What Happened At Masada?

What Happened At Masada?
(Roman Piso, 05-29-2017)

[An Extremely Important Paper: Please Share This Worldwide]

This paper explains why it is now necessary to use the Roman creation of Christianity as our baseline standard in the study of the New Testament and ancient history beginning at that period.


There are so many areas which need to be studied when it comes to the First and Second Centuries of the Common Era, and so much more to learn about that time in history. If you read this paper and still wonder about various parts of it, it may mean that you need to do some reading to get caught up to where some of us already are.

Many within academia, for instance, still do not realize that when they are talking about the Jews of the time, they need to know exactly which ‘Jews’ they need to identify according to time, place and sect. This is important to better know what was being said by those recording both the Jewish historic material (i.e., the Talmud; ‘Flavius Josephus’ was not an actual ‘Jew’, but a Roman of Jewish descent).

This paper was written from the larger overview of an actual war going on at the time, instead of the view of isolated or sporadic Jewish “revolts”. For more information about it being an actual long-standing war, read my other papers that cover the issue. A lot of material that that is necessary in order to uncover the fact of a genuine all-out war between the Romans and Jews can be deduced from items in the works of Flavius Josephus, various Roman authors, the Talmud, and the work of scholars such as Sir Ronald Syme, Joseph Neusner, and Abelard Reuchlin.

But, of course, you would have to read be at a level of study-ability that would allow you to know just what it is that you are reading. It is preferred that you know how to read the ancient texts involved in the original languages, using primary source documents and/or materials. When it comes to Classical material, the Loeb Classical Library edition is highly recommended. What must be known to reveal the truth about this long all-out war is that it did not begin with a disagreement between the Romans and Jews; it began with a split between the Jewish sects.

The Romans were called into an already on-going war between the leaders of Jewish sects, by the side that had begun to lose that war. Knowing that it was a long, all-out war, instead of just a few ‘revolts’ changes the context and complexion of many statements about the subject. And that is what makes knowing this essential. The Romans did not want the public to know that it was an actual war, for good reason. Thus, they, the Roman historians of the time (and even later), made it appear that the Jews were simply trouble-makers.

Section I

There are a lot of things which have been assumed about what happened at Masada, the last Jewish outpost to fall during the battles between the Romans and the Jews in the revolt between 66-74 C.E. Some people have assumed that the Jewish forces were just exhausted and that the last of the Jewish forces were stationed at Masada and that when they were gone, that put an end to the battles of that revolt. [I]

Others take the view that there just had to be an end to the battles (of the First Century) at some point, and that was it. But even so, as we have learned, there is usually some reason even then which causes a battle or revolt to end; even if it IS the fact that all (or most) of those who were rebelling were finally killed. This was not the case here. And still others, have wondered about why the Jews at Masada decided to end their lives there by suicide. And, they have speculated about a number of other things. [II]

But this is what the evidence seems to point towards from what I know about it. I think that some of the Jewish leaders at the time may have made a deal with the Romans; an exchange. It appears to me that some certain Romans desired the capture, and death of the Jewish commander Eleazar ben Yair. And, perhaps, even some of the other military men with him. So much so, that they may have made an offer to the other Jewish leaders in order to obtain these men. [III]

What I think was offered these certain Jewish leaders (namely, Gamaliel II and those with him), was at least two or three things, perhaps more. Such as, a) a school at Yavneh, where they would not be bothered by the Romans, and b) an ‘amicable’ end to the war, and possibly, c) an offer of money, or regular funding, or perhaps only supplies, for the school. [IV]

They may also have made an offer to allow the Jews to continue to maintain commerce unmolested, and therefore, raise money to sustain themselves with. The Jews of the time were known to have derived income from agricultural commerce (some of which, they had used towards funding for the war). In addition, it may have even been that Gamaliel II had profited personally from this bargain. I say this because Gamaliel II and his descendants are known to have been wealthy men. [V]

It may well seem to some that such a ‘bargain’ between the Jews at Masada and the Romans who had them trapped there, would be unthinkable. But, they well knew that certain individuals among them were essential and would have to survive if there were any hope for the Jews in the future. Thus, a sacrifice of this type may well have been necessary. [VI]

Now, I ask that you please bear in mind that as you read this, that as I was examining this particular time period in the war, that I have done so with a knowledge of an overall view of the war or with the larger picture of it in mind. Thus, I am putting this into a context that few others at this point in time could even consider. It is for this very reason that I give the information that I do; to allow other researchers to better fill in the blanks or gaps in their knowledge of the subject. My aim is to help to bring academia into the 21st Century at a better pace than at present; thereby, enabling the world itself to do the same. [VII]

There appears to have been genuine hatred shown on the part of Arrius Calpurnius Piso writing as Flavius Josephus, for Eleazar (note various spellings of ‘Eleazar’, such as ‘Eliezar’) ben Yair. This is something that I will have to discuss at length. But for now, I shall continue to tell you what I think had really happened at Masada. Think about this, and you will understand why. [VIII]

Eleazar ben Yair and all others at Masada were not rescued, no attempt was made by the rest of the Jewish forces to save them or even to distract the Romans or to defend them in any way. When Eleazar ben Yair and his men, as experienced military men, saw that time had passed and there was absolutely no effort on the part of their comrades to come to their rescue, they must have realized and understood that they were being sacrificed by the rest of the Jewish forces, and thereby, also that they were doomed. [IX]

What could they do then? Surrender? Fight the Romans to the death anyway? Or, do something which would help explain what actually happened? These were intelligent people and they knew that future generations would wonder about what had happened there. They chose to make a statement to the world by committing suicide. I had wondered why it was that this very strange thing had occurred. It does not make sense that these very brave people would choose to take their own lives rather than to at least use themselves to take out at least some of the Roman forces which surrounded them, unless, they NEEDED to let the world know that something extraordinary happened there. [X]

It should be noted that to make precise determinations about what had actually happened, one must be very familiar with all of the variables, data sources and facts. There is much more to this which still needs to be examined and explained, including things of which I am already familiar. For instance, I would like to point out the fact that Eleazar ben Yair was ridiculed in the New Testament (see Abelard Reuchln’s ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’) and also in the works of Flavius Josephus. And, while we see Eleazar ben Yair being ridiculed by these authors, we see Gamaliel being honored! He is honored by the Romans (or at least by certain Roman authors). But, he is called a particularly unpleasant name by the Jews themselves! Now, isn’t this becoming very interesting? [XI]

Section II

Let’s examine Gamaliel in the New Testament. The Gamaliel in Acts 5:34 is put into the story in the time of Peter (aka Arrius Piso) and the apostles. The NT says that Gamaliel was a teacher of the Law (the Jewish Torah) and in a position of authority (in the Sanhedrin) at a time AFTER the revolt or uprising of Theudas (The Pharisee), in Acts 5:36. And that next, after the revolt of Theudas (The Pharisee), another one was started by Judas The Galilean (i.e., Judas of Galilee), in the days of the ‘registration’ (e.g., the Census). [XII]

It is this Gamaliel whom the authors of the New Testament make obliging of the apostles (and therefore, pro-Roman, at least to some extent). The authors make or have him say (Acts 5:38), “And now I say unto you (fellow Jews), withdraw from these men, and them them be; for, if this counsel or this (their/our) work be from (ordinary/common) men it will (indeed) be overthrown. (Acts 5:39) But, if from God* it be, you (as ordinary/common) men are (surely) not able to overthrow it** (‘IT’, being Christianity), (and) also (do this) lest (as) fighters*** against God you are found (to be).”****

*What this means here when they say “if from God it be” is that if it comes from the “God-way.” Which is to say, to those who know what the “God-way” is, is the “royal way.” The true meaning of these statements cannot be known to people who have not learned about the true nature of ancient literature; ALL ancient literature, biblical and non-biblical. And that is that it was all written by royals. One must keep this in mind at all times as no common person (or non-royal) was allowed to write any work for public consumption. By the way, the authors of the NT also referred to Arrius Piso as the God of the New Testament. That is, he inherited the name/title from his royal ancestors. This is explained further in other papers.

**How do we know that the ‘it’ in this passage refers to Christianity? Because the sentence makes no sense otherwise. Here it is again, “IF this counsel or this (OUR) work [meaning the Jewish work of that time, the Talmud] be from (common) men it will (indeed/certainly) be overthrown (destroyed). But, if from God (the God-way, or ‘royal way’) it (the work) be, you (as common) men are (surely) not able to overthrow IT.” Why would they, the Jews, want to overthrow their OWN work? They would not. So, the IT there refers to the ‘work’ that they DID want to overthrow, the New Testament and Christianity!

***Here, the emphasis is put on them as Jews, being ‘freedom’ fighters or rebels against the God-way; “(and) also (do this),” that is, “leave the ‘apostles’ alone.” The ‘apostles’, of course, being those who were creating and promoting Christianity. The passage is saying that this Gamaliel was telling the Jews to let the Romans who were creating Christianity, alone – and to stop rebelling against them.

****And, in addition to what was already said in the passage, it ends by saying what the consequences will be if they (the Jews) do not do as they were advised, and that is that they will be found or discovered to be fighters against God or the ‘God-way’ (the royal way). In other words, if they go against the royal way they will end up losing their royal status and become “common people”, and if that happens, they will certainly have no chance, no way at all to EVER rid the world of Christianity. But, as it was, if they cooperated, they would be the people who were chosen to disclose the truth about Christianity (at some point in the future) to the world through their work, the Talmud. This is putting the question to them, do they really want to take a chance on losing that? So, the Jewish leaders really were put into a difficult situation.

This, my work, is now doing that very thing – revealing this to the world. Now that this information is available to everyone, it is time for the Jews of our time to get on board with this and spread the news; the truth about Christianity is now revealed to the world! As is also the truth about how the Jews had fought to try to prevent it in a very long, all-out war that lasted over 100 years and at a cost of many, many thousands of Jewish lives, if not millions. We need to shine a spotlight on this and make this known. There were Jewish heroes of that war that deserve to be known and remembered. They were the ‘good guys’; the “Allies” of that war. [XIII]

Continuing with our examination of Gamaliel, we find the authors of the New Testament making mention of a Gamaliel once more, this time, in Acts 22:3. And they have him as a contemporary of ‘Paul’. Which, is a rather interesting thing. This is because the character ‘Paul’ is set in the story during the time around 50 C.E. (A.D.). And thus, during the reign of Claudius and Nero. [XIV]

Yet, the actual individual who was playing the part of ‘Paul’ was living at a later date. In fact, he was Pliny The Younger and contemporary of Gamaliel II. ‘Paul’, in Acts 22:3 says, “Indeed, I am a man, a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, having been instructed (“by him” inferred) according to [the] exactness of the ancestral (Jewish) Law, being a zealous one for God (read: “the ‘God’ way”, or the NT God, aka Arrius Piso), even as all of YOU are this (very) day.” [XV]

So, if ‘Paul’ here is really being played by Pliny The Younger, and if he WAS taught by this Gamaliel (in any way, shape or form), then THIS Gamaliel could not be Gamaliel I; thus, this is a way of saying that this Gamaliel being spoken of is Gamaliel II. And, it is also a way of “honoring” him in this great, monumental literary work of theirs, the New Testament. But WHY? [XVI]

Section III

Now that we have examined Gamaliel, let’s take a look at Eleazar ben Yair in the works of the time. I had mentioned that there was some ridicule of Eleazar ben Yair in said texts. I said that some of this ridicule could be found in the works of the individual writing as Flavius Josephus. Those of us who have researched the subject extensively realize that ‘Flavius Josephus’ was only a pen name of a person whose real name was Arrius Calpurnius Piso – and, that he was in reality, a Roman. Arrius Calpurnius Piso, was a Roman general who had been fighting battles against the Jews (Pharisees) and who had been dealt with by the Jewish commander Eleazar ben Yair in those battles. [XVII]

It wasn’t just Arrius Piso himself who wanted revenge upon Eleazar ben Yair, but also his family and friends. In our other works, we have identified Arrius Piso, his family, friends and others who were on his side in this war, as the ‘Axis’ of that war. Meaning that they are likened to Hitler and those on his side in World War II. Only Arrius Piso and his royal relatives won that war. Which is why we have Christianity today. And, why so many people have died because of it ever since (wars, crusades, inquisitions, etc.). [XVIII]

Writing as Flavius Josephus, Arrius Piso displayed his hatred (and perhaps, a bit of frustration or angst) towards Eleazar ben Yair by having him (fictionally) cast out demons from people “in the presence of (the emperor) Vespasian, his sons, and the whole multitude of his soldiers” (Ref. ‘The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus’, Whiston translation, ‘Antiquities of the Jews’, page 173). [XIX]

The reason for his doing this, is to make Eleazar ben Yair appear to be acting as a fool in front of all the other royals, who understood the truth of the matter. And what is even more amazing is that on top of being so bold as to do this, knowing that eventually, one day, this would be discovered, is the fact that they even insert a reference to this very passage in the New Testament itself! [XX]

In Luke 9:49, they managed to slip in a rather sneaky little reference to the ridicule of Eleazar ben Yair in the works of Flavius Josephus were he is made to cast out demons (like a fool), into this gospel saying, “And answering, John said, “Master (‘Jesus’), we saw SOMEONE (who was) casting out demons in your (inherited) name (as a God, Christ, or messiah),* and we forbade him (to be with us), because he follows with us not.”**

*He is saying that he is acting like HIM, as if HE were ‘Jesus’ (the Christ, or messiah) because he was casting out demons like the NT Jesus did. They made him do something like ‘Jesus’ would do, but they did not do so in an ‘honorable’ way – because he was not the same as THEY were. And, they were bragging about the power that they had in writing both gospels and histories, so as to make their enemies do whatever they wanted them to do, even if it in reality was just fiction.

**They did not him to be among them or with them, because he did not go along with what they were doing. And, the author ends by saying, “because he follows with us not.” This is because that was to put an emphasis upon the fact that Eleazar ben Yair was in fact DEAD at that time. Being dead, he could not follow or do what they were doing, even if he had to. In other words, the statement is like a warning to the other Jewish leaders and that was the same as is stated in Eccl. 9:4, “for, (being) a living dog is better than (being) a dead lion (i.e., ‘king’).” This is simply to say to them that it is better to be alive, than to be dead, like Eleazar ben Yair. And, this is also like saying “he follows with us not… and so, he is dead. Do you also want to be dead?”

Eleazar ben Yair, of course, by the time that Luke was written, was already long dead. And the authors of the passages that refer to him were using him as an example to put forth the message to the rest of the Jewish leaders who would rebel against Roman authority as he did. There was a lot of inference in these writings (as they could not write in a direct or forthright manner as then everyone would know what they were saying and doing), so in order to understand them correctly, you must first understand what was going on in the history of the time, as well as who the principle players were in that history. [XXI]

But once you do, it all comes to life and you can follow what actually happened, and as a consequence, you will find that you are correct when it all makes sense. As you will find as you continue to study, the authors of these anti-Semitic works were making jokes and ridiculing not only Eleazar ben Yair, but the other Jewish leaders as well; except for Gamaliel II. [XXII]

Section IV

In the gospels, Eleazar ben Yair was inserted (as ‘Jairus’, the Roman form of his name) in Mark 5:22, and in Luke 8:41. These two passages are very similar. Let’s examine these. Mark 5:22, “And behold, (here) comes one of the rulers of the synagogue (“of Satan” implied), by [the] name [of] Jairus (Yair), and seeing him (‘Jesus’), (Jairus/Yair) falls at his feet (acknowledging ‘Jesus’, aka Arrius Piso, as much greater than him).” This is a mocking, a ridiculing statement. It is a lot like saying, “Hey look!, here comes that big-shot, Mr. so and so; but as soon as he sees Arrius Piso, he KNOWS that he had better kneel on the ground and grovel for his life!” [XXIII]

And, Luke 8:41 says, “And behold!, a man came whose name [was] Jairus (Yair), and he was a ruler of the synagogue (of Satan)… and having fallen at the feet of Jesus…” Let’s examine this further. The word “behold” is like saying “look!” (where someone is may be pointing while saying it), with a feigned astonishment or emphasis, which can be an insincere or mocking word which makes the statement like this; “And, hey look!, here comes a BIG man! His name is Jair-us and he WAS a ruler of the synagogue (of Satan), but he is dead now! Ha, ha, ha!” [XXIV]

And what is also important to note here is that after saying that he was a ruler of the synagogue (of Satan) there is this phrase; “and having fallen at…” Why should this be worth noting? The word for “having fallen” is ‘peson’ in Greek, which is “Piso” (as ‘Peison’) with an ‘i’ left out, which disguises it so that it is not even seen by those who do not know what to look for. And the word ‘at’ is “para”. [XXV]

In the Royal Language (which you will also learn about in my other works), ‘para’ is seen as ‘papa’, which means ‘Father’ (of the bishops) or the Bishop of Rome, who was later to become known publicly as ‘Pope’. ‘Peter’ was the first bishop of Rome, as he was also the ‘papa’ (father of) Christianity. The ‘papa’ was also the head of the family. So, when a bishop of Rome died, or passed the position on to another, the title also passed to the next ‘father’ or head of the Christian Church. ‘Peter’ was in reality, Arrius Calpurnius Piso. [XXVI]

The succeeding ‘papas’ of the Church were as “God’s” (Arrius Piso’s) representatives on Earth, the bishop of Rome, then, was similar to the way in which ancient Egyptian Pharaohs were seen by his people, as a divine representative on Earth. And, also to be seen like a ‘god’ on Earth. The “papa” or (holy) ‘Father’ was the same as that which as Jesus, Arrius Piso was calling upon in the gospel story, his ‘Father’ who was ‘God’. And so, knowing this, we read this passage again; “And behold!, a man came whose name [was] Jairus, and he WAS a ruler of the synagogue (of Satan) [who is now dead], and Piso (is now) God! (of the New Testament)” [XXVII]

To further humiliate the Jewish leaders, the authors of the New Testament referred to them as ‘dogs’. This was particularly convenient because the word for a little dog in Greek is “kunarion,” which was another way of inserting Arrius Piso’s name into the NT, as “Ar(r)ion” [or ‘Arion’/’Apion’, which, is explained elsewhere, in my other works], such as found in Mark 7:27-28 and Matt. 15:26-27. Why did they call them ‘dogs’? [XXVIII]

Because the Jews who were starving in the city of Jerusalem were surrounded by the Romans who were deliberately starving them, were begging the Romans for something, anything, to eat. Even their scraps. And the Romans took advantage of this situation for their own enjoyment and entertainment. What they did was to give these starving people “bread” made with human fecal matter and the severed male sex organs from the Jewish men that had been captured. The Roman authors of the New Testament make inside jokes about this as well. More about that is contained in my other works. For now, we must stick to the subject at hand. [XXIX]

After the revolt of 66-74 C.E./A.D. was over, there appears to have been a deal made between the Romans and the Jews; even so, there were some Roman leaders who were resentful, and adverse to giving anything to the Jews. Thus, we find passages in the NT which reflect that, such as in Mark 7:28; “The little dogs (beggars) under the table eat of the crumbs of the children.” That is to say, the crumbs that BELONG to the children, are going to those who were not meant to have them. The creators of Christianity had difficulty getting it established. In fact, it was a flop for a very long time. [XXX]

And, also understanding the Royal Language we know that the word “children” (used here) is code for “Christians.” So, let’s read this again… “The little dogs (beggars/Jews) under the table eat of the crumbs of the [as in “given to”] the Christian believers.” Meaning that some of the ‘crumbs’ which were tossed to the Christians (who were important to them, for they would make more Christians), were getting to the ‘dogs’ (Jews) instead. The royal Roman creators of Christianity were trying to get the then new religion off the ground. Thus, they were tossing ‘crumbs’ to their new following (believers). [XXXI]

Matt. 15:27; “But answering, he said, “it is not good to take the bread of/from the children (Christians) and cast (give it) to the little dogs (Jews).” But she said, “yes, Lord; for even the little dogs (Jews) eat of the crumbs which fall from their master’s table.” This is saying a lot. This is stated to make it clear that the royal Romans were the masters, while the Jews (Pharisees and Scribes), were only as pet dogs, beggars who are happy to receive scraps from their master’s table! Now, you may be wondering why I brought up these lines about the authors of the New Testament thinking of the Jews as ‘dogs’ and what this has to do with Eleazar ben Yair, and thus, Masada. The answer is in the further ridiculing of Eleazar ben Yair in the New Testament. [XXXII]

Section V

Eleazar ben Yair is ridiculed in the New Testament as “Lazarus” (a form of [E]lezar[us], a Roman version of the name ‘Eleazar’). This is in Luke 16:19-21; (19) “Now there was a certain rich man (wealthy Roman) and he was clothed in purple (i.e., he was royalty) and fine linen, making good cheer daily in splendor. (20) And (then, by comparison), there was a certain poor man (Jew), by (the) name (of) Lazarus (meaning, Eleazar ben Yair, disguised by use of this name instead), who was laid at his porch being full of sores; (21) and desiring to be satisfied from (with) the crumbs which fell from the table of the rich man; but even the (other) dogs (that were) coming (to him) licked (of) his sores.” [XXXIII]

Now, both the Roman authors and the Jewish authors used the Royal Language. And, they used certain terms to designate whom they were talking about. In the Talmud, for instance, is found the use of the term “(a) certain man”, and then the reader, whether Inner-Circle or not (‘Inner-Circle’, meaning privy to the Royal Language and what was actually being said), is left to figure just which “certain man” is being talked about. The Roman authors were aware of what was being written in this manner in the Talmud; and thus, answered back in kind with similar statements in the New Testament, and visa versa. [XXXIV]

In Luke, they made Eleazar ben Yair appear to be as a leper and a poor man who was a sorry sight. And who, in his sad condition had to have others carry him to the porch of the rich man so that he could beg for scraps! In addition to this, the use of the word ‘sore’ here is instructive. In the Royal Language, the rules that were made for common people fall away and all words, no matter what language they were written in, relate to or correspond to each other, so that there is a larger possibility as to meaning. ‘Sore’ written in Greek (as in the New Testament) could also be seen as the same word in Hebrew, which is ‘yad’ and means ‘hand’. And so, the last line could be read as “even the (other) dogs (that were) coming to him, licked of his hand.” And the reason that this may be seen as a possibility is because the word ‘hand’, in turn, has an alternate meaning, which is phallic. Yes, it means the male sex organ. So, seeing it this way makes the line a bawdy joke. Which, was typical of Romans. [XXXV]

But the word ‘sore’ also has other meanings which could likewise fit here. It is most interesting to find that ‘sore’ as ‘ra’ in Hebrew means ‘evil’. But ‘sore’ could also mean a ‘smiting’ or striking blow as “makhah” in Hebrew. Or ‘sore’ as ‘great’, ‘much’ or ‘many’ as “saggi” in Hebrew becomes the equivalent of “Pollo” (as ‘Polus’ in Greek). And “Pollo” is a name shared through common ancestry by both the family of Arrius Piso and the Flavians. And also, ‘sore’ (with fright or fear) is “saar” (phonetically from “Elea-saar”) in Hebrew. [XXXVI]

We must also remember that words ran together in Greek and we must be on the lookout for words which were created by running words together as well. These authors were exceptionally intelligent and well educated. It would be a great task to match wits with such individuals, even today. And, in addition to being aware of what was being done with words and letters, we must also remember that the letters used in ancient languages were often ‘alpha-numeric’. That is, they were used both as letters and numbers. [XXXVII]

Below is a summarized chronology of different portions of the long war. This chronology is from my book, ‘The Synthesis Of Christianity’ (Copyright, Roman Piso, 2000).

‘The Jewish War Against Slavery’
[From the time of John Hyrcanus I (135 BCE) to the Diaspora (135 CE)]

The analysis of the entire war warrants many books to cover it completely, as it involves many individuals and events over the course of a very long period. For the sake of avoiding confusion and to allow those who wish to research this war in more detail, you will find the chronology of the long war divided into six sections that cover different parts of the war.

[1] John Hyrcanus to King Herod (135 BCE-4 BCE)
[2] Death of King Herod to Masada (4 BCE-73 CE)
[3] The ‘Quiet Years’ of Passive Resistance & Planning (74-114 CE)
[4] The Jewish Taking of Alexandria, Egypt (115-116 CE)
[5] The Jewish Offensive Preparations (117-131 CE)
[6] The Culmination of the War & the Diaspora (132-135 CE)

To better understand what was going on during each time period or each particular part of the war, first the researcher must determine and define just who the ‘Jews’ actually were at any given time and place within the historical records which have been left to us.


End statement.

Therefore, knowing what we now know, we MUST now examine the New Testament texts and the history of the time in THIS context. We must now also understand that what has only been seen as ‘revolts’ in the past, was due to short-sightedness and the fact that this war had been deliberately hidden from the non-royal public by the Roman authorities of the time (as well as later on).

The reason for that is that if the war had been made known, the motives for the war would also have been revealed. And as a consequence, the motives for the Roman creation of Christianity. This, of course, resulted in the inability for most researchers to see that there is a much larger picture here; that of a long, all-out war, in which the New Testament was created as a part of that war.



[I] There are some very good examinations of the revolt that involved Masada. See the work of Jacob Neusner.
[II] See Jabob Neusner’s book, ‘First Century Judaism In Crisis’.
[III] One of the main Roman generals at Masada was Arrius Piso, who was writing as Flavius Josephus. He had been through several battles. At the Pass of Beth Horon, he had been ambushed by the Jews (in 66 CE). His horse fell, and landed on him, crushing his leg. He lost that leg. When he rushed the palace while Vitellius was Emperor (in order to kill him), Vitellius managed to swing his sword at Arrius Piso’s head, in an attempt to decapitate him. Vitellius missed, but cut one of Arrius Piso’s ears off. So, by the time of Masada, Arrius Piso wanted revenge. After having killed Gamaliel I and his son, Jesus (Jesus ben Gamaliel), his main remaining enemy was Eleazar ben Yair. See my work for more details.
[IV] Gamaliel II was apparently offered a place of ‘honor’ in history, and was to appear favorably in the New Testament.
[V] One of the sources of income or commerce for the Jews of the time was in agriculture. It is known, for example, that they had generated income from raising crops of certain plants for which oil was produced. This may have been covered in some of Jabob Neusner’s work.
[VI] Arrius Calpurnius Piso, aka Flavius Josephus, was a genius when it came to military strategy. He well know the situation and perhaps, even knew of a rift between Gamaliel II and Eleazar ben Yair – one in which he could take advantage of. And, Gamaliel II and the rest of the Jews may have realized that it was better to “live to fight another day.” The evidence of that as a main motivator is in what happened afterward. Namely, that the Jews were relatively passive for years… until, they felt that they were ready to once again fight for their cause.
[VII] I see this paper and the rest of my work as a means of helping academia bring itself into the 21st Century, where it should be by now. Abelard Reuchlin was the first to give the actual names of the authors of the New Testament in a work that was made available to the public. See this paper:

Christianity Was Exposed By Abelard Reuchlin

[VIII] Knowing the alias or alternate names used by both Arrius Piso and Eleazar ben Yair, it is now possible to reconstruct a better understanding of the adversarial relationship between the two. We can, by this means, now enrich our knowledge of the people of the time and discover many new details.
[IX] They well knew what the Romans had done to those who were trapped within the walls of the city at Jerusalem – the Romans starved them out and made them suffer horribly. Those who were captured, were tortured in the worst ways possible. They knew what the Romans were going to do to them and decided it was better to take their lives by their own hands.
[X] Eleazar ben Yair must have known that Gamaliel II had made the decision to abandon them. He probably knew that (he may have been informed of it) Gamaliel II had made a deal with the Romans. He also knew that Arrius Piso was extremely desirous to get his hand on him in order to torture him mercilessly. And, Eleazar ben Yair decided that if it were in his power to do so, he would deny him that pleasure. Arrius Calpurnius Piso used many aliases, and had also used the name ‘Titus’ as that was a name that he had inherited from his Flavian ancestors (he had the same ancestry as Vespasian, Titus and Domitian). He was also aka Cestius Gallus and Gessius Florus. See Abelard Reuchlin’s work.
[XI] This is Gamaliel II. The Talmud has a few things to say about him, as well as Arrius Piso. All three of Arrius Piso’s names, ‘Arius’, ‘Calpurnius’, ‘Piso’ were inserted into the Talmud, but only the Inner-Circle knew where to find them. They did this just as Arrius Piso’s own son (Julius Piso) did while he was writing ‘The Revelation’.
[XII] The authors of the New Testament had set their stories in a different time from their own. They had ‘back-dated’ them. That was done for several reasons. One, was to make it more difficult to find out just who the authors really were; and two, it made it possible for them to give “fore-tellings” or prophesies in the NT, since in reality, they had already happened (such as the destruction of the Temple).
[XIII] See my work for more details and info. My papers may be found at Academia(dot)Edu, or in the Piso Project in WordPress. To do a web search, use these terms; Roman Piso Papers.
[XIV] The authors were deliberately trying to confuse and confound their non-royal readers by making it appear that they were talking about Gamaliel I instead of Gamaliel II. You will see examples of this throughout the NT. They play around with the time element, it is up to us researchers to find out where they were playing these tricks upon us.
[XV] See my work exposing Pliny The Younger as the NT ‘Paul’. Abelard Reuchlin was the first to write publicly about having discovered Pliny as Paul. Also, the Talmud helps with this as well.

On Corresponding Words Of Pliny & Paul’s Epistles

Pliny The Younger (aka the NT Paul) In The Talmud

[XVI] Pliny The Younger was born circa 62 CE. He died under the name ‘Maximus’ in 116 CE. See my paper, ‘Ancient Alias Names List (2017)’ which is posted in Academia(dot)Edu:

Ancient Alias Names List (2017)

[XVII] I have demonstrated the use of aliases in ancient times in many of my papers. One of the best papers (I think) that I have written on the topic is this one:

The True Context Of Ancient History & The Gordian Emperors

In addition, I have written over 35 papers which give the ancestry of as many popes (with genealogies demonstrated) – all with Arrius Calpurnius Piso as their common ancestor. That should prove that this is no coincidence. Arrius Piso was known in history as ‘Arrius Antoninus’, the grandfather of Emperor Antoninus Pius. Abelard Reuchlin’s ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’ had given an example of how to find alias names used in ancient times (pen names, etc.). His example showed that the Roman historian known as Tacitus, was aka Neratius Priscus. I wrote about that as well, as it appeared that it needed to be explained/demonstrated better than Reuchlin had done. See these papers:

Discovering Tacitus As Neratius Priscus

Descent Of Emperor Tacitus From Historian Tacitus

[XVIII] Arrius Piso’s descendants created a new Oligarchy of royals who became Roman Emperors, Popes, Kings and other rulers in the Roman Empire and in the Holy Roman Empire.

Understanding The Oligarchy [at Academia(dot)Edu]

Oligarchy And Ancient Genealogies

Napoleon Bonaparte & The Holy Roman Empire

[IXX] Romans were known to have been particularly cruel, loved to torture people and they had a bawdy sense of humor. Look for these things in the works of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament – you WILL find them there, I already have. See my book, ‘Piso Christ’.

Flavius Josephus aka Arrius Calpurnius Piso

Piso Christ: What Is The Book About?

Piso Christ: The Roman Piso Family Created Christianity.

[XX] This is done in Luke, the main author of which, was Arrius Piso:

Arrius Piso Authored The Gospel Of Luke

[XXI] The gospel of Luke was written circa 90-95 CE. It appears that it was mainly written by Arrius Piso. This would have been during the period when he was stationed in Pannonia (Bithynia, near Prusa) under emperor Domitian.

Arrius Piso And The Emperor Domitian

[XXII] The Essene leadership disbanded that sect and established a new one to replace it, the Scribes. That was in 6 CE. The leadership of the Sadducees were the Herodians (and the Hasmoneans were the previous leaders of the Sadducees). When the Herodian hierarchy fled to Rome before the attack of Judaea by the Romans (the Herodians were sent for by the Flavians, their own relatives), they left the Sadducean followers behind, to be slaughtered along with the Pharisees and Scribes in Jerusalem. Thus, the only ‘Jews’ left after the year 70 CE were the Pharisees and Scribes who had survived. The Sadducean sect had been abandoned.
[XXIII] Even in Mark, which was finished in its completed form in about 70 CE, the main author (Arrius Piso) was envisioning Eleazar ben Yair groveling at his feet, begging for mercy. If for evidence is found for it, this may well end up placing the dating of the finished Mark at about 73 CE, when Arrius Piso was imagining the capture of Eleazar ben Yair.
[XXIV] Luke was written after the death of Eleazar ben Yair. Thus, a slight difference may be seen between the statement in Mark and that in Luke. But again, why would this author say such a thing? It does give us even more cause to connect the author of Mark with the author of Luke; both were Arrius Piso – just written at different times.
[XXV] Though the authors of the New Testament texts called themselves names like ‘Mark’ and ‘Luke’, they did in fact give us means in which to find out just who they really were. ‘Mark’ was indeed, one of Arrius Piso’s names. He had inherited it from his ancestor ‘Marcus Antonius’ (Mark Anthony). His father’s mother married his father’s brother (Lucius, aka ‘Luke’) after his father died in 65 CE. Thus, he had inherited that name from his step-father and uncle, as well as from his other Piso ancestors. But they also hide their other real names within the texts that they were writing by putting them in, in various ways, such as with words that either have the same meaning as their names, or that are spelled or sound the same way. They also used ‘key words’ and created what I termed ‘circles’ and ‘strings’ with them in their works – another way of identifying themselves. See my book, ‘Piso Christ’.
[XXVI] The Royal Language. I have tried to help others learn to read it as I am able to do, by osmosis. That is, I have written about parts of it and given examples in my writings. This paper tells a bit more about the Royal Language:

A Few Words About The Royal Language

[XXVII] Read my papers regarding, ‘The Biblical Dynasty’:

The Biblical Dynasty (A Summary)

The Biblical Dynasty

[XXVIII] While Arrius Piso was trying to humiliate and ridicule the Jewish leaders in his writings, the Jewish leaders were also doing the same and more, to Arrius Piso in the Talmud. Thus, forging a link between the two – it was reciprocal. And, remains as evidence for us. We have proof of the connection.

Arrius Calpurnius Piso (aka the NT Jesus) In The Talmud

[XXIX] The cruel and bawdy Romans who were writing the New Testament inserted jokes about what they were doing.

Human Dung Jokes In The NT

New Testament Joke: ‘The Lump’

Sick & Dirty Jokes In The New Testament

[XXX] After the assassination of the emperor Domitian, the Piso’s and their royal relatives once again regained control of the Roman Empire. Thus, the Piso’s were now free to go about promoting and establishing Christian communities. Pliny The Younger spent years traveling about the Roman Empire converting old pagan altars into the first Christian churches. However, the cost of trying to promote a religion that the people were not buying, became burdensome. They had to resort to the age-old methods for bringing in money for the churches; they acted as both churches and brothels. And this, got many of them eventually destroyed by the locals. So, ‘Christianity’ during most of the Second Century CE, until the time of Constantine, existed mainly on paper only. And the church ‘histories’ from those times were made up, fictional. This was because these royals were descendants of those who had created religions in the past, and they knew that one day, they would be able to get it off the ground. So, they pretended that there were churches and popes, when in fact, they existed in name only.

Origen, Eusebius, Constantine & The Mention Of Christ In Josephus

[XXXI] It wasn’t so much that the Christians were giving things to the Jews that had bothered those who were trying to promote Christianity as it was that Christians had contact with them at all. They tried to write things to get Christians to avoid the Jews. This was because the Jews were spreading the news that Christianity was a Roman creation and was fake. They were telling the converts to Christianity the truth about the religion, and thus, the religion was failing. And this is why the leaders of Christianity (such as the Popes) and other royal rulers (who were also descended from Arrius Piso and family), kept harassing, torturing and killing Jews. The Jews had been educating Christians (as well as others) and showing them the truth about their religion, as was recorded in the Talmud.

The Medieval Censorship Of The Talmud

[XXXII] To better understand this rivalry, this long war and the resentment demonstrated by these authors, read these papers:

The Calpurnius Piso Family & The Origin Of Popes

The Beginnings Of Christianity & The Evolution Of Popes

Seneca, Christianity, And The Caesars

[XXXIII] The author was making it clear to those who could understand it, that because of the long war that the Jews had been enduring, as a result, that many of them, including their leaders, were starving and poor. Which was true. The Jewish leaders were trying to put everything that they had into winning this war for Humanity. They suffered, starved, were tortured, were sick and dying, and were killed. Many were taken into slavery as well. It took a huge toll upon the Jews who were fighting that war.
[XXXIV] In fact, the authors of the New Testament often took lines from the Talmud and reworked them or restated them differently and added them to the NT texts. One such line was one of Hillel The Pharisee, where he had spoke of the Golden Rule (the “do unto others” statement).
[XXXV] They made use of “degrees of separation” to say things and keep their meanings hidden. Regarding the bawdy or sexual remarks in the NT, there is a section on that in the book ‘Piso Christ’.
[XXXVI] To do work on this level, it is a necessity to be familiar with several languages. In fact, all of the languages being used at the time. As a researcher, if you continue as you should, you will find yourself reading Latin texts and thinking of what you are reading in Greek at the same time. And that goes for reading in other languages as well. This is what you will have to do. And, you should get to know the Royal Language as I do as well. When you know the Royal Language, you will be able to read those ancient texts as the authors themselves did.
[XXXVII] Since the languages used at the time in which the New Testament was being written were alpha-numeric, here is a paper with information regarding how it was used in that way. Many people today are still sorely ignorant of ancient language and the letters & words used at the time that they immediately think that anything to do with numbers (like ‘666’) has to refer to something religious or superstitious, when in fact, their alphabet (or letters of the alphabet) were unlike ours today in that they served a dual or double purpose; they were both letters AND numbers.

And, they were used that way on a regular basis. Their alphabet was what is called ‘alpha-numeric’. Up until fairly recent times, the Latin alphabet was regularly used to represent numbers. The NFL still uses the Latin letter-numbers (alpha-numerics) to designate which Super Bowl it is for each season.

Julius Calpurnius Piso wrote The Revelation and he used ‘666’ to point to his father (Arrius Piso) writing as Flavius Josephus; because at the time that he wrote The Revelation, the only other place to find ‘666’ was in the writings of Flavius Josephus. Julius Piso finished The Revelation in 137 CE/AD.

Julius Piso’s nephew, Antoninus Pius (who became emperor), realized that 666 pointed directly to Flavius Josephus and he wanted to make it so that people would not look at Flavius Josephus for connections to the creation of Christianity; so he wrote as Suetonius and made people think that 666 referred to ‘Nero’ (in 145 CE/AD).

666 – Piso Numbers & The New Testament

In general, the biblical quotations cited here are either from Strong’s Concordance or the Greek/English Interlinear New Testament, by George R. Berry (Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan).

This paper was originally titled ‘What Really Happened At Masada?’ Roman Piso, 01-23-2003.


‘What Happened At Masada?’

This title in other languages:

[Albanian: ‘Çfarë ndodhi në Masada?’]
[Arabian: ‘ماذا حدث في مسعدة؟’]
[Armenian: ‘Ինչ է տեղի ունեցել Մասադայում’]
[Bosnian: ‘Šta se dogodilo na Masadi?’]
[Chinese (Traditional): ‘馬薩達發生了什麼事？’]
[Croatian: ‘Što se dogodilo na Masadi?’]
[Czech: ‘Co se stalo v Masada?’]
[Danish: ‘Hvad skete der ved Masada?’]
[Dutch: ‘Wat is er bij Masada gebeurd?’]
[Esperanto: ‘Kio Okazis En Masada?’]
[Estonian: ‘Mis juhtus Masada juures?’]
[Filipino: ‘Ano ang nangyari sa Masada?’]
[Finnish: ‘Mitä Masadassa tapahtui?’]
[French: ‘Qu’est-ce qui s’est passé à Masada?’]
[Frisian: ‘Wat barde Masada?’]
[Georgian: ‘რა მოხდა Masada?’]
[German: ‘Was geschah bei Masada?’]
[Greek: ‘Τι συνέβη στη Masada?’]
[Hebrew: ‘מה קרה במצדה?’]
[Hmong: ‘Yuav ua li cas tshwm sim Thaum Masada?’]
[Hungarian: ‘Mi történt Masadában?’]
[Icelandic: ‘Hvað gerðist á Masada?’]
[Indonesian: ‘Apa yang terjadi di Masada?’]
[Irish: ‘Cad a tharla ag Masada?’]
[Italian: ‘Che cosa è successo a Masada?’]
[Japanese: ‘マサダで何が起こったのですか?’]
[Korean: ‘마사다에서 무슨 일이 일어 났습니까?’]
[Kurdish/Kurmanji: ‘Ma Masada çi bû?’]ສິ່ງທີ່ເກີດຂຶ້
[Latin: ‘Quid in Masada?’]
[Latvian: ‘Kas notika Masada?’]
[Lithuanian: ‘Kas įvyko Masada?’]
[Macedonian: ‘Што се случило во Масада?’]
[Malay: ‘Apa yang Berlaku di Masada?’]
[Mongolian: ‘Масада юу болсон бэ?’]
[Norwegian: ‘Hva skjedde på Masada?’]
[Persian: ‘چه اتفاقی در ماسادا افتاد؟’]
[Polish: ‘Co się stało w Masadzie?’]
[Portuguese: ‘O que aconteceu em Masada?’]
[Romanian: ‘Ce sa întâmplat la Masada?’]
[Russian: ‘Что случилось в Масаде?’]
[Samoan: ‘Mea na tupu i Masada?’]
[Scottish: ‘Dè thachair aig Masada?’]
[Serbian: ‘Шта се догодило на Масади?’]
[Sindhi: ‘ماساد ۾ ڇا ٿيو؟’]
[Slovak: ‘Čo sa stalo v Masade?’]
[Slovenian: ‘Čo sa stalo v Masade?’]
[Somali: ‘Maxaa ka dhacay Masada?’]
[Spanish: ‘¿Qué pasó en Masada?’]
[Swahili: ‘Nini kilichotokea Masada?’]
[Swedish: ‘Vad hände på Masada?’]
[Turkish: ‘Masada’da neler oldu?’]
[Ukrainian: ‘Що сталося в Masada?’]
[Uzbek: ‘Masada nima yuz berdi?’]
[Vietnamese: ‘Chuyện gì xảy ra ở Masada?’]
[Welsh: ‘Beth ddigwyddodd Ar Masada?’]
[Yiddish: ‘וואָס געשען אין Masada?’]
[Zulu: ‘Kwenzekani Emasada?’]



We must work to change academia. Virtually all ancient history scholars have been wrong, because a) as I have explained in my book ‘Piso Christ’, all of their work is based upon 6 major assumptions, and b) as a result of these assumptions, they view ancient history in the wrong context. And, this is a cycle. They were taught to study the subject incorrectly, and they continue to “teach” others to be wrong. This must stop. Spread this information and help better educate as many people as you can, particularly, those within academia. Please share this information.

Attention: Classics, New Testament, Ancient History and Biblical Scholars. Richard Carrier, Marcus Borg, Robert M. Price, Bart Ehrmann, Robert Eisenman, Werner Eck, Anthony Birley. Particularly, Werner Eck, as I have talked to him a number of times at the urging of Abelard Reuchlin and have sent him my material to study.

Attention New Testament/Biblical ‘Scholars’: Elaine Pagels, John Dominic Crossan, Jonathan Reed, Ched Myers, Bernard Brandon Scott, N.T. Wright, Stanley Hauerwas, Amy-Jill Levine, Taylor Weaver, Richard Hays, David Horrell, Bruce J. Malina, Craig Evans, Craig Keener, Raymond Brown, James D. G. Dunn, Dale Martin, Stanley Stowers, John Barclay, Philip Esler, Garrett Fagan. Some, have indeed, been reading my material and are beginning to agree with my work. Also Attention: Santos Bonacci, Jerry Russell, Cliff Carrington, Joseph Atwill, Rod Blackhirst (La Trobe University),

Note: I have personally talked to several of these individuals, as well as friends of theirs who have tried to get through to them about this work. Religious people particularly, strongly reject anything that contradicts their beliefs. Which is why it has been so slow to make any real change within academia, because so many of those who currently comprise it are either religious or biased in some way (some, have even made the study of ancient history their ‘religion’ by viewing it in a way contrary to how science works). They need to be made to understand that what they were taught is based upon assumptions (see my Six Major Assumptions within Academia, in ‘Piso Christ’). People who have made ancient history their religion do so by simply reading it and believing it, just as those who read religious texts read them and simply believe them. The ancient royal authors were writing BOTH religious texts and everything else.

Many problems still exist within Academia. We need to bring Academia into the 21st Century.

Essential Changes To Academia Now Required (Objectivity Is Essential)

The New Classical Scholarship: The New Forensic Study Of History

A Few Words About The Royal Language (A Language Within Language)

The True Context Of Ancient History & The Gordian Emperors

Ancient Alias Names List (2017)

How & Why Ancient Royalty Created Facades & Illusions
[The Effective Creation of an Alternate Version of Reality]

The Roman Piso Papers


Related Subject Matter:
(Key Words & Terms)


Anthropology, genealogical charts, genealogy, archaeology, Origins of Christianity, Holy, Holy Roman Empire, Imperial Rome, Roman Empire, popes, emperor, emperors, King James, Bible, biblical, classics, classical history, historic, Pliny The Elder, Seneca, Aria, Arria, Arria The Younger, Arria The Elder, Arius, Arrius, Fadilla, Arria Fadilla, Arria Antonina, Antonius, Marcus Antonius, Antonius Primus, of Alexandria, of Tyana, of Rome, of Athens, Gnostics, gospel, Gospel of, Thomas, Mary, Magdalan, magi, three, three days, three wise men, rooster, hen, cock, crow, crew, Alexander, Sabina, Gaius Calpurnius Piso, Constantine, Julius Constantius, Constantius Chlorus, Emperor, emperors, Flavia, Flavian, Flavians, Titus, Domitian, Vespasian, Nerva, Augustus, Julius Caesar, Caesar, Tiberius, Gneius Calpurnius Piso, Gaius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Clodius Albinus, Septimius Severus, Severus Alexander, Pupienus, Claudius Gothicus, Probus, Gallienus, Tacitus, Florian, Florianus, Balbinus, Postumus, Philip I, Philip II, Pacatian, Jotapian, Aquilia Severa, Annia, Annia Faustina, Julia Soaemias, Julia Maesa, Diadumenian, Elagabalus, Julia Domna, Caracalla, Lucius Verus, Lucilla, Geta, Titiana, Manlia Scantilla, Didia Clara, Pescennius Niger, St. Peter, Saint, Saint Peter, Linus.

Roman coins, denominations, coinage, province, Augustus, Claudius, Nero, Vitellius, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Severus Alexander, Elagabalus, Gordian III, Philip I ‘The Arab’, Claudius II ‘Gothicus’, denari, denarii, denarius, coins, coin, ancient coins, numismatic, celator, ancient mints, silver, gold, copper, aureus, drachm, didrachm, tetradrachm, follis, antoninianus, antoninianii, potin, billon, error, restrike, restrikes, silver wash, silvered, limes, AE, AE3, AR, AV, miliarense, siliqua, centenionalis, argenteus, dupondius, quadrans, cistophorus, sestertius, quinarius, as, As, Semis, triens, sextans, unica, quadrigatus, moneyer, victoriatus, solidus, scripulum.


Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s