THE GOSPEL OF ME - FOUND AGAIN!

my name “Mark” meant “Moses” - Standard understanding among the Samaritans of Marqeh son of Titus to this day. See also “"Until Shiloh comes" Gen 49:10 - yavo Shiloh, and Moshiach is also called Shiloh. [Sanhedrin 98b ] The Hebrew words yavo Shiloh are the numerical value of Moshiach; and Shiloh is the numerical value of Moshe [Baal HaTurim, Bereishis ibid.]

Samaritan teacher named Justus - i.e. Justus son of Pistus, Agrippa’s historical secretary and I would argue the real identity behind the early Church Father Justinus son of Priscus or “Flavius (i.e. “of or pertaining to the Flavian period) Justinus.” The real scholarly aftermath of the Jewish War was hidden from our view. There two different accounts of the events were developed which were entirely hostile to one another. The first was that of Josephus. He lived in an age which was entirely hostile to the continued practice of the former law of Moses. Josephus as a high profile member of the original insurgency was always under suspicion for being attached to on going Jewish revolutionary in the Flavian age and eventually composed his various written histories as a means of casting suspicion on the emerging “Galilean” messianic tradition of Marcus Julius Agrippa as the real cause of the revolt. Justus however took of the cause of exposing Josephus’ attempt at “spinning” the events of the war in such a way as to hide his original involvement in the revolt. Justus composed a counter-history which was certainly officially sanctioned by Agrippa whereby Josephus was the villian and Marcus is subtly put forward as a “second Moses.” The ongoing feuding between the parties attached to both men led to a problem for the Catholic Church as it attempted to “plow over” the old history of the age. Once you exposed the understanding that Josephus was claiming that Justus was connected with “Galileanism” the religion which caused the Jewish revolt in the first place you resurrected the whole understanding that his master Marcus was the historically awaited messiah of Israel. So what did the new editor of Christiantiy do? I believe he invented a third person to obscure both of them. The figure of "Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus)" is invented in the Acts of the Apostles to stake a middle ground between the original antagonistic positions of the most active supporter of the messianic claims of his master Mark on the one hand (Justus) and its clearest living embodiment of its historical denial on the other (Josephus). Indeed the figure of “John” is made into a “good character” and the figure of “little Mark” – i.e. Marqion – is similarly demonized into a “bad character” and even the anti-Christ. All of this will be readily demonstrated in my next work. What I am far more interested in doing for the present work is conclusively demonstrated that Justus not only supported Mark's messianic claims but was, as Josephus readily admits, a participant in “Galileanism.” Yet in order to do this we will have to argue that the Catholic figure of “Justin” – who is said to have lived in the middle of the second century A.D. was really “Justus” a figure who flourished at the end of the first. Indeed we can go much further than that even. I have long been suspicious that the figure identified as "R. Zadok" in the rabbinic tradition as being unwillingly “behind enemy lines” during the war and saved from persecution at the behest of "John." I say that Zadok (which is the Aramaic equivalent of the Latin ‘justus”) was none other than our historical Justus. There are countless other examples which we will bring forward – reports a Samaritan Justin and a Samaritan Zadok, even reports that the Jewish R. Zadok believed in Jesus. All of these matters will be taken up in due course. Let us first prove to the satisfaction of all our readers that the Catholic authorities took the writings of the important figure of Justus son of Pistus slightly changed their emphasis and transformed him into Justin son of Priscus. There simply are too many ways that we can demonstrate the historical parallels and all roads lead to the same historical crossroads which we have already seen with regards to other figures in the inner circle of Marcus. Let us begin with Josephus identification of the epithet thaumasiotatos (Cont. Ap., I, ix) which was applied to his opponent in the age. It is remarkable at once that the acknowledge disciple of “Justin” i.e. Tatian similarly refers to his master as thaumasiotatos Ioustinos. Many readers may question how it was that someone could be called “Justus” by some and “Justin” by others – all of this necessarily disappears if we assume that his real name was that of the Hebrew Zadok and the various others are mere “Gentilized” translations. Some manuscripts of Jerome identify “Justin” as “Justus” as a matter of course. The “slip up” must have occurred elsewhere too. Yet only when we start to look at the acknowledged beliefs of both “Justin” and “Zadok” do we start to see the parallels emerge. For instance in that very reference (the only which comes right from the mouth of his chosen disciple) Tatian writes that “[t]he most admirable Justin rightly declared that the aforesaid demons resembled robbers. (Tatian's Address to the Greeks, chap. xviii) Compare that if you will to the same belief being recorded by R. Zadok in the early rabbinic tradition so that “[t]he Giants were born from them [i.e. the fallen angels/demons] those who were insolent and arrogant and who deliberately engaged in robbery, violent behavior, and the shedding of innocent blood, as Scripture attests: ‘and there we beheld the Nefilim, etc.’ (Num 13:33), and it says: ‘the Nefilim were in the land’ (Gen 6:4). [Genesis Rabbah 29] As we develop the idea of a conflict between Marcus Julius Agrippa and Justus where indeed the latter split off from the former the question naturally arises – who was Justus? We have already made the case that information survives about “Mark” in a variety of seemingly separate traditions i.e. “Marqion,” “Marcus,” “Marqeh,” “John” etc. Now we are in essence trying to do the same thing with regards to his “runaway secretary” Justus by arguing that Jewish, Samaritan, Christian and even pagan reports about a figure named Justus, Justin and Zadok who lived in the late first early second century were all also one and the same person. The heart of this argument of course deals with whether the supposed “Catholic Church Father” Justin was one and the same with Justus. For the moment I want to make the case that whoever the historical person of Justus was it stands to reason that he was somehow a leader in the neo-Sadducean movement developed in the period after the destruction of the temple. As I have already mentioned the later rabbinic tradition approaches the term “Zadokite” as if it were already the equivalent of “minim,” “Herodian,” or even Samaritan (something supported in Hippolytus’ testimony as well). The reason for equation of many of these terms with one another is obvious – Marcus Julius Agrippa favored the Sadducees before the events of the Jewish War and whatever messianic institutions he established in the wake of the destruction of the temple was done through the perceived “authority” of this community. We must imagine then that whoever Justus was he was the embodiment of the new messianic covenant in its early days. He was the “face” of the movement taking advantage of the mystical association of his name with the legendary founder of the priesthood Zadoq. Indeed the Samaritan Chronicler Abul Fath echoes much of this when after describing at length the influence of a figure identified as “Shalih” among the heresies of Samaritan religion of the period an offshoot of “five brothers who from [the Samaritan holy mountain Gerizim] who were called [the Sons of Zadoq] and also another man called Zadoq the Elder from Bayt Far who deviated from Shalih and his companions, saying that Mount Gerizim is as holy as if the Samaritan temple were [still] standing upon it and that while one was obligated to do what was written [in the Law of Moses] he need not do what was not possible for him.” His community apparently “invoked him by the name mentioned [in the report of Shalih] above, i.e. the Mediator and agreed with [Shalih] about abolishing … the rule of “Moses commanded for us a Law” [Deut 33:4] Now if anyone bothers to think about matters here they will immediately realize that in order to understand the report properly we have to come to terms with the surviving Jewish attitude towards the Law. Of course on the one hand Zadoq is said to have argued that “people only fulfill as much of the Law as possible.” The fact is that once the temple was destroyed it was impossible to complete the whole six hundred and thirteen commandments of Moses. As such no one could do them all even if they tried. As such Zadoq’s attitude was necessarily “like our own.” Yet at the same time there is something different that existing Samaritan and Jewish belief with regards to the community’s interest in “another god” – the mediator – which we might liken to “the Word” of the Christian experience. Of course what I want the reader to see for once is that when the religion of the temple was finally ended we can’t ignore that a chain of events occurred (which no one seems intent on uncovering any more) which led to our current orthodoxies. Justus/Zadoq was the first step in our direction i.e. the seeming self-contradictory position that the temple was destroyed, the Law was still in force but where “doing less than all of the commandments” was still somehow accounted as righteousness. In order to make sense of this silly position (and how we can see generations of Jews, Samaritans and even Christians now) wrestle with the idea of doing “some” of the Law we will have to uncover more about its earliest known advocate – i.e. Justus/Zadoq. Jerome provides us with the essential fusion of Hellenistic and Hebrew traditions which is at the heart of the age noting "Justus of Tiberias of the province Galilee also attempted to write a History of Jewish affairs and certain brief Commentaries on the Scriptures, but Josephus convicts him of falsehood. It is known that he wrote at the same time as Josephus himself." This is one side of his intellectual “personality,” the other comes from Diogenes Laertes who that Justus the Sadducee was also a significant authority on Plato writing that "Justus of Tiberias, in his book entitled The Wreath, says that in the course of the trial Plato mounted the platform and began, "Though I am the youngest, Men of Athens, of all who have risen to address you—", whereupon the jurymen shouted, "Get down! Get down!" The significance of this cannot be overstated. The Sadducees have long been identified as a “Hellenizing” community in Israel. At the same time ancient witnesses as early as Celsus accuse Christianity of essentially fusing Platonism and Judaism and which can be argued to have been demonstrated in later Church Fathers like Origen. So what am I saying? That Justus/Zadoq almost perfectly embodies the essence of the messianic tradition associated with Marcus Julius Agrippa – i.e. an “enlightened” Judaism entirely compatible with pagan philosophers. The concept is already hinted at in writers like Philo of Alexandria but now fully developed as it were in a new syncretic form. Indeed Philo is understood by Eusebius to have witnessed the development of early Christian “monasteries of Mark” sprouting up in Egypt. This concept of a new “Jewish messianic philosophy” being promulgated to Hebrews can be more fully developed when we see that our Justus/ must be one and the same with the invented Catholic personage of "Justin Martyr." I know scholars follow the lead of Catholic authorities who claim that "Justin" was someone else who lived at the middle of the second century A.D. (i.e. the very time that the new orthodoxy was being formed). However I will counter that the parallels are too obvious and irrefutable to deny that all that "Justin" amounts to being is one of many false Catholic "inventions" to obscure the truth of the birth of Christianity in the years after the destruction of the temple (the invention of Justus/Joseph bar Saba is another. In order to get at the heart of the The parallels are enumerated here for the reader to determine on his own namely: a) Jerome identifies "Justin" as "Justus" in some manuscriptsb) Justus is identified as "son of Pistis" in Josephus; Justin is "son of Priscus" in the Catholic tradition c) Justus is brought into the Flavian house by Marcus Julius Agrippa; Justin's full name is "Flavius Justinius" (compare his opponent renaming as Flavius Josephus) d) Justus is a philosopher who comments on scripture; Justin is identified as the first philosophic theologian" (Schaff 2:p 712) who had "acquired considerable classical and philosophical culture before his conversion" (ibid p. 715) e) Justus is a Galilean i.e. a resident of Tiberias and a participant in the new syncretic religion there; Justin is a Galilean (i.e. the early term for Christians see Galen) f) Justin’s Dialogue was originally directed against R. Tarphon (and not an otherwise unknown Jewish rabbi named “Typho” who lived at the time of Justus (i.e. late first century/early second century A.D.) making it impossible to ascribe it to the time Catholics now claim i.e. 150 A.D. Indeed I might want to also put on that list the obvious underlying Samaritan undercurrent to both men – i.e. while Justus’ religious affiliation is unclear but he uses Samaritan lines of proof for his master Marcus Agrippa (see below) and the testimony of Abul Fath which seems to identify him as “Justus Saba”; Justin on the other hand was known in Catholic circles as a Samaritan who recognized the Christ who appeared at the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet before we get into all of these discussions about Justus/Zadok’s place in the Samaritan tradition we should pay even more careful attention to the testimony of the Karaites. While most people don’t know very much about either tradition, it is best to define the Karaites in the most general terms as Jews who rejected the authority of the Talmud of John ha Nappah. What is of course most interesting here is that they themselves are founded by yet another “John-figure” i.e. “Anan” in the eighth century A.D. What is useful about the Karaite testimony about Zadok is that the tenth-century Karaite polemicist Ya`qub al-Qirqisani in his Kitab al-anwar makes special note of a certain Zadok who at the end of the Second Temple era is described as “an early opponent of the Rabbanites (i.e., Pharisees) and credits him with the production of ‘books’ wherein he challenged their interpretive positions.” Whatever the case maybe the basic Karaite position emerges that Zadok represents a pre-cursor to Anan the founder of the Karaites own war against the rabbinic tradition. As Pines develops an understanding of Qirqisani’s testimony regarding certain Qaraites (qawm min al-qara'in) where [a]ccording to this group, Jesus was a pious man, whose teaching was similar to that of Zadoq and to that of 'Anan, the founder of the Qaraite sect. The Rabbanites sought to kill him as they sought to kill 'Anan, succeeding in the first case and. failing in the second. Immediately afterwards Qirqisani states that Christian religion as it is now (al-an) was founded by Paul, who taught the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus and dispensed altogether with legal commandments. The understanding I think begins the process of tieing together the figures of Justus the Galilean, Justin the Samaritan Christian, Zadok the Jew and Zadok the Dosithean as all “pieces” of one and the same person.

The field remains my greatest area of expertise - Most of the surviving words of the founder of Samaritanism Marqeh son of Titus can be so classified. Also Irenaeus AFG ch 13f and Pseduo-Tertullian 5 “After these there were not wanting a Marcus … composing a novel heresy out of the Greek alphabet. For they affirm that without those letters truth cannot be found; nay more, that in those letters the whole plenitude and perfection of truth is comprised; for this was why Christ said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega." In fact, they say that Jesus Christ descended, that is, that the dove came down on Jesus; and, since the dove is styled by the Greek name peristera/-(peristera), it has in itself this number DCCCI. These men run through their W, Y, X F U, T-through the whole alphabet, indeed, up to A and B-and compute ogdoads and decads. So we may grant it useless and idle to recount all their trifles. What, however, must be allowed not merely vain, but likewise dangerous, is this: they feign a second God, beside the Creator; they affirm that Christ was not in the substance of flesh; they say there is to be no resurrection of the flesh.

# © 2006 by World Star International Inc. Marcus Julius Agrippa Jr.