who has the same
experience in the other.
The passages are also the start of a comic theme that Josephus
and the New Testament develop regarding the Messiah who was captured
on the Mount of Olives. This theme, which I refer to as the
"root and branch," begins with the last sentence in the passage
above from War of the Jews. Notice that the translator (William
Whiston) places brackets around the words that he uses to describe
the punishment of the unnamed "certain young man" captured on
the Mount of Olives "(with death)."
Whiston used this device to notify the reader that he was deliberately
mistranslating the Greek words Josephus wrote in order to
render what seemed a more coherent reading. The Greek words he
is translating as [with death], kolasai keleusas, are translated literally
as "commanded to be pruned." "Pruned" is, of course, a word that
describes a gardening activity. Thus, Titus did not order the "certain
young man" to be put to "death," as Whiston's translation reads, but
to be "pruned," a word used quite logically on the Mount of Olives.
"Kolasai" was used by the Greek naturalist Theophratus in the
fourth century B.C.E. to describe the pruning necessary to cultivate
wild plants. His work on plants was often referenced by individuals
from Titus' era such as Pliny and Seneca, and specifically covered the
process by which wild olive trees could be transformed into cultivated
ones.102 Theophratus was the scientific ancestor of Pedanius
Dioscorides, the Roman scientist and physician who accompanied
Vespasian and Titus to Judea and was a key part of the theme of
comedy concerning the "root and branch."Â
<i>pgs 104-6</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I first noticed that there is a parallel between the two Mount of
Olive captures in terms of the relative time when they occur. The
New Testament's capture takes place immediately before Jesus, the
symbolic temple of the New Testament, is destroyed. The Mount of
Olives capture in War of the Jews likewise takes place immediately
before the destruction of the temple. However, whereas the identity
of the man who was captured on the Mount of Olives in the New
Testament is well known, in Josephus' version the captured individual
is described only as a "certain young man."
I wondered if it might be possible, as 1 had with the demoniacs
of Gadara, to learn the name of this "certain young man." It was during
the effort to determine this that the way in which the New Testament
and War of the Jews use parallelism to identify their unnamed
characters finally became clear to me.
This use of parallelism came directly from the Hebrew Bible
and, in a sense, its use in the New Testament was to be expected. As
the authors of the New Testament borrowed concepts such as the
Exodus, the Passover lamb, and the Messiah, it was logical for them
to copy its use of intertextual parallels as well.
<b>The Hebrew Bible was structured as an organic whole and can
be thought of a "a series of concentric circles with some interlocking
rings," as Freedman puts it.</b>" For instance, the Torah and the
book of Joshua (which together form the Hexateuch) have an overall
mirror-image literary structure in which the main themes of
books from Genesis up to Exodus 33 are then mirrored in parallel
structures in the books from Exodus 34 to Joshua 24.
The creators of the Hebrew Bible also used structural parallels
at a micro level. For instance, in a technique known as pedimental
composition,100 two passages that contain many parallels are used
to provide a literary "frame" by sandwiching a third central passage
between themâfor example, Leviticus 18 and 20 provide such a
"frame" for the central passage in Leviticus 19. <b>The consequence of
these traditional literary techniques is that the Jewish reader does
not read a text in what might be thought of as a rational, straightforward,
and linear manner. On the contrary, the Jewish reading is
intertextual. The use of similar phrasing, formulas, places, clothing,
and so on are used to create layers of associative meaning, as contrasts,
and to provide continuity and color. </b>In some cases the authors
create what Robert Alter has called "type scenes" âso, for example,
Abraham's servant meeting a young woman by a well is then
later paralleled by Moses meeting a young woman by a well, and the
reader is invited to contemplate the similarities, differences, and
continuities.
<b>In Hebrew literature, these typological relationships are a source
of open-ended speculation and debate. </b><b>To the Romans this perhaps
seemed part of the barbarous mysticism that provoked the Jewish
Zealots to revolt.</b> <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>So they "improved" the nature of their parallels in
the New Testament from the open-ended types found within the
Hebrew canon to ones that were very precise in their logical and
chronological relationships, and in the identities that they reveal.</b></span>
<b>The authors of the Gospels were very aware of the typology in
Hebraic literature and were, in effect, showing that they were able to
produce a more perfect, more complex form of it. </b>Moreover, there
was a profound irony in the authors' requiring the Gospels and War
of the Jews to be read in the manner of Judaic literature in order to
learn that they had created a false Judaism.
The insight that Josephus was using typological parallels
occurred when I noticed that Josephus' tale regarding the capture of
the unnamed "certain young man" on the Mount of Olives is parallel
to another passage within War of the Jews, the passage above, in
which Eleazar is whipped and escapes crucifixion. Josephus identified
the two stories as being parallel by having each passage tell the
same story, their only differences being in location and that the "certain
young man" is unnamed in the Mount of Olives version.
For clarification, I present the following list of the parallels
between the two passages:
 In each, besieged Jews are encircled by a wall.
 In each, the Jews attack the siege wall.
 In each case the Romans foresee the attack.
 In each, a Jew is literally carried away by a single Roman in a
  manner that is physically impossible.
 In each, the man who is carried away is in his armor.
Within the works of Josephus there are thousands of passages.
These are the only two that share these parallel characteristics. Josephus
thus notified the "intelligent reader," that is, the reader with a
good memory, that the two stories are parallel. Further, there is a
simple point of logic that the authors require the reader to apprehend,
this being that since the passages are parallel, the unnamed
"certain young man" who is carried away in one must have the same
name as the "certain young man" named Eleazar who has the same
experience in the other.
The passages are also the start of a comic theme that Josephus
and the New Testament develop regarding the Messiah who was captured
on the Mount of Olives. This theme, which I refer to as the
"root and branch," begins with the last sentence in the passage
above from War of the Jews. Notice that the translator (William
Whiston) places brackets around the words that he uses to describe
the punishment of the unnamed "certain young man" captured on
the Mount of Olives "(with death)."
Whiston used this device to notify the reader that he was deliberately
mistranslating the Greek words Josephus wrote in order to
render what seemed a more coherent reading. The Greek words he
is translating as [with death], kolasai keleusas, are translated literally
as "commanded to be pruned." "Pruned" is, of course, a word that
describes a gardening activity. Thus, Titus did not order the "certain
young man" to be put to "death," as Whiston's translation reads, but
to be "pruned," a word used quite logically on the Mount of Olives.
"Kolasai" was used by the Greek naturalist Theophratus in the
fourth century B.C.E. to describe the pruning necessary to cultivate
wild plants. His work on plants was often referenced by individuals
from Titus' era such as Pliny and Seneca, and specifically covered the
process by which wild olive trees could be transformed into cultivated
ones.102 Theophratus was the scientific ancestor of Pedanius
Dioscorides, the Roman scientist and physician who accompanied
Vespasian and Titus to Judea and was a key part of the theme of
comedy concerning the "root and branch."Â
<i>pgs 104-6</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->