BERENICE
[Titus] took a harlot [Berenice] by the hand and entered the Holy of Holies and spread out a scroll of the Law and committed a sin on it. [Gittin 56b]
THE MANY FACES OF BERENIKE
Over the course of this book we shall discover that it is impossible to erase someone’s personal identity. They can wipe your name from the history books, they can obscure your greatest accomplishments from public view but they can never completely erase your memory. We saw that with Marcus Julius Agrippa, we witnessed it with the identity of his mother Salome and now we are going to witness the process again with regards to his sister Berenice. In many ways she is the most important figure of all those associated with the messiah – for she really more than anyone made the dream of establishing Marcus Julius Agrippa as the messiah come to life.
At the turn of the Antonine era (c. 140 A.D.) you could still see witness the greatness of the Herodian woman. Celsus is again the first historical figure to identify the real story of the previous era identifying not only the “Harpocratians of Salome” – i.e. the semi-pagan adherents to “little Mark” as the “divine child Horus” in
We really know very little about the details of her life other than to assume that she was about the same age as her brother (the "flower of her youth” in 69 A.D. i.e. b. 29 A.D.). There is reason to believe that she died c. 82-83 A.D (cf. History of the Virgin, MS. A, fol. 157 b) a year after her lover Titus was killed by his brother Domitian. So we are left for the most part to figure out details of one of the most interesting women in the history of the world by basically dissecting the legends and myth which surivive down to this age.
THE LEGEND OF PROTONIKE
Yet let’s start with the story of Protonike which survives in the early Syriac narrative of Abgar in
The story begins with a deliberate effort to connect Protonike to the ruling Julio-Claudian line. Just as Berenice is connected with “Titus the son of Tiberius” in the Vengeance of the Savior tradition, we see “Protonike” identified as “the wife of Claudius the Emperor, whom Tiberius made the second man of his empire” in the Syriac tradition. Just as the original narrative of Vengeance is set during the Jewish War, the material in the Protonike narrative tells of that “at that time” Claudius “set out to make war on the Spaniards who had rebelled against him.”
As we shall see with the Clementine tradition, there is a strong effort to place Bernike/Protonike in the ruling house of Caesar. Indeed in a very similar manner to the Clementines we hear that Protonike encounters one of the disciples of Simon and is converted. The conversion sounds very much like the Edessan material we just saw where “Protonike” like Berenice is said to have seen “the signs and wonders and mighty acts he did in the name of Christ, and she foreswore the heathenism of her forefathers …[gave up her idols] … and believed in our master, Christ.”
Because of this life changing experience “Protonike” goes to
We read that when she discovers where the tomb of Jesus was located she seems dismayed to find that “it is under the stewardship of the Jews” – so in effect she wants to appropriate it and – in effect – bring it back to the Herodian castle where she is staying. Her object is to grab control of Christianity away from the Jews for, as one believer explains to her “[t]hey have taken possession of them and they do not permit us to go thither and worship before the Calvary and the tomb, [n]either will they give us the tree of the cross.”
This effort then to “discover” the sepulcher is as much an effort to “liberate it” from the control of Jews. When she hears that Christians are being persecuted by the Jews she demands that they hand over these things to the Church “in order that they may perform their service there, according to the customs of the service.” Nevertheless when she arrives she finds herself in need of performing a miracle of her own too.
She gets into the tomb and almost immediately “her daughter, a virgin, fell and died without pain and without sickness and without cause of death.” It is her son who comes forward (Marcus?) and announces that the death of his sister might be a good thing because he recommends that they put her body on each one of the crosses to discover which one belongs to Jesus and thus resurrect her to prove the greatness of their Lord.
We are reminded at once of the Coptic narratives of Marcus where the little boy has a revelation in Christ and coverts his father and uncle over to his understanding through the performance of a miracle. His father is made to declare “I am thy father who begat thee, Mark, my son; but today thou art my father, and my saviour and deliverer.” Once the members of the toyal family discover the true cross of Jesus and heal their sister by laying her on the wood the now “unnamed boy” of the Protonike story exclaims “Thou seest, my mistress, that if not this had happened today, then they would have left this cross of Christ, by which my sister was revived … behold we see and are glad, and Christ, who as done this, is glorified in her.”
THE CLEMENTINE BERENIKE
The story of Protonike, like many of these narratives is ultimately of course, a stupid story. Nevertheless it illustrates the manner in which something of the original history of Christianity never died or went away – it just became deliberately obscured. In due course the whole “Protonike” tradition was developed by
This effort to change names from the original material underscores the unspoken reality which we see in our next Berenice tradition - that of the so-called “Clementine Literature” a collection of texts coming out of Egypt in the second century A.D. In this tradition many of the names of the original Herodian family remain. “Berenice” is still the appellation of the “daughter” in the story. The mother can still be determined to have been named “Salome.” However we can begin to see what is the start of the ultimate absorption and redefinition of the family in this narrative as belonging now to the “house of Caesar” from that of the “house of Herod.”
For in the Clementia (i.e. books associated with Clement) our narrator or lead commentator now is not Marcus but “Clement” – the “son” of the mother figure. The editor, doing his best to “cleanse” his lead character of his Jewish roots, invents a scenario where “Clement” supposedly has two families. That of his biological mother and father who are from the “house of Caesar” on the one hand and another “adopted” mother and sister who interestingly remain fixed not only to the Palestinian soil but indeed a place in the gospel no less!
It is all so unnatural it would be hard to believe otherwise if it were not true. The author being forced to leave the original “family of the gospel” somewhat intact but now claiming that “Clement” being “really” Roman and “really” of the household of Caesar now claims that his parents “having changed our names [these Roman parents] sold us to a certain widow, a very honourable women, named Justa.” The story sounds strange from the get go – where we can easily see that the original material goes back to a connection for the lead character, back to another royal family that of the Herods.
For if we look closely the text as we have already noted this supposedly adopted mother “Justa” had a daughter named “Berenike.” Berenike? Yet let us now ask why, if this Berenike was our Berenike, is her mother called “Justa”? How do the two identities relate? If we look at the Latin word justa or justus one of its meanings as identified “proper, perfect or complete” (Lewis and Short). Salome comes from the Hebrew shalem which means “perfect, whole, fitting.”
So we have the makings of yet another Herodian citing – however there is even more here. The Clementine Literature which will in fact amaze us with regards to the underlying sense of its narrative. For the Justa/Salome figure isn’t just any mother but a mother who has a place in the gospel – and how many mothers are represented in this book anyway? We read in the Clementine Homilies she is identified as “Justa, a Syro-Phoenician, by race a Canaanite, whose daughter was oppressed with a grievous disease.” As many scholars have already determined before me - Salome must have been the woman in Matthew 15, Mark 7. The Clementine source again also says with absolute certainly that Berenice was her daughter which Jesus healed in the narrative.
This is of course of the absolute highest significance. It demonstrates most clearly the lateness and deliberate obscurity of our text and our tradition generally. Someone has come along and deliberately wiped out the memory of the presence of Mark’s mother and sister throughout the gospel. We can begin to see also that the order of the original narratives have also been changed where we no longer have the sense that one family is consistently throughout the narrative in the manner hinted at in the Coptic tradition.
For the Copts and indeed the early Roman tradition identify the idea that “little Mark” was a direct witness for all the scenes he put down in his narrative. His mother must be the unnamed “Samaritan” woman no less than the unnamed mother in the marriage at
Indeed this is only the beginning of the significance for the discovery of the Herodian mother and daughter Salome at the heart of the material here. Theere is even more here if we look closely because in this very tradition we can begin to see the very context behind the “Syro-Phoenician woman” story in real history. For this extraordinarily wealthy woman is now understood to have fallen into such dire poverty because of an original incident which brings a host of new discoveries about Salome and her children.
For the text of the Clementine Homilies makes explicit that just before the “Syro-Phoenician woman” scene in the gospel that this woman had been “driven out from her home by her husband, whose sentiments were opposed to ours.” Driven out from her home by her husband? Isn’t this just another development of the Pantera story in Jewish and pagan lore? This is a very important legend – now attributed to Jesus – where enemies of Christianity identify the messiah of Christianity as a bastard son of Mary Magdala.
Celsus preserves the story as that of “a poor woman … who was turned out of doors by her husband … because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to … an illegitimate child” who was the messiah. There exist countless parallels in the literature of the Jews and even the Mandaeans which emphasize the same details – and always identifying the mother as “Mary” or “Mary Magdala.”
What I am suggesting now is that Jesus was never the illegitimate mamzer or “bastard” of the original tradition but indeed Marcus Julius Agrippa. The reason he is called by this name has less to do with being a “bastard” in the classic sense but rather Jewish religious purity issues which might have disqualified his recognition as the messiah because of his mother’s “unfaithfulness” or indeed her polluted status because of her relationship with more than one married brother.
PRUNIKUS – THE WHORE WHO STARTS WARS
Much of the emerging details from the Clementine tradition go beyond the present scope of our investigation. Nevertheless I want to make clear that throughout the Clementine tradition the home of “Bernike, the daughter of Justa the Canaanitess” is identified as an ancient Christian church who, in the words of one of the early disciples “received us most joyfully; and striving with much honour towards me, and with affection towards [us] … she treated us courteously, and hospitably urged us to take bodily refreshment.” Indeed Berenice’s authority as a leader in the Church becomes evident in what follows when she lectures the hearers to stay clear of the heresy which is engulfing the contemporary age.
Yet if we really want to begin to understand the importance of Berenike we need only look at the figure of “Prunike” in various early sources. The “Prunikus” myth now identifies her as a beautiful woman who enflamed the “powers of the world” in the age to fight over her and thereby found Christianity. Yet before we begin this investigation let us put forward the confirmation that Prunikus really is “Berenike.”
Once again it is Celsus the pagan critic writing in the first half of the second century A.D. that the Christians of his day “add still further matters; the sayings of prophets, and circles upon circles, and emanations of the earthly church and of circumcision, and the power emanating from a certain virgin Prunikos, and a living soul, and a Heaven slain that it may live, and earth slain with a sword, and many slain that they might live.” The text makes the connection between the figure of “Prunikos” and the earthly church here but more significantly the idea that of “many being slain” in her name “that they might live.”
As all of this seems to fit all too neatly with the same description of Prunikus/Berenike which survives two generations later in the writings of Irenaeus. He mentions another sect which likens Prunikus/Berenike with Helen the woman whose beauty inspired the Trojan War. Yet first let’s confirm the Prunikos/Berenike connection from the Celsus account. Origen brings it up when, in his commentary against Celsus, the Church Father writes that the heretics “give the name of Prunikos to a certain kind of wisdom, of which they would have the woman afflicted with the twelve years' issue of blood to be the symbol.” There can be no doubt then that the woman who was healed of her blood flow is Berenike – the connection is made throughout the surviving literature.
Of course the Church Father writes that “Celsus, who confuses together all sorts of opinions-Greek, Barbarian, and Heretical-having heard of her, asserted that it was a power flowing forth from one Prunikos, a virgin.” However despite Origen’s protests I think that Celsus clearly knows a great deal more than the Church Father is willing to acknowledge. His information comes from an age before the Catholic Church where “Prunikos” the woman of who holds the garment of Christ encourage the slaughter of millions.
Isn’t this the essence of Berenike in the Vengeance of the Savior tradition? In that early Latin tradition a woman named Berenike is both the woman who was healed of her menstrual blood flow no less than being the one who was in possession of the garment which possesses the “image” or soul of Jesus. The story of the Venegeance goes something like this. Caesar is sick and needs to be healed by Jesus so he sends Titus to discover where the Savior is. He gathers up as many leads as possible until Veronika/Berenike comes out of the crowd and announces herself to be the one who was healed from touching Jesus garment and who confesses that she now possesses Jesus’ garment.
Once the Romans learn that Jesus has been killed by the Jews they decide to take vengeance on the Jews while Veronica is sent to
We hear the early gnostic figure of Prunikos described in exactly the same manner. She is intimately connected with the “war” and “slaughter” of the report in Celsus and now Irenaeus also speaks of the manner in which “Prunicus” after “displaying her beauty … drove them to frenzy, and on this account was she sent for the despoiling of the Rulers.” Indeed it further mentions the manner in which these “Rulers” themselves “went to war on her account; and while she experienced nothing, they set to work to mutually slaughter each other on account of the desire which she infused into them for herself.”
Indeed Berenice/Prunicus manifests her “eternal whore” persona in what follows where Irenaeus continues that after “constraining her so that she could not reaescend, each had intercourse with her in every body of womanly and female constitution--she reincarnating from female bodies into different bodies … in order that by means of their slaying and being slain, they might bring about a diminution of themselves through the shedding of blood, and that then she by collecting again the Power would be enabled to reaescend into heaven.” Does anyone doubt now that this story is based on “real life” historical events connected with the figure of Berenike?
Already I think everyone can see the manner in which the two earliest reports match up with one another. The “slain with a sword, and many slain that they might live” is the “slaying and being slain, they might bring about a diminution of themselves through the shedding of blood” of the other. Yet there is something more here also, something which goes to the heart of the whole notion of the sister being involved in a plot to fool the Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus “the Demiurge” as they attempt to “create” or “invent” a man – viz. her brother Marcus Julius Agrippa which we will investigate next.
Indeed in many ways we can argue that Marcus, like the the heavenly Father he represents has limited if indeed any contact with everyday reality. It is his “woman” – like the shekhinah or “divine presence” in the kabbalistic myths – who has all contact with the world for him, doing his bidding and interacting with the sons of man. In the very same way, I am about to report there are two more gnostic myths regarding “Prunikos” which might be significant for our readers to become familiar with to gain some insight into the person of Berenike and indeed her mother Salome as it relates to the “creation” of the Savior.
Of course the Church Father writes that “Celsus, who confuses together all sorts of opinions-Greek, Barbarian, and Heretical-having heard of her, asserted that it was a power flowing forth from one Prunikos, a virgin.” However despite Origen’s protests I think that Celsus clearly knows a great deal more than the Church Father is willing to acknowledge. His information comes from an age before the Catholic Church where “Prunikos” the woman of who holds the garment of Christ encourage the slaughter of millions.
Isn’t this the essence of Berenike in the Vengeance of the Savior tradition? In that early Latin tradition a woman named Berenike is both the woman who was healed of her menstrual blood flow no less than being the one who was in possession of the garment which possesses the “image” or soul of Jesus. The story of the Venegeance goes something like this. Caesar is sick and needs to be healed by Jesus so he sends Titus to discover where the Savior is. He gathers up as many leads as possible until Veronika/Berenike comes out of the crowd and announces herself to be the one who was healed from touching Jesus garment and who confesses that she now possesses Jesus’ garment.
Once the Romans learn that Jesus has been killed by the Jews they decide to take vengeance on the Jews while Veronica is sent to
We hear the early gnostic figure of Prunikos described in exactly the same manner. She is intimately connected with the “war” and “slaughter” of the report in Celsus and now Irenaeus also speaks of the manner in which “Prunicus” after “displaying her beauty … drove them to frenzy, and on this account was she sent for the despoiling of the Rulers.” Indeed it further mentions the manner in which these “Rulers” themselves “went to war on her account; and while she experienced nothing, they set to work to mutually slaughter each other on account of the desire which she infused into them for herself.”
Indeed Berenice/Prunicus manifests her “eternal whore” persona in what follows where Irenaeus continues that after “constraining her so that she could not reaescend, each had intercourse with her in every body of womanly and female constitution--she reincarnating from female bodies into different bodies … in order that by means of their slaying and being slain, they might bring about a diminution of themselves through the shedding of blood, and that then she by collecting again the Power would be enabled to reaescend into heaven.” Does anyone doubt now that this story is based on “real life” historical events connected with the figure of Berenike?
Already I think everyone can see the manner in which the two earliest reports match up with one another. The “slain with a sword, and many slain that they might live” is the “slaying and being slain, they might bring about a diminution of themselves through the shedding of blood” of the other. Yet there is something more here also, something which goes to the heart of the whole notion of the sister being involved in a plot to fool the Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus “the Demiurge” as they attempt to “create” or “invent” a man – viz. her brother Marcus Julius Agrippa which we will investigate next.
SAVED THROUGH TWO WOMEN In fact if we look at what follows in Irenaeus’ account there can be no mistake whatsoever that what is being described here is really Agrippa because it goes on to speak of this creation of Christ being accomplished by two women. The two women arre identified as the one who is his “mother” and the other who is his “sister.” Irenaeus writes that Prunikus apparently “invoked her mother to assist her in her distress. Upon this, her mother, the first woman, was moved with compassion towards her daughter, on her repentance, and begged from the [heavenly Father] that Christ should be sent to her assistance, who, being sent forth, descended to his sister.”
The narrative continues that when the messiah “recognised her” i.e. stared in the face of Prunikus – “her brother descended to her, and announced his advent … and adopted Jesus beforehand, in order that on the messiah descending he might find a pure vessel, and that by the son of that Ialdabaoth the woman might be announced by [Jesus].” This is now the scene at the cross which we have already analysed originally pertained to the mother and son but later “Mary” was certainly identified with her daughter. The gnostics are demonstrating their adherence to the same “hidden story” which I can demonstrate was present among the Marqionites – namely that Jesus was only an angel who came to set up Christ – i.e. the messiah who Prunikus “tricked” Vespasian/Ialdabaoth to set up.
Of course the Church Father writes that “Celsus, who confuses together all sorts of opinions-Greek, Barbarian, and Heretical-having heard of her, asserted that it was a power flowing forth from one Prunikos, a virgin.” However despite Origen’s protests I think that Celsus clearly knows a great deal more than the Church Father is willing to acknowledge. His information comes from an age before the Catholic Church where “Prunikos” the woman of who holds the garment of Christ encourage the slaughter of millions.
Isn’t this the essence of Berenike in the Vengeance of the Savior tradition? In that early Latin tradition a woman named Berenike is both the woman who was healed of her menstrual blood flow no less than being the one who was in possession of the garment which possesses the “image” or soul of Jesus. The story of the Venegeance goes something like this. Caesar is sick and needs to be healed by Jesus so he sends Titus to discover where the Savior is. He gathers up as many leads as possible until Veronika/Berenike comes out of the crowd and announces herself to be the one who was healed from touching Jesus garment and who confesses that she now possesses Jesus’ garment.
Once the Romans learn that Jesus has been killed by the Jews they decide to take vengeance on the Jews while Veronica is sent to
We hear the early gnostic figure of Prunikos described in exactly the same manner. She is intimately connected with the “war” and “slaughter” of the report in Celsus and now Irenaeus also speaks of the manner in which “Prunicus” after “displaying her beauty … drove them to frenzy, and on this account was she sent for the despoiling of the Rulers.” Indeed it further mentions the manner in which these “Rulers” themselves “went to war on her account; and while she experienced nothing, they set to work to mutually slaughter each other on account of the desire which she infused into them for herself.”
Indeed Berenice/Prunicus manifests her “eternal whore” persona in what follows where Irenaeus continues that after “constraining her so that she could not reaescend, each had intercourse with her in every body of womanly and female constitution--she reincarnating from female bodies into different bodies … in order that by means of their slaying and being slain, they might bring about a diminution of themselves through the shedding of blood, and that then she by collecting again the Power would be enabled to reaescend into heaven.” Does anyone doubt now that this story is based on “real life” historical events connected with the figure of Berenike?
Already I think everyone can see the manner in which the two earliest reports match up with one another. The “slain with a sword, and many slain that they might live” is the “slaying and being slain, they might bring about a diminution of themselves through the shedding of blood” of the other. Yet there is something more here also, something which goes to the heart of the whole notion of the sister being involved in a plot to fool the Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus “the Demiurge” as they attempt to “create” or “invent” a man – viz. her brother Marcus Julius Agrippa which we will investigate next.
THE MOTHER OF THE CHURCH
We have exposed the reader then to five Berenike traditions which underscore one central fact which has been suppressed up until now - that a woman was the real founder of Christianity. I know that for most people it is impossible to imagine that a woman much less a “harlot” could be the real founder of Christianity. Yet isn’t it a fact of life that any successful woman immediately becomes the source of scorn and ridicule in this manner? The truth is of course that I can support my claims not merely with “clever arguments” but something far more convincing – archaeology.
Nevertheless we still have to overcome our initial barrier first and foremost - how could the Church be female? Of course if anyone actually listened to what even the surviving Catholic Church tells us the answer would be plain enough – the Church is female, she is a “she” not a “he” even by the tradition of our most staunchly misogynist Roman ecclesiastical order. Doesn’t anyone ask why?
Of course the answer that the apologists for the existing orthodoxy would develop from what we have already encountered – namely that there is a limit to her femaleness. Yes, they would respond, Mary is the type of the Church but, they would continue, she is not its true architect. This role is reserved for the “men” of the order, the disciples like “Peter” who is the rock, or “Paul” who its “wise master builder.”
I would respond of course that all of these things might be true and still we face the same problem. The Church may well have been constructed by these masons, and bricks and doors but it is built as a replica of the woman who established it in perpetuity – that is Berenice also called Mary. Many ancient apologists would certainly have argued that it was Marcus himself who all on his own developed the orthodoxy which miraculously managed to hold together the traditionally warring factions of Samaritans, Jews and proselytes not to mention governing most if not all of his Syrian kingdom.
All of this said I feel that the work accomplished by Berenike was greater than this for the simple reason alone that if the Herodian twins did not have the unquestioned support of their Flavian rulers none of the religious reforms of Marcus would have ever been possible. Indeed I will argue that it is precisely because the role of Berenike in the founding of the Church was so crucial, so obviously significant to its overall success that the official church is so palpably hostile to women generally. Yes, for certain they necessarily maintained the cult of the Virgin Mary but there can be little doubt in my mind that the Catholic community was originally founded against the recognition of the creative efforts of the historical two women who did more for the cause of establishing the religion of the messiah than anyone else.
How indeed did we get so estranged from the truth? Is it so hard to imagine that a mother is most significant force in the raising of her child? Then why is it so incredible to suppose that a mother and sister with instrumental in establishing the messiah? We have become used to the idea of miraculous harmonies between the apostles as the source for Church. We think of them happily wandering the country side telling people about “Jesus Christ” and offering them a practical “common sense” religion which might somehow make their lives better. All of this is complete nonsense and denies what is the unquestioned reality of the nature of the appeal of earliest Christianity.
THE MYSTERY OF BERENIKE
As hard as it is for us to accept nowadays, Christianity originally offered itself up as the “most excellent” of pagan mystery religion. That means that people gathered together in the dark and ate communal meals, performed rituals and listened to “spiritual revelations” from fellow members all in the hope of being “brought into acquaintance” with divine truths. The ancient mysteries were carryovers from paganism – there can be no doubt about this. Yet I think that the new “brands” which were emerging in the Common Era went beyond the tradition interest in “revelations of truth” or knowledge.
Take the example of Mithraism for example. It is certainly identified as early as the second century A.D. as being “like Christianity” (which means also the reverse – i.e. that Christianity was “like Mithraism”). It came from a place which certainly harbored ill-will towards the Empire – viz.
Yet how could the
The bottom line here is that it is impossible to believe that the Romans would have allowed Christians to go around the Empire gathering in secret and indeed unauthorized meetings in the name of the messiah. The Roman leadership would have had to feel comfortable enough with Christianity as it was promulgate throughout the late first and early second century A.D. to say to itself “better the evil we know than the evil we don’t know.” In other words, the messianic Christianity associated with Marcus Julius Agrippa must have been a “known commodity” even though it was flourishing behind a veil of secrecy.
It is an under reported fact that there were no mass persecutions of Christianity in the entire period when we suppose Marcus’ orthodoxy to have flourished – i.e. from the time of the Flavians (66 – 96 A.D.) down through to Trajan (96 – 117 A.D.) and even to the Hadrian age (117 – 138 A.D.). In each of these periods we see by contrast an Imperial policy which would actually have favored the promulgation of Christianity – i.e. either the full scale assault on the old practices of the Mosaic covenant (circumcision etc.) and or a major war against the Jews. This honeymoon with the messianic tradition of Mark ends only with the coming of Antoninus (138 – 161 A.D.) and the reinstitution of circumcision and old practices of Judaism and Samaritanism.
I can’t believe that the two phenomena don’t go hand in hand to display an underlying “official Roman policy” to encourage the propagation of the Flavian-inspired messianic tradition of Marcus. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck – it’s probably a duck. Until the day we find that “signed piece of papyrus” which confesses what the underlying strategy of the Emperors in this age was to deal with the Jews and Judaism the idea of an official cabal with the Herodians in the Flavian period seems to me to be a good bet.
The Roman government must have trusted the Herods in the period after the destruction of the temple enough to allow the messianic religion encouraged by Vespasian to flourish as a tonic against uncontrolled Jewish revolutionary activity. Yet who can we identify encouraged this unsupervised activity? It certainly wasn’t Marcus himself. No matter how trustworthy he might have seemed the prudent Roman leadership would have had someone to look over the cultus on a day to day basis given the history of
As I said before – it all comes down to Berenice. There is good reason for the veneration of the whore in the early “gnostic” traditions. She accomplished the unthinkable – distracting the “Demiurge” enough so as to allow the Christ to operate with almost no restrictions upon him in the development of his secret messianic cultus. To be sure he may have appeared entirely harmless – the Jewish equivalent of the bumbling Emperor Claudius, or indeed an entirely angelic hermaphrodite whose “head was in the clouds.” However you can’t over the fact that only Berenice would have allowed him that opportunity to establish the “angelic” or heavenly on earth because she was “sleeping with his boss”.
I can’t help but look at the reports of Berenice’s involvement in the development of a messianic cult for Vespasian after being crowned Emperor and her lengthy romance with his son Titus were all calculated covers for her underlying “power grab” – even a historical “double cross.” It is reported over and over again that she hoped to marry her lover and become “queen of the universe.” When I hear that Titus finally sent her packing I can’t help but think of that old adage that “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” Perhaps she was even clever enough to preordain the “end to the affair” – Titus was married after all the whole time they were involved with one another. I know whenever I have had affairs with women who knew I was going out with someone else they always had a “back up plan” or a means of avoiding the appearance of getting hurt.
Perhaps assisting in establishing her brother’s messianic cult was always the justification for her eventually being discarded? Indeed in order to understand her motivation the amateur scholar has to leave the familiar surroundings of the library and academic lecture hall and go into the bordellos and strip clubs – the places where “harlots” and female “hustlers” hang out to justify their behavior. There they will inevitably find a couple of inevitable things – one being the “useless” man in the background or the “helpless child” whom the harlot supports and sustains through her disgraceful living. Marcus Julius Agrippa may well have been the messiah but he certainly embodied all these other things too.
BERENICE “AT THE HEIGHT OF HER POWER”
It is very easy to demonstrate the benefits which Marcus Julius Agrippa received from his sister’s relationship with Titus. Dio Cassius reports that in 75 A.D. “Berenice was at the very height of her power and consequently came to
It means that we have the complete scenario I have been putting forward. I am reminded in my own life when I had a period where I was simply in love with stripper – principally black dancers at that. It happens to have been a period when I was formulating many of these ideas so many of the parallels weren’t even known to me until now. At first of course I was interested in the women but then matters would naturally degenerate into the relationships which they had behind the scenes and I would find their connections to their “man” and their other customers quite fascinating.
Apparently in the “whore culture” the “useless man” or the “helpless child” is a necessary psychological factor in justifying harlotry. One is doing something which is generally frowned upon but nevertheless it is all forgiven because it is “all for” this “hidden figure.” I remember hearing stories about how the “hidden man” would be driving around in the car purchased by the powerful politician or indeed living in the house he was making payments for - and it was alright for the harlot because again it justified her activities.
Before I get too deeply involved with the skeletons in my own closet I ask my readers to look at what Dio Cassius is describing here. Berenice is sleeping with Titus and Agrippa – the man hidden in the background, her brother and even her husband – is deriving all the benefits. Let’s take the example for a moment of the bestowing of the title of praetor. This is something better and more significant that a mere automobile or a large screen television.
As Lendering notes, originally “[t]he praetors were chosen by the Comitia centuriata, an assembly of the people in which the richest Romans were in the majority … later, a new task was given to the praetor urbanus: he was to be the chairman of the law court that judged corrupt governors.” She also makes clear that under the empire the number of praetors fluctuated between only 10 and 18. Lendering adds that “the minimum age was lowered to 30 and a new task had been added: the praetor had to pay for the Games. A praetor had six bodyguards (lictores) and was allowed to wear a purple-bordered toga.”
Given Berenice’s influence over Titus and Vespasian there should be little doubt that Mark could have enjoyed similar confidence to assume what was considered the “barbaric” title of messiah? Yet I still suspect that Berenice did not tell either Vespasian or Titus what was going on behind closed doors with regards to the cult of Marcus choosing instead to openly promulgate Vespasian as the “world ruler” of Jewish prophesy.
How did she get away with it then? The Herods could be trusted because they were practically family and more than that Berenice and Titus were intimate with one another. Tacitus comments on fact that Vespasian was no less enamoured with the queen than his son Titus writing that:
Agrippa’s sister Berenice showed equal enthusiasm for the cause. She was then in the flower of her youth and beauty, and her munificent gifts to Vespasian quite won the old man's heart too.
There are stories here too of Berenice assisting in Vespasian’s efforts to “win over” the Semitic world – where she developed the new Emperor into a kind of messianic personality or indeed the very “saviour of the world.” If she could do it once overtly is it so hard to imagine that she might have accomplished much the same thing “in secret” for her brother?
Indeed with the story which emerges from the “Prunikus” tradition of the gnostics how could it have been otherwise. Berenice developed the two claims and possibly even a third for Titus all at the same time. We should see her then as an ancient “spin doctor” knowing what it took to get “street credibility” in the ancient near East and adapting her men to that underlying expectation. The Prunikus tradition basically says then that the whore here made Vespasian think that he was the hidden Father of the gnostic tradition but really it was another. What more do we need to make the reader aware of what was going on here other than this?
As such we are only one step away from identifying the the messianic religion of Marcus – the tradition we call “Christianity” – as this “new revelation” established through the influence of Berenice over the Flavian court. Does the central role of “Prunikus” in the origins of Christianity account for the tradition enmity toward women generally? Was the effort of the Church in discrediting and misrepresenting the “myths of heretics” centrally focused on hiding the cult “born of woman”? I certainly think so and I think any critical analysis of the structure of the gospel will support such a claim.
Many scholars have noted that there has to be a reason why the earliest core of the gospel has it that a woman – Mary Magdala – is the vessel for the revelation of Christ. Our “reformed Church” downplays this understanding but the significance is played up in the original gnostic traditions where even Peter, the symbol of the mysoginist tendencies in the later Church, is made to confess his indebtedness to “Mary.” We read in the Gospel of Mary for instance that “Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.”
In what is clearly the implicit suggestion from our surviving gospels traditions the original understanding makes explicit the significance of “Mary” when it notes the she said “What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you. And she began to speak to them these words.” What did she say? It isn’t really that important but it begins with the idea that she “saw the Lord in a vision” and proceeds to announce things which Peter, the symbol of Roman authority vehemently objects. “Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?” In short – would God have preferred a woman to a man?
This of course represents the inherent misogyny which eventually obscures the presence of “Mary” – here the combined “presence” of Salome and Berenice – from the historical record. The text makes “Mary” out to be an innocent victim in the controversy – she is only honestly and sincerely revealing what Jesus said to her through the spirit. At least one of the disciples comes to her defense – Levi who identifies Peter as a “hot head” who contends “against the woman like the adversaries.” According to him Jesus did indeed “love her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.”
Yet then it strikes us – anyone who believed in the tradition of Mary or Berenice not only necessarily believed that she was the one who possessed the “perfect man” which believers symbolically “put on.” Indeed what is this “perfect man” which “clothes” the Christian if not the very garment which “Mary” is understood to have had in her possession since the crucifixion?
Thus what I want to make clear to the reader is that the symbolism of the “Mary” wishing to be healed of her sexual identity by grasping on the garment of Jesus is again necessarily tied to her not only possessing the “garment of Christ” after the crucifixion but indeed of her role in “clothing” those who are to come after Jesus. The plot, then is that Vespasian, Titus and indeed – hidden in the background – her brother Marcus Julius Agrippa – are all “clients” who this vessel (
I believe that there was only one true candidate in her mind for this title and that was her brother. Nevertheless the legends surrounding Berenice certainly imply that Titus was “healed” by this mana no less than Vespasian, albeit in an entirely indirect manner. The understanding then should be that it is not at all impossible to conceive of Mary herself being the mana or “vessel” which created Christ. Perhaps it is why she is never recorded as having children. She was the great mother of the Church – it was her divine fiat.
In the words of the great Catholic ode (albeit slightly amended) sung by universal choir of messianic aspirants:
Hail Mary, full of grace
The Lord is with you, blessed are you
Among women and blessed
The fruit of your womb is Christ
Holy Mary, Holy Mary
Mary pray for us,
Amen
