|
The Scripture
quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible,
PLUTARCH'S PARABLE LUX GOSPEL AND THE AXE OF THE APOSTLE By Copyright Gott, 2004, Highlandville, Missouri
"Pythagoras, it seems, was greatly admired,
Plutarch Introduction to Of Isis and Osiris
FOREWORD I wrote this book because of something I discovered just as I was wrapping up Gabriel's Gift, my previous book. I realized that what I'd found might be even more newsworthy than the secret story that I'd discovered in Luke's Gospel. The hidden message that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had children, after all, has been circulating for centuries. And other authors had offered various forms of proof that it was true, although none had used the Holy Bible, alone, as I had, to do so. But uncovering Luke's real identity has never, to my knowledge, been successfully accomplished, and to do that, I thought, would truly be "a first." When I started work on Plutarch's Parable, I knew I could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Plutarch was the author of Luke-Acts. I had no idea -- absolutely no idea -- what other mysteries would be solved -- again inadvertently -- as a result of the research to prove Plutarch was Luke. It is my sincere desire that everyone who reads Plutarch's Parable will experience the Love and Compassion the heroes and heroines felt for us as they did their work. For some readers there might be a moment of fear -- fear of losing any hope of retaining deeply held convictions. But if that begins to happen, if fear of losing something dear creeps into your mind, take a moment of silence to permit the amazing experience of Their reassurance to enter your heart. Although it may at first seem disturbing, what you're about to learn is quite freeing: "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free." That was his promise. The Truth frees all of us to finally admit that somehow, some way, we just knew there was something wrong with what we'd been told to believe without question. The Creator gave us brains -- and minds with which to explore the wondrous Universe. Blind faith stifles curiosity, and without curiosity, there can be no great discoveries. Blind unquestioning faith is the prison door that Jesus came to throw open. It was the superstitions keeping people oppressed that he sought to destroy. He had discovered the Truth, and the Source of the Truth. He had found Moses' secret doctrine and the glorious knowledge it contained. He wanted to share that knowledge with the world, even if it might cost him his life to do so. He knew that knowledge is Power. Let your curiosity lead you as you explore this exciting and renewing discovery of our Hero and Heroine as they really were. May you read this true story in the Peace, the Love and the Light with which they sent it to you. And may it bring into your life the Freedom from oppression and falsehood He promised to deliver to all people. Pax Amo Lux **** THE MAGIC NUMBER FOR LIGHT About three years ago I was rereading Luke's gospel and came upon the story of Anna the prophetess (Luke 2:36). I was struck by the strangeness of that story and began to wonder what in the world a woman was permitted to do in a Jewish temple ceremony in Jerusalem at the time Jesus was born. I decided to do some research and write a short article about what I found. But I immediately ran into a problem: I couldn't get past Anna's age: 84. Why in the world did Luke find it necessary to report her age? It just wasn't critical to the story. I had been studying "Sacred Numbers" and the various manipulations permitted by Plato and Pythagoras to solve their puzzles. And that may have been the reason I had an urge to multiply Anna's age by pi (22/7). The answer was 264. And by a sheer coincidence I had just finished reading a book by Bruce Cathie, The Energy Grid, in which he quoted Buckminister Fuller's work on DNA/RNA behaviors pertaining to the "birth process," and what is known as "the birth unzipping angle."1 "The Birth Unzipping Angle of the DNA/RNA behaviors" is 26,400 seconds of arc, a "harmonic" of 264.2 So what I discovered in Anna's age was a "harmonic" of the "birth unzipping angle," described by Buckminister Fuller (which corresponds with the Watson-Crick model) and quoted by Bruce Cathie. (Evidence of knowledge of DNA in ancient times is discussed in the Notes section following this chapter.) 4 Notice the "coincidence" here: Fuller's birth unzipping angle, and Luke's story of the ceremony surrounding the birth of Jesus are "harmonics": 264; 26,400. Coincidence? Maybe. There was only one way to find out, and that was to see if any of the other numbers scattered throughout Luke's gospel also revealed similar "coincidences." That was the beginning of a research project into the numbers to see if this "birth harmonics coincidence" was just a fluke, or if there was something everyone had missed for over two thousand years. What happened next changed my life forever. I went to chapter one to look for more numbers. There are only five scattered throughout the eighty verses in chapter one: 5, 6, 6, 3, 8. (These numbers can be found in the context of the biblical verses at the end of this chapter. 3 ) I had an urge to multiply the numbers in chapter one: 5 x 6 x 6 x 3 x 8 = 4320. I immediately recognized that number from my study of "Sacred Numbers." I knew it was considered "sacred" for this reason: Divide 4320 by 2 to get the diameter of the moon (2,160 miles); multiply 432,000 by 2 to get the diameter of the sun (864,000 miles); square 432 (432 x 432) to get the speed of light (186,624 miles per second). One number, 432, with and/or without one or more zeros, and applying just one mathematical function, reveals the diameter of the "night light" (the moon), the diameter of the day light (the sun) and light itself (the speed of light). I learned from research for writing this book that there are other equally significant meanings applied to 432. Those come later. Luke means light; Lux was the goddess of Light in ancient mythology, and there is evidence that a group associated with the sect of the Nazarenes referred to themselves as The Children of Light. There is also evidence that the Nazarenes were one of the groups that later became better known as the "Church-denigrated" gnostics. Gnostic simply means knowledge, and the knowledge these Nazarene Gnostics possessed was scientific and astronomical. These numbers that Luke threw out right off the bat in chapter one led to, and supports, the foundation of this work: Luke hid the Truth in coded numbers and words -- parables -- and anyone who seeks to know the truth must be willing to look for it by decoding Luke's puzzle clues. Luke wrote a great mystery novel, based on historical events, but a mystery nevertheless. And the 432 code is just one example of the evidence presented in my previous book, Gabriel's Gift: The Message and Mysteries in Luke and Acts, and this book, that suggests there is more to the stories than meets the eye. "Those with ears to hear and eyes to see" will quickly recognize there is indeed much, much more. Studied in light of this realization, Luke's opening paragraphs in both his works, Luke and Acts, provide far more information than appears on the surface: Luke 1:1-4: "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed." (Emphasis added.) Acts 1:1-2: "In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. Many have wondered who Theophilus might have been. Once I prove that Luke-Acts contain coded messages, it will become clear that Theophilus is a code word that addresses you and me and anyone else who loves the study of religion. Theo is Greek for things religious (theology), and philus is Greek for love. By addressing his two books to Theophilus, Luke followed the tradition best explained and demonstrated by Philo of Alexandria. Philo has been credited with laying the foundation for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East. He died c. 50 ACE, and his essays are among the earliest Judeo-Christian texts written. One of his major contributions was setting down guidelines for reading and interpreting biblical texts on a literal and allegorical level. (All quotes below come from www.jewishencyclopedia.com): "Hence Philo addresses himself to the initiated among his audience, by whom he expects to be really comprehended." (Luke left no doubt in his introductions -- he was speaking to the initiated readers whom he addressed as Theophilus.) "Philo bases his hermeneutics on the assumption of a twofold meaning in the Bible, the literal and the allegorical . . . but the allegorical sense is the real one, which only the initiated comprehend." Philo "wrote the book" for recognizing biblical allegories in order to separate them from the literal. He advised looking for statements that are "senseless, contradictory, or inadmissible . . . or in which allegorical expressions are used for the avowed purpose of drawing the reader's attention to the fact that the literal sense is to be disregarded." (Emphasis added.) "There are . . . special rules that not only direct the reader to recognize the passages which demand an allegorical interpretation, but help the initiated to find the correct and intended meaning. These passages are such as contain: (1) the doubling of a phrase; (2) an apparently superfluous expression in the text; (Gott note: Example, Anna's age.) (3) the repetition of statements previously made; (4) a change of phraseology . . . (5) An entirely different meaning may also be found by a different combination of the words, disregarding the ordinarily accepted division of the sentence in question into phrases and clauses. (6) the synonyms must be carefully studied . . . (7) A play upon words must be utilized for finding a deeper meaning . . . (8) A definite allegorical sense may be gathered from certain particles, adverbs, prepositions, etc., and in certain cases it can be gathered even from . . . (9) the part of a word . . . (10) Every word must be explained in all its meanings, in order that different interpretations may be found. (11) The skillful interpreter may make slight changes in a word, following the rabbinical rule, 'Read not so, but so' . . . Philo, therefore, changed accents, breathings., etc., in Greek words. (12) Any peculiarity in a phrase justifies the assumption that some special meaning is intended . . . Details regarding the form of words are very important: (13) the number of the word, if it shows any peculiarity in the singular or the plural: the tense of the verb, etc., (14) the gender of the noun; (15) the presence of omission of the article; (16) the artificial interpretation of a single expression; (17) the position of the verses of a passage; (18) peculiar verse-combinations; (19) noteworthy omissions; (Gott note: similarly, too much information or erroneous information.) (20) striking statements; (21) numeral symbolism. Philo found much material for this symbolism in the Old Testament, and he developed it more thoroughly according to the methods of the Pythagoreans and Stoics." You will discover that several of these devices were employed by Luke in order to tell the "hidden story." In addition, when he placed Angels, Holy Spirits, or just plain Spirits in a scene, something very important was about to be transmitted. It almost seemed as if Luke was working from a copy of Philo's "Rules" for transmitting information to the initiated. What cannot be denied, as will be demonstrated, is that the "twofold meaning of the Bible" was very much in his mind as he composed Luke-Acts. One of the most important things to be discovered as we follow the trail of bread crumbs laid out by Luke is his true identity. He made it impossible for anyone who found the coded messages not to also discover his real name -- or at least the name by which he became famous. When I started, that was the primary focus of this work because Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus wanted the world to know not only the Truth, but he also wanted the world to know the truth about who wrote Luke-Acts. So he left fingerprints all over both texts and provided matching prints in virtually all of his other works, as well. And then he built a library! This is a story of constant surprises and new discoveries about Jesus, his life, his work, and his family. The hidden stories confirm many ancient Christian traditions, while it dispels others. What it reveals about the Apostle Paul may come as a shock, considering that two thousand years of religious history has said that Luke was one of Paul's faithful traveling companions. That turns out to be false, and the proof is in Luke's Acts of the Apostles. Church leaders may be able to oppose Dan Brown's, The DaVinci Code, by repeating over and over, "It's fiction." They may be able to belittle Laurence Gardner's claims in, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, as the imaginations of a madman. But how can they dispute Luke-Acts as "fiction" or "the work of a madman"? They've already invested too many years and too many lives proving that the scriptures are "The Word of God." What Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus has done, using the pseudonym, Luke (also a shortened version of his adopted first name), is to confirm both Gardner's and Brown's underlying theme: Jesus married, fathered children, and offered The Nazarene Way of Life to all the oppressed people of his time and of subsequent times. And modern Christianity, based almost entirely on the letters of Paul, has very little in common with The Nazarene Way of Life that Jesus and his disciples disseminated. But Luke's real identity and proof of the marriage and children wasn't the big news I thought it would be when I set out to report it. By the time I finished the research, all that had been eclipsed by the most shocking news of all time. However, it is absolutely necessary that the preliminary steps, laid out in the early chapters, be taken first, for without following the path of evidence, the conclusion is too unbelievable to accept. CHAPTER ONE FOOTNOTES 1 Bruce Cathie's quotation and explanation from Buckminister Fuller's work on DNA/RNA Behaviors and the "Birth Unzipping Angle": " . . . five tetrahedra, triple bonded to one another around a common edge axis fall short of 360 degrees by 7 degrees, 20 minutes. This gap is called the birth unzipping angle of the DNA/RNA behaviors. The unzipping occurring as the birth dichotomy, the new life breaking off from the old pattern with the perfect imprint and repeating the other's growth pattern." (Bruce Cathie, The Energy Grid, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1997, (ISBN 0-932813-44-5) p. 163.) Cathie then explains that 7 degrees, 20 minutes equal 26,400 seconds of arc. For the non-mathematical, such as myself, that determination comes from the measurement of circles by dividing them into "degrees," "minutes," and "seconds" of arc. To convert "degrees" and "minutes" to "seconds" in this case: 7 degrees x 60 minutes x 60 seconds = 25,200 seconds of arc in 7 degrees. 20 minutes x 60 seconds = 1,200 seconds of arc in 20 minutes. Adding the two together reveals the number of seconds of arc in 7 degrees, 20 minutes: 25,200 + 1,200 = 26,400 seconds of arc. 2 Cathie and others have described and explained "sacred numbers" and "harmonics" of numbers. Other examples of numbers that are "harmonics" of 264 and 26,400 are: 26.4, .00264, 264,000,000, etc. In other words, harmonics are numbers that have, as a foundation, a sequence of numbers that match. Zeros can be added to the left or right, and the decimal point can be moved to the left or right. Ancient philosophers and sages, such as Pythagoras, Plato, and other founders and teachers of mystery schools, taught and played with certain numbers that they declared to be "sacred," and "harmonics" were important in the puzzles and exercises they gave to their students. 3 Luke 1:24: "After those days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she remained in seclusion." 3 Luke 1:27: "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth . . ." 3 Luke 1:36: "And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren." 3 Luke 1:56: "And Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home." 3 Luke 1:59: "On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to name him Zechariah after his father." 4 Zechariah Sitchin, The Cosmic Code, suggests that knowledge of DNA existed in ancient times: Page 101: "The withheld knowledge, Marduk pointed out, was the secret of resurrecting the dead; that secret knowledge was imparted by Enki to Maraduk's brother, Ningishzidda/Thoth, but not to Marduk/Ra. "That secret knowledge, those powers granted to Thoth/Ningishzidda, found expression in Mesopotamian art and worship by depicting him by or with the symbol of the Entwined Serpents . . . A symbol that we have identified as a representation of the double helix DNA . . . a symbol that has survived to our time as the emblem of medicine and healing." Sitchen reviews the ancient myth of Isis and Osiris to introduce more of the history of DNA knowledge, p. 106: "Isis appealed to Thoth, the Keeper of the Divine Secrets, to help her. Extracting the 'essence' of Osiris from the dead god's available parts, Thoth helped Isis impregnate herself and give birth to a son, Horus. "The 'essence' (not 'seed'!), we now know, was what we nowadays call DNA -- the genetic nucleic acids that form chains on the chromosomes, chains that are arranged in base pairs in a double helix . . . At conception, when the male sperm enters the female egg, the entwined double helixes separate, and one strand from the male combines with one strand from the female to form a new double-helixed DNA for their offspring. It is thus essential not only to bring together the two double-helixed DNAs, but also to attain a separation -- an unwinding -- of the double strands, and then a recombining of only one strand from each source into the new entwined double-helixed DNA. "Pictorial depictions from ancient Egypt indicate that Thoth -- the son of Ptah/Enki -- was well aware of these biological-genetic processes and employed them in his genetic feats." That may seem like a bit of stretch, even with depictions that show entwined serpents that are, in appearance, similar to the double helix DNA strand. But another section either supports this conclusion or makes it even more bizarre. The following is a description of Gilgamesh, the Sumerian hero: Page 114: "He was . . . 'two-thirds divine because it was not his father but his mother who was a goddess, one of the female Anunnaki'." "Here, we believe, is the key to the puzzle of the succession rules and other emphasis on the mother. It is through her that an extra 'qualifying dose' was given to the hero or the heir (be it Anunnaki or patriarchal). "This seemed to make no sense even after the discovery, in 1953, of the double-helix structure of DNA and the understanding how the two strands unwind and separate so that only one strand from the female egg and one strand from the male sperm recombine, making the offspring a fifty-fifty image of its parents. Indeed, this understanding . . . defied the inexplicable claim of Gilgamesh to be two-thirds divine. "It was not until the 1980s that the ancient claims began to make sense. This came with the discovery that in addition to the DNA stored in the cells of both males and females in the double-helix structures on the chromosome stems, forming the cell's nucleus, there was another kind of DNA that floats in the cell outside the nucleus. Given the designation Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), it was found to be transmitted only from the mother as is, i.e. without splitting and recombining with any DNA from the male. "In other words, if the mother of Gilgamesh was a goddess, then he had indeed inherited both her half of the regular DNA plus her mtDNA, making him, as he had claimed, two-thirds divine. "It was this discovery of the existence and transmittal as is of mtDNA that has enabled scientists, from 1986 on, to trace the mtDNA in modern humans to an 'Eve' who had lived in Africa some 250,000 years ago." Sitchin provides much more -- far more complex explanations of DNA -- but this provides enough information to at least suggest that some of the hidden knowledge (gnosis), passed down through thousands of years in underground mystery schools, was quite advanced. **** BIOGRAPHIES "LUKE" I realized that Luke was a pseudonym for Plutarch just as I was wrapping up Gabriel's Gift. Since the discovery was inadvertent and not the purpose for writing that book, it received only nominal mention in it. I did realize, when I discovered that virtually all the characters who appeared in Acts were historical or mythological characters who had appeared in Plutarch's Parallel Lives, that I had been assigned another research and writing project. You're now reading the results of that assignment. Another clue that Plutarch was Luke was that his collection of works known as the Moralia contains teachings similar to those of Pythagoras and the Nazarenes and Essenes. The question was, could I support this deeply held "opinion" with data from other sources? And what about the two thousand year tradition that Luke was Paul's beloved physician? Before I could even begin to present convincing proof that Plutarch was Luke, I first had to determine if there was any real proof that he was a physician who traveled with Paul. All sources agree that the Church's position has long been that Luke's gospel was written by the person Paul named as the beloved physician at Colossians 4:14. Most people who have attempted to write a biographical history about Luke work under that assumption, and it is a deeply held conviction for most. But because Luke's gospel all but screams in protest to that tradition, I kept looking for something that might suggest the tradition was not based on any supportable facts. A most helpful web site, titled From Jesus to Christ: The Story of the Storytellers, can be found at www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/luke. It's a collection of essays by various biblical and religious scholars. The first essay is by Harold W. Attridge: The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School. It begins with the following: "Traditions report that Luke was a companion of Paul, a physician and therefore someone learned in Hellenistic literary and scientific culture. All of those are secondary traditions and most scholars view them as somewhat unreliable. What we can infer from the evidence of the Book of Acts and the third gospel is that the author was someone who was steeped in scripture, in the Septuagint, and who was aware of Hellenistic literary patterns, historiographical and novelistic. And these kinds of patterns certainly have an impact on his literary products." Attridge also reports that: "Luke was probably writing in the latter decades of the first century, probably in a thoroughly Hellenistic environment. Scholars speculate on whether the gospel was written in Antioch, which would have been a significant Hellenistic city, or in Asia Minor, in places like Ephesus or Smyrna. In either case, Luke would have been in touch with, and very heavily in dialogue with, Hellenistic culture broadly conceived." The same web site posted the following from an essay written by L. Michael White: Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin: "Luke's audience seems to be a much more cultured literary kind of audience. Luke's Greek is the highest quality in style of anything in the new testament. It reads more like a novel in the Greek tradition, rather than Mark's gospel, which has a kind of crude quality at times to the Greek grammar. So anyone on the street of a Greek city picking up Luke's gospel would have felt at home with it if they were able to read good Greek." White also notes: "Jesus in Luke's gospel comes across differently, he's much more like a philosophic teacher, kind of like Socrates: he's reasoned, he's dispassionate, he's a critic sometimes of society but he's certainly concerned about the way his teachings bear on society. And in the end he dies very much like Socrates. The death of Jesus in Luke's gospel is more like a martyr's death, it's much calmer, he goes inexorably to the cross, knowing that it is what must happen. Pilate isn't at fault at all. Pilate tries to get rid of the case by sending Jesus away to Herod ... Pilate isn't the enemy of Jesus, he isn't the bad guy. And once again this may reflect the kind of political concerns of Luke's gospel. Jesus also isn't a source of concern because he's not a kind of rebel figure now, rather he's a teacher, a philosopher, a social critic, a social reformer. He's a good member of the Greco-Roman world." According to Kenneth S. Wuest, Quotes About the Bible and History, www.bible-history.com/quotes/kenneth_s_wuest_1, taken from his book, Word studies in the Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 1979) pp..52-54: "Luke was a Greek, educated in the Greek schools, prepared for the medical practice which was held in high regard as a profession, and among the Greeks had attained to a place of eminence among the nations of the world. Greek doctors of medicine were in attendance upon many of the royal families of other nations. The Greeks were by nature and training, a race of creative thinkers who pursued their studies in a scientific manner. Their sense of what really constituted scientific accuracy and method in the recording of history was well developed." "The writings of Luke . . . demonstrates Luke's training as an historian." " . . . Luke arranges the facts of our Lord's life in historical order as they occurred. The other Gospels do not claim to do that." " . . . Luke had the historian's mind, a thing native to the educated Greek. Herodotus, the father of Greek history, exhibited the Greek determination to get at the truth no matter how much work it required . . . Sir William Ramsey said, 'I regard Luke as the greatest historian who has ever lived, save only Thucydides.' Thus we have no doubt but that Luke made a personal investigation of all the facts he had recorded. He interviewed every witness, visited every locality. If Mary was still alive, he, a doctor of medicine, investigated the story of the virgin birth by hearing from Mary's own lips. And as Professor John A. Scott, a great Greek scholar has said, 'You could not fool Doctor Luke.'" (Emphasis added.) So, even investigators who are clearly fundamentalist Christians, and who also believe the tradition that Luke was a physician, are forced to focus more on his "historian's mind" and Greek heritage than on his practice of medicine. There is simply no evidence that he practiced medicine except for Paul's reference to the beloved physician, and the fact that he was clearly quite well educated. The evidence is overwhelming, however, that he was a skilled writer, a historian, and a Greek, all of which describe Plutarch. Another web site has posted An Introduction to the New Testament by Richard Heard, (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1950), prepared for Religion-Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. (www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=531&C=553) "The tradition of Luke's authorship of the gospel remained undisputed till modern times, and can be traced back to the second half of the second century AD. An early prologue to the gospel survives, which was perhaps written to stress the genuineness of the full gospel against a garbled version which Marcion, a second century heretic, edited to propagate his own views. In this prologue are given a number of details about Luke which may well preserve much genuine tradition. 'Luke is a Syrian of Antioch, a doctor by profession, who was a disciple of apostles, and later followed Paul until his martyrdom. He served the Lord without distraction, unmarried, childless, and fell asleep at the age of 84 in Boeotia, full of the Holy Spirit.'" As stated in the article, it is known that this supplemental information about Luke was furnished almost a century after Luke wrote his gospel, and only after Marcion, described as a "second century heretic," became a significant competitor of the official Church. Marcion rejected the Old Testament and all gospels except Luke's, but he altered Luke's to exclude any reference to Old Testament texts. This prologue, then, was created by the official church to counter Marcion's competing religion. This hardly qualifies as proof that Luke was a physician, and it is pure conjecture that the tradition, " . . . may well preserve much genuine tradition." This tradition, though, has been adopted by many who repeat it without explanation of where and how it came to exist: "The reports of Luke's life after Paul's death are conflicting. Some early writers claim he was martyred, others say he lived a long life. Some say he preached in Greece, others in Gaul. The earliest tradition we have says that he died at Boeotia in 84 CE after settling in Greece to write his Gospel." (www.user.senet.com.au/~gwilym/Saint%20Luke) But buried in this tradition is a piece of information that is of immense importance to my hypothesis that Plutarch was Luke. Whoever created this description of Luke in the second half of the second century must have known that he wrote his gospel while residing in the province of Boeotia. And coincidentally, Plutarch's history includes the same province: " . . . Plutarch was probably born in 46 in the Boeotian town Chaeronea." (Note: Others offer 44 or 45 as his year of birth.) "In the 90's, Plutarch, who had seen much of the world, settled in his home town. When asked to explain his return to the province, he said that Chaeronea was in decline and that it would be even smaller if he did not settle there." (www.livius.org/pi-pm/plutarch/plutarch) Of course the province referred to here, Boeotia, is the very province in which church tradition says Luke settled to write his gospel! And the year of Luke's traditional death, 84 ACE (although contradicted by other sources), reminded me of Anna's age. My guess is that the church father who recognized what Plutarch had done, and realized that it was he who had written Luke-Acts, thought it might be clever to use Plutarch's "birth code number," 84, to allege his death in that year. After Plutarch settled back in Boeotia to live out his life where he was born, a library was built near the sanctuary in the holy city of Delphi, where he served as one of the two permanent priests: "In these years, a library was built near the sanctuary, and it is tempting to assume that Plutarch was behind this initiative." (www.livius.org/pi-pm/plutarch/plutarch.) I believe that would be a safe assumption; Plutarch accumulated all the ancient myths, plays, and stories, including his own, in one place so that people could read Luke-Acts and figure out exactly what the truth was, and also figure out who wrote them. The question, "Is there any real proof that Luke was a physician who traveled with Paul?" has, I think, been answered. All the church has to support the claim that Luke was Paul's physician comes from Paul's letter to the Colossians (4:14) and "church tradition," created decades, if not centuries, later. And the "traditions" surrounding Luke do not always agree. No real proof exists. Now I can set about to prove that Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus was Luke. "PLUTARCH" "Plutarch traveled widely, visiting central Greece, Sparta, Corinth, Patrae, Sardis, and Alexandria, but he made his normal residence at Chaeronea, where he held the chief magistracy and other municipal posts and directed a school with a wide curriculum in which philosophy, especially ethics, occupied the central place. "He maintained close links with the Academy at Athens (he possessed Athenian citizenship) and with Delphi, where, from about 95, he held a priesthood for life; he may have won Trajan's interest and support for the then-renewed vogue of the oracle . . . " . . . And perhaps enjoyed the acquaintance of the emperors Trajan and Hadrian." (www.crystalinks.com/plutarch) " . . . Plutarch's philosophy was eclectic, with borrowings from the Stoics, Pythagoreans, and Peripatetic (but not the Epicureans) grouped around a core of Platonism. His main interest was in ethics, though he developed a mystical side, especially in his later years; he reveals that he had been initiated into the mysteries of the cult of Dionysus, and both as a Platonist and as an initiate he believed in the immortality of the soul . . ." From www.livius.org/pi-pm/plutarch/plutarch: " . . . Plutarch was probably born in 46 in the Boeotian town Chaeronea. His parents were wealthy people, and after 67 (ACE), their son was able to study philosophy, rhetoric, and mathematics at the Platonist Academy of Athens. However, Plutarch never became a platonist puritan, but always remained open to influences from other philosophical schools, such as the Stoa and the school of Aristotle. It is likely that the young man was present when the Emperor Nero, who visited Greece at this time, declared the Greek towns to be free and autonomous. "Because Plutarch was a rich man, he became one of the leading citizens of Chaeronea and he is known to have represented his town on several occasions. For example, he visited the governor of Achaea, and traveled to Alexandria and Rome (several times). Again, this proves that he was a rich man. "Among his friends was Lucius Mestrius Florus, a consul during the reign of Vespasian, and Plutarch's guide during his visit to Bedriacum, where two important battles had been fought in 69, the year of the four emperors. Mestrius also secured the Roman citizenship for Plutarch, whose official name now became Mestrius Plutarchus. At the end of his life, he was honored with the procuratorship of Achaea, an important office that he probably held only in name. His involvement in the Roman world, although from a carefully maintained distance, explains why he shows so much interest in the history of Rome. "In the two first decades of the second century, he studied and wrote many books. According to an incomplete third-century catalogue, there were between 200 and 300 titles. These books brought him international fame, and the home of the famous author became a private school for young philosophers. He was often visited by Greeks and Romans, although not necessarily to study philosophy. The emperor Trajan may have been one of the visitors (winter 113/114?), and it may have been on this occasion that Trajan honored Plutarch with the ornaments of a consul, an important award. From now on, Plutarch was allowed to wear a golden ring and a white toga with a border made of purple. "Plutarch died after his procuratorship, which was in 119, and before 125 . . ." These various resources begin to paint pictures of Plutarch and Luke that contain an inordinate number of parallels: They were both city boys; both were wealthy; both were educated and had intimate knowledge about government and government positions. Both used the same unique phrases and words, and both used the same unique styles of writing. Only Luke mentions "Nazarenes" as being a "sect." And the traditions and teachings of Nazarenes, based on OT descriptions of "nazirites," describe the traditions and teachings of Pythagoras and Plato, both of whom Plutarch studied and imitated: he wore white, did not cut his hair, and was a vegetarian, among many other similarities.
**** ELPENOR AND EUTYCHUS The argument most often presented as "supporting documentation" that Luke traveled with Paul, and was the Luke described as the physician, is based in part on the way the Acts of the Apostles, Luke's second volume, was written. The argument for Luke as Paul's traveling companion is based on the change of voice from third person to first person that occurs at Acts 16:8-10. And it is this argument that provides a perfect segue into the first item of proof that Luke's gospel was actually written by Plutarch. An example of the typical argument that is based on the change of voice can be found at (www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=76): "We have to go to Acts to follow the trail of Luke's Christian ministry. We know nothing about his conversion but looking at the language of Acts we can see where he joined Saint Paul. The story of the Acts is written in the third person, as an historian recording facts, up until the sixteenth chapter. In Acts 16:8-9 we hear of Paul's company 'So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying, 'Come over to Macedonia and help us.' Then suddenly in 16:10 'they' becomes 'we': 'When he had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia, being convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them. "So Luke first joined Paul's company at Troas at about the year 51 and accompanied him into Macedonia . . . Luke then switches back to the third person which seems to indicate he was not thrown into prison with Paul and that when Paul left Philippi Luke stayed behind to encourage the Church there. In Acts 20:5, the switch to 'we' tells us that Luke has left Philippi to rejoin Paul in Troas in 58 where they first met up." But this frequently cited "proof" that Luke was Paul's traveling companion has been questioned by some biblical scholars, specifically those who also study ancient epics and Greek mythology. Some serious theologians have noted the similarities between Luke's Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12) and Homer's Elpenor in the Odyssey. An excellent example of this discovery can be found in an essay titled, Luke's Eutychus and Homer's Elpenor: Acts 20:7-12 and Odyssey 10-12, by Dennis R. MacDonald, published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, 1 (Fall 1994), pp. 4-24, Copyright @Institute for Higher Critical Studies, 1996. I found this article during one of my searches using Luke and Plutarch as key words at www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/mcdonald: "Homer's Odysseus speaks: 'There was one, Elpenor, the youngest of all, not over valiant in war nor sound of understanding, who had laid him down apart from his comrades in the sacred house of Circe, seeking the cool air, for he was heavy with wine. He heard the noise and the bustle of his comrades as they moved about, and suddenly sprang up, and forgot to go to the long ladder that he might come down again, but fell headlong from the roof, and his neck was broken away from the spine, and his spirit went down to the house of Hades. (Odyssey 10.552-60).'" Note the similarities apparent in Luke's story about Eutychus: Acts 20:8-12 : "There were many lamps in the room upstairs where we were meeting. A young man named Eutychus, who was sitting in the window, began to sink off into a deep sleep while Paul talked still longer. Overcome by sleep, he fell to the ground three floors below and was picked up dead. But Paul went down, and bending over him took him in his arms, and said, 'Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.' Then Paul went upstairs, and after he had broken bread and eaten, he continued to converse with them until dawn; then he left. Meanwhile they had taken the boy away alive and were not a little comforted." MacDonald notes: "Because of his strategic location immediately prior to, at the beginning of, and immediately following one of Homer's most memorable and controversial episodes, Elpenor became an ancient household word, even in Christian households. Clement of Alexandria, writing at the end of the second century cited the example of Elpenor's fall in order to discourage drunkenness and assumed that his readers would recognize the tale: 'just as Elpenor 'broke his neck' (Odyssey 10.560) when he fell down because he was drunk.'" (Emphasis added.) In other words, Luke would have been quite aware that all educated Greeks, and most educated Christians, would see the similarities between Eutychus and Elpenor. He wasn't plagiarizing out of laziness; he plagiarized in order to attract attention and raise questions in the minds of those who read his gospel. When a writer is creating a mystery novel, the clues must be strategically placed to help the reader solve the riddle! It becomes clear later that Luke placed numerous clues throughout Luke-Acts. MacDonald: "L. Mestrius Plutarchus (c. 50-120CE), Luke's contemporary, wrote two stories about young men who visited the netherworld; the one most relevant to Eutychus is that of Thespesius. . . " (Emphasis added.) Here we have a noted biblical scholar pointing to the similarities between one of Plutarch's characters and one of Luke's. MacDonald then demonstrates the similarities between Plutarch's Thespesius and Homer's Elpenor. What MacDonald has done, then, is to show how the stories of Homer's Elpenor, Plutarch's Thespesius, and Luke's Eutychus all tell the same story, using different names. Plutarch and Luke, of course, would have used Homer's Odyssey as their pattern. MacDonald's comparison of the Odyssey, 10-12, and Acts, 20:7-12, is most intriguing: 1. Odyssey 10-12: Odysseus and crew leave Troy and sail back to Achaea. Acts 20:7-12: Paul and crew stop at Troy, having left Achaea to sail back to Jerusalem. 2. Odyssey 10-12: First person plural (most of book 10). Acts 20:7-12: First person plural (20:1-8). (Gott note: these were switches from third person to first person.) 3. Odyssey 10-12: After a sojourn, a meal (10.466-77). Acts: 20:7-12: After a sojourn, a meal (20:6,7,11). 4. Odyssey 10-12: Circe's 'dark halls' (10.479.) Acts: 20:7-12: There were plenty of lamps in the upper room (20:8). 5. Odyssey 10-12: 'sweet sleep (glukon upnon, 10.548). Acts 20:7-12: 'deep sleep' (upno bathei, 20:9). 6. Odyssey 10-12: Switch to third person (10.552). Acts 20:7-12: Switch to third person (20:9). 7. Odyssey 10-12: There was one, Elpenor, the youngest of all lying on the roof (10.552). Acts 20:7-12: A certain young man named Eutychus was seated at a window (20:9). 8. Odyssey 10-12: Elpenor fell from a roof (10.559-11.64). Acts 20:7-12: Eutychus fell from the third story (20:9). 9. Odyssey 10-12: Elpenor's soul (psuche) goes to Hades (10.560-11.65). Acts 20:7-12: Eutychus's soul (psuche) stays in him (20:10). 10. Odyssey 10-12: Delay in burying Elpenor until dawn of the next day (12.1-15). Acts 20:7-12: Delay in raising Eutychus until dawn of the next day (20:11). 11. Odyssey 10-12: Associates fetch the body 12.10). Acts 20:7-12: Associates revive the body (20:12). "The parallels between these stories are more lexical, more detailed, and more sequential than the rewritings of the Elpenor story by Plato, Plutarch, Virgil, and Apuleius discussed earlier. "The literary critic Gerard Genette would call Luke's manipulation of the Elpenor story a 'hypertextual transvaluation,' a common literary strategy for replacing the values or perspectives of an earlier, targeted text (the 'hypotext') with alternative values or perspectives. For such a strategy to succeed, the hypertext must display, even if obscurely, its relationship to the hypotext. Obviously, the strategy has not succeeded with modern readers of Acts; no previous study of the text has suggested this relationship. Furthermore, evidence of ancient readings provide little encouragement that they understood the Homeric background either." (Emphasis added.) "On the other hand, two additional aspects of the story in Acts indicate that Luke advertised its Homeric hypertextuality, even though his readers failed to perceive it: The location of the story in Troas and the name Eutychus. "Troas, of course, is ancient Troy. To be sure, the city of Troy during Luke's day was not precisely on the location of the ancient city, but it was nearby, and the two were repeatedly identified with each other. No educated ancient would have been numb to Troy's rich mythological and Homeric associations, including the nostos of Odysseus and Elpenor back to Achaea from the Troad. By placing the story of Eutychus in Troy, Luke seems to be hinting that one should read it in light of Troy's legacy." (MacDonald's comment about the name, Eutychus, was that Homer's Elpenor described a young man who was very "unlucky," and Eutychus means "Lucky.") This writer suggests, then, that Luke wrote this story fully intending that the readers associate it with stories of ancient Troy. And he made the change in voice from third person to first, and back again, just as Homer had done in Odyssey, and at the very same point in the clearly similar stories. And if that was Luke's purpose here, it seems obvious that he intended to do the same with the other references to historical, mythical, and fictional characters scattered throughout Acts. Luke used stories and myths that were well known to the people of the time. And although others have noted that he used this technique, the real purpose behind it has been overlooked. Within the various stories, most of which can be easily associated with a historical event, a mythical or fictional character or a well-known location, is a coded message. It says, "The stories being told by other Christian narratives are not true. The doctrine being taught is not Jesus' doctrine. Herein lies the truth. Read Homer, Euripedes, Aratus, Tiresias, Epimenides. Read Plutarch!!!" MacDonald adds additional support: "Because of the popularity of Odysseus's visit to the netherworld in Odysseus Book 11, the famous nekyia, Luke could assume that his more educated readers would have recognized the similarities between the stories. (Emphasis added. The addressee's name, Theophilus, makes more sense already.) "If the hypothesis advanced here is correct -- namely, that the story in Acts 20:7-12 is a hypertextual transvaluation of Homer's Elpenor -- it bears weighty implications for our understanding of Acts as a whole. First, Luke apparently expected his primary audience (Theophilus, say) to have been sufficiently aware of The Odyssey in order to decode the Eutychus story as a clever transformation of a classical tale. Luke was writing for a sophisticated reader. "Second, other passages of Acts, especially other we-passages, may also play off against the Homeric epics or other Greek mythology. For example, the story of Paul and Silas dragged off to prison for exorcising a slave girl and their subsequent prison break has parallels in 'The Bacchae' of Euripides. Tiresias' prophecy to Odysseus concerning his death might compare with Agabus's prophecy to Paul about his death. One also must not overlook the famous shipwreck scene in Acts 27-28 and the story of the serpent at Malta. Odysseus too faces dreadful monsters on islands and outlives them. "Third, if the story of Elpenor lies behind that of Eutychus, it would add support to those who suggest that Acts ought not be read as an historical record but as an historical novel. One misses the point in the Eutychus tale if one insists that Luke intended the reader to view it as an historical event." (Emphasis added.) The third implication is where in my humble opinion everyone has gone wrong. Fundamental Christians believe Luke-Acts are accurate historical and literal records of events during the early days of Christianity. Intellectual agnostic scholars claim the works are completely fictional in content and have nothing to do with historical events. I propose another hypothesis: The exoteric stories are parables, written as historical novels and never intended to describe historical events; the esoteric messages, however, are historical records of historical events. The events that had actually occurred contradicted the government-supported church doctrine and church history. All references to the historical events, therefore, were being suppressed. The stories in Luke-Acts are a blend of ancient history-based tales, popular myths, and popular classical literature, and Luke used them to convey the historical truth about what had happened to Jesus and his message, called The Nazarene Way. The associations to other stories popular at the time, and the content of the associated texts, told the real story of Jesus and what had happened to him. And they also told the story of what was happening to the descendants of Jesus' and his faithful disciples at the time these two books addressed to Theophilus were written. Additional parallels can be found in Plutarch's stories and Luke-Acts. From The Life of Numa by Plutarch: "There the chief of the augurs turned the veiled head of Numa towards the south, while he himself, standing behind him, and laying the right hand on his head, prayed aloud, and turned his eyes in all directions to observe whatever birds or other omens might be sent from the gods. Then an incredible silence fell upon the vast multitude in the forum, who watched in eager suspense for the issue, until at last auspicious birds appeared and approached the scene on the right. Then Numa put on his royal robes and went down from the citadel to the multitude, where he was received with glad cries of welcome as the most pious of men and most beloved of the gods." Compare that scene to this one from Luke 3:21: "Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." The "entrance" of Jesus into his ministry is accompanied by birds and his anointing as "Beloved of God." Numa's "entrance" to serve his people is also accompanied by birds and he is described as the "most beloved of the gods." An essay on The Baptism and Geneaolgy of Jesus, found at a web site titled, bible.org, Trustworthy Bible Study Resources, provides collaborating commentary: www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1013: "To Greco-Roman hearers of Luke's narrative this would evoke echoes of the Roman use of the flight of birds of omen to discern the decrees of fate. For example, Plutarch in describing how Numa was chosen king after Romulus tells how Numa insisted that before he assumed the kingship his authority must first be ratified by heaven . . . In such a thought-world the Lukan narrative would be viewed as an omen of Jesus' status." Additional correlation can be found in Romulus by Plutarch, when he describes what occurred at Romulus' death: " . . . strange and unaccountable disorders and alterations took place in the air; the face of the sun was darkened, and the day turned into night, and that, too, no quiet, peaceable night, but with terrible thunderings, and boisterous winds from all quarters; during which the common people dispersed and fled, but the senators kept close together. The tempest being over and the light breaking out, when the people gathered again, they missed and inquired for their king; the senators suffered them not to search, or busy themselves about the matter, but commanded them to honor and worship Romulus as one taken up to the gods, and about to be to them, in the place of a good prince, now a propitious god. The multitude, hearing this, went away believing and rejoicing in hopes of good things from him; but there were some, who, canvassing the matter in a hostile temper, accused and aspersed the patricians, as men that persuaded the people to believe ridiculous tales, when they themselves were the murderers of the king." Luke 23:44-48: "It came now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, while the sun's light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.' Having said this, he breathed his last. When the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God and said, 'Certainly this man was innocent.' And when all the crowds who had gathered there for this spectacle saw what had taken place, they returned home, beating their breasts." Luke 24:51: "While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy; and they were continually in the temple blessing God." Acts 1:9: "When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight." These are exit scenes as Romulus and Jesus leave the earth. Plutarch and Luke write of a darkened sun, Romulus and Jesus were both "taken up" and "became . . . god." The crowds that had gathered in both scenes "went away" and "rejoiced." And then there's this from Plutarch's Romulus: "Things being in this disorder, one, they say, of the patricians, of noble family and approved good character, and a faithful and familiar friend of Romulus himself, having come with him from Alba, Julius Proculus by name, presented himself in the forum; and, taking a most sacred oath, protested before them all, that, as he was traveling on the road, he had seen Romulus coming to meet him, looking taller and comelier than ever, dressed in shining and flaming armour; and he, being afrighted at the apparition, said, 'Why, O king, or for what purpose have you abandoned us to unjust and wicked surmises, and the whole city to bereavement and endless sorrow?' and that he made answer, 'It pleased the gods O Proculus, that we, who came from them, should remain so long a time amongst men as we did; and having built a city to be the greatest in the world for empire and glory, should again return to heaven. But farewell; and tell the Romans, that, by the exercise of temperance and fortitude, they shall attain the height of human power; we will be to you the propitious god Quirinus.'" (Emphasis added.) Luke 24:13-16: "Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, but their eyes were kept from recognizing him." Luke 24:31-49: "Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. They said to each other, 'Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?' That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. They were saying, 'The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!' Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of bread. "While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. He said to them, 'Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.' And when he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, 'Have you anything here to eat?' They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their presence. "Then he said to them, 'These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you -- that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high." And of course Jesus, as did Romulus, then returned to heaven. Plutarch described a resurrected Romulus, seen by a friend and former traveling companion on a road who was "afrighted"; Luke described a resurrected Jesus, first seen on a road by two disciples who had traveled with him. They were "startled and terrified," and Jesus asked, "Why are you frightened?" Both Jesus and Romulus explained that they had come from heaven and were returning to heaven. Both writers used dialogue to bring these scenes to life, providing an addition similarity between the stories. Two web sites offer in-depth examinations of Luke's unique writing style and exclusive use of certain words. Both name Plutarch as one with which to compare the words and style found in Luke-Acts. I did not quote them here because they are difficult to read. But for the ultra-skeptic, they add more scholarly evidence. You will find them at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/newbooklets/lukespirit.dochttp://www.ccel.org/r/robertson_at/wordpictures/htm/LU5.RWP Although neither author intentionally connected the person of Luke with the person of Plutarch, their analysis of Luke's unique words and writing style, comparing it with Plutarch's, accomplished it just the same. There are dozens of references to character and city names which can be associated with stories and poetry being circulated at the time Luke-Acts were written, and most of the names and places were also subjects Plutarch wrote about extensively at the very same time! Who but Plutarch would have had access to all the stories he was writing at the very same time Luke's gospel is said to have been penned? And the geographical location -- the province -- where "church tradition" says Luke wrote his gospel is the very same province in which Plutarch lived when he wrote the vast majority of his histories and biographies! Luke-Acts are historical novels, and they contain clues to puzzles Theophilus was supposed to solve. Both the history and the mystery were written so that the stories with which they could be associated revealed the truth about what was happening at the time. Theophilus should be able to solve the puzzles hidden within the gospel stories. This is no longer a small pile of evidence. A very large mound has been created, and there's still more to come! **** THE LEGACY OF TROY The verses that precede the story of Eutychus also refer to the "legacy of Troy," and one of the characters named bears careful scrutiny. But in order to find that character, it's necessary to seek out the modern Bible translations taken from the oldest available texts, rather than those that are mere re-translations of the King James Version: Acts 20:4-6: "He was accompanied by Sopater of Beroea, the son of Pyrrhus, . . . these went ahead and were waiting for us at Troas; but we sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we joined them in Troas, where we stayed for seven days." The early translators did a strange thing with the name, Pyrrhus: They omitted it! And the King James Version did the same. The omission of this one name was crucial to subverting Luke's plan. Who was Pyrrhus to the Greeks? This is a most fascinating character, and his importance in solving the riddle becomes evident very quickly: Pyrrhus, The Fool of Hope, (319-272 BCE) was a story Plutarch wrote and titled at about the same time Luke's gospel was being penned. The text from which the following excerpts were taken can be found at www.e-classics.com/pyrrhus. " . . . Pyrrhus joined up with Demetrius, the husband of his sister . . ." "Pyrrhus also sent some agents, who pretended to be Macedonians. These spies spread the suggestion that now the time had come to be liberated from the harsh rule of Demetrius by joining Pyrrhus, who was a gracious friend of soldiers." "And so without fighting, Pyrrhus became King of Macedonia (286 BC)." The kings of Epirus were said to have been descended from Pyrrhus (who was also known as Neoptolemus) who was the son of Achilles, the famous Greek warrior of the Trojan War. Pyrrhus and Alexander were said to be worthy descendants of Achilles. Another tidbit about Pyrrhus is of great importance, and it's probably the reason his name was expunged from early biblical texts: He was one of the soldiers who hid inside the Trojan horse. And that is the best-known legacy from the legend of Troy. It's what everyone thinks of when Troy and the Trojan War are mentioned. The name Pyrrhus was inserted here in Luke's gospel in the same sentence as Troas to direct the reader to the legend of the Trojan Horse. Plutarch would have written Pyrrhus, The Fool of Hope after the early churches had begun using Paul's epistles as their "gospel." Plutarch wrote about this Fool of Hope to alert Theophilus to the truth about Paul, knowing that some would eventually see the parallel he had drawn between Pyrrhus and Paul. Here are some excerpts from one of Paul's letters that supports this astonishing claim: 2 Corinthians 13:11: "I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these superlative apostles, even though I am nothing." Also notable here is the underlying purpose behind Paul's writing of this letter: he was trying to set the record straight about his status among Jesus' apostles. It seems that the Corinthians considered Paul to be inferior to the Apostles and their doctrine, and he was offended. Paul also refers to himself as a fool at 2 Corinthians 11:16-29: "I repeat, let no one think that I am a fool; but if you do, then accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. What I am saying in regard to this boastful confidence, I am saying not with the Lord's authority, but as a fool; since many boast according to human standards, I will also boast. For you gladly put up with fools, being wise yourselves! For you put up with it when someone makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or gives you a slap in the face. To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! "But whatever any dares to boast of -- I am speaking as a fool -- I also dare to boast of that. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman -- I am a better one: with far greater labors, far more imprisonment's, with countless floggings, and often near death." Luke has Paul say, Acts 23:6: " . . . I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead." Paul speaks again, Acts 24:15: "I have a hope in God -- a hope that they themselves also accept . . ." Paul again, Acts 26:6-7: " . . . I stand here on trial on account of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship day and night. It is for this hope, your Excellency, that I am accused by Jews!" And again, Acts 28:20: " . . . it is for the sake of the hope of Israel . . ." Quite a lot of effort seems to have gone into connecting Paul to Pyrrhus. Paul called himself a fool in a ranting essay to the Corinthians that sounds as if it came from the mind and mouth of a mad man, and he says so himself. Luke also has Paul speak of "hope" repeatedly in a relatively small space in Acts. More than any other of the coded messages, it seems that Luke wanted to convey the message that learning about Pyrrhus will reveal the truth about Paul -- and also the truth about himself and who he really was. He couldn't write an essay called Paul: The Spy Who Pretended to be an Apostle of Jesus Who Infiltrated the Movement and Destroyed It from Inside. That essay would have been destroyed by the early church leaders supporting Paul. So he did the next best thing. He associated Paul with Pyrrhus in such a way that the connection could not be missed. No wonder the name Pyrrhus was removed from some of the translations of the Bible. Any fool could pick up on the message because virtually everyone knew that Pyrrhus hid inside the Trojan Horse! It was fortunate that some texts were salvaged, saved, and passed on through time. Otherwise, this story could not be told even today. It can be proved that the name Pyrrhus was removed from Luke's gospel -- texts more ancient than those from which the King James Version was translated confirm that at one time it was included in the story. I propose the name was removed because it was just too easily recognized as creating an association between the spy in the wooden horse and Paul. It might have been removed at the same time the anti-Marconian church leaders created the "history" of Luke in the "second half of the second century," reported in chapter one. Doesn't it seem reasonable to suspect that Luke's name was added to Paul's epistles at the same time, identifying him as "the beloved physician"? It was clear even then that the gospel had been written by an educated Greek, and physicians of the time represented the elite of the educated class. If it's known that Luke's "history and biography" was invented long after he wrote the gospel, then isn't it probable that Paul's epistles were doctored (pun intended!) to complete the deception? Luke is named in three of Paul's letters: Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 1994, provides the following commentary, introducing 1 Timothy: "The two letters to Timothy and the one to Titus . . . are similar in character and in the problems they raise concerning authorship. It is difficult to ascribe them in their present form to the apostle Paul. The vocabulary and style of these letters differ widely from the acknowledged letters of Paul . . . In view of the widespread custom in antiquity of pseudonymous authorship (that is, the use of a respected name to give authority to a writing actually written by someone else), it is easier to assume that a loyal disciple of Paul composed these letters." The same source provides the following in the introduction to Philemon: " . . . Since most of those who are greeted at the end of the letter are also mentioned in the close of Colossians, it is probable that the two letters were written at nearly the same time, if Paul was the author of Colossians, or that the author of Colossians had Philemon at hand, if Paul was not the author (see Introduction to Colossians.)" The Introduction to Colossians reports that some biblical scholars doubt that Paul wrote Colossians, suspecting that it was actually a "disciple of Paul shortly after his time, to give Paul's authority to the continuing tradition of his teaching." It is at Colossians 4:14 that Luke is called physician: "Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas greet you." Not only is Luke named in the closing, just as most of Paul's "coworkers" are named in closings, but biblical scholars are divided as to whether Paul even wrote these letters. Even if he did write them, the "Correctores" under the direction of the Church bishops certainly could have added the names in the closing verses in order to agree with the characters Luke placed with Paul in Acts. Who were these "Correctores"? In their introduction to the New Testament, the editors of The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 1994, reveal the following about biblical changes made in translations: "At other times alterations were deliberately made; for example . . . (to) harmonize differing accounts in the Synoptic Gospels. Thus, not only inadvertence but also well-intentioned efforts resulted in the creation of thousands of divergencies among the manuscripts of the New Testament. "Among the relatively few variants that involve the essential meaning of the text, modern scholars are usually able to determine with more or less probability what the original text was. In deciding among the variant readings scholars usually give preference to those that are preserved in the older manuscripts . . ." "Another scribal tendency was the harmonization of divergent accounts. In general, the reading is preferred that best explains the rise of the other readings." (Emphasis added.) What's suggested here is this: If the scribes, under the direction of their bishops, noticed that Luke named people who were traveling with Paul, but Paul didn't mention them, especially if those names could be associated with ancient myths about gods and goddesses, they would have harmonized Paul's letters to match Luke's stories by adding those names. The early church leaders were determined to separate their religion from the pagan religions that still competed in the early years. Luke's secret gospel was probably discovered by the early church fathers. They would have been quite familiar with Homer's Odyssey and other ancient plays and myths that Luke copied. And since other texts, Gnostic and deemed heretical, told the same story Luke had hidden in his gospel, it was much easier for them to identify what he had managed to do -- get those stories into a gospel that had already become popular among the earliest Christian converts. Luke's gospel had already spread throughout Greece and beyond. And only Acts told the story of Paul's travels. It would have been a simple matter to just add all the names to Paul's letters that Luke had scattered throughout Acts as clues to solving the riddle. They just tacked the names on to the end of the letters as "greetings from . . ."
****
MacDonald's essay referenced similarities between stories in Acts and The Bacchae by Euripides, and this, of course, piqued my curiosity. (Euripides was reported as being one of Plutarch's favorite poets and dramatists.) I looked it up on the Internet: www.4literature.net/Euripides/Bacchae/. There were a couple of other things in Bacchae that seem to apply here: The main character is Dionysus, son of Zeus. Zeus is actually named in Acts, as well as Dionysius: Acts 13:11: "And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices saying in Lycaonian, 'The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!' Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, because he was the chief speaker, they called Hermes." Acts 17:34: "But some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them." First Barnabas, Paul's companion, is called Zeus. Then Dionysius becomes another of Paul's companions. Twice Acts refers the educated reader to myths about Zeus, and specifically to the story of Dionysus in Bacchae by Euripides. What can Bacchae tell us about Paul? Bacchae's Cadmus speaks words which are of great importance: "Even though he is no god, as you assert, still say he is; be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, that she may be thought the mother of a god and we and all our race gain honor." In the very early years of Christianity, there was a great debate and a great division between two opposing factions fighting for dominance. One side, represented by those later labeled Gnostics: Nazarenes, Essenes, Pythagoreans, and others, said Jesus was a spiritually evolved teacher. The other side, Paul's supporters, claimed that Jesus was a god -- the God, in fact. It's clear which faction won out and which faction the church would eventually label heretics. Later in the story Dionysus is bound and thrown into a stall; he describes the events: Dionysus: "Meantime came the Bacchic god and made the house quake . . ." Luke 16:26: ". . . and suddenly there was a great earthquake . . . " Dionysus: " . . . and thinking maybe that I had escaped, rushed into the palace with his murderous sword unsheathed." Luke 16:27: " . . . he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped . . ." Later Dionysus speaks to Pentheus: " . . . you are so eager to see what is forbidden, and to show your zeal in an unworthy cause, come before the palace, let me see you clad as a woman . . . to spy upon your own mother and her company." Dionysus, again to Pentheus: "You shall hide in the place that fate appoints, coming by stealth to spy upon the Bacchanals." Another of Plutarch's characters shows up at Acts 28:11: "Now in the neighborhood of that place were lands belonging to the leading man of the island, named Publius, who received us and entertained us hospitably for three days. It so happened that the father of Publius lay sick in bed with fever and dysentery. Paul visited him and cured him by praying and putting his hands on him. After this happened, the rest of the people on the island who had diseases also came and were cured. They bestowed many honors on us, and when we were about to sail, they put on board all the provisions we needed." Who is Publius? An Internet search turned up a web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Clodius_Pulcher: " . . . according to Plutarch (Cicero, 29), he (Publius) rendered Cicero every assistance and acted as one of his bodyguards." Both Luke's and Plutarch's Publius was described as helpful and hospitable. "The affair of the mysteries of the Bona Dea, however, caused a breach between Clodius and Cicero in December 62. Clodius, dressed as a woman (men were not admitted to the mysteries), entered the house of Caesar (then pontifex maximus), where the mysteries were being celebrated, in order to carry on an intrigue with Pompeia Sulla, Caesar's wife. He was detected and brought to trial, but escaped condemnation by bribing the jury." Son of a gun! Publius, like Bacchae's Pentheus, is another spy dressed as a woman and sneaking into the religious ceremonies of women. And he appears in a gospel frequently referred to by modern biblical scholars as "The feminist gospel," and/or a gospel that is "sensitive to women." There are many web sites that present essays and arguments supporting this suggestion. Some examples:
With so many references to stories about spies infiltrating and attacking mystery religions practiced by women, Luke's secret message begins to show through the transparent stories about Paul's exploits. The Pythagoreans and Platonists co |