Betrayal in the Bet-Royal


It is good to look for parallels between events in different time periods, but we have to be careful not to "telescope" the actual history of separate time periods. The reason there are parallels is because of the deliberate repetition of basic patterns by the royal family. For example, each successive Messianic figure is being "betrayed" as part of the legitimization of his role. Cestius is not Judas Iscariot, but both were perhaps force-fit into a similar role (but at different times). I haven't studied the narrative of Cestius in detail, so I'll have to withhold judgment on that one. The spilling of his guts would however be a tell-tale sign of that particular role.

In royal history, the roles of Judah and Issachar are sometimes merged. This first occurred with Rimush son of Sargon, who was initially the "Judah" but also became the "Issachar" after he was murdered by the "Simeon" (Naram-Sin) and the "Levi" (Montuhotep II) of the royal family in that generation. Presumably, there were not enough princes to fill all the divine roles, so Rimush was pressed into double service/sacrifice.

Note also in Chart 1 (in the right-most column) that Issachar is the "12th Patriarch". After him, the cycle repeats.

This probably had some significance in the New Testament typology and the need to replace Judas Iscariot. The 12th Patriarch (a.k.a., 12th or Hidden Iman/Imman is also of critical significance in Islamic thinking.

Within the Herodian-Roman royal family, the leading Issachar (but by no means only Issachar) was Herod's fifth son Herod Philip. Tiberius Caesar was the fourth son, and therefore the leading "Judah". Normally, Judah and Issachar were types that would find themselves betrayed rather than tagged as betrayers. In myth, Osiris (Issachar) and Horus the Elder (Judah) were killed by Set (Levi). Only then did the Messianic Horus appear as rightful heir to the throne.

So, we have a curious reversal of the typecasting during the reign of Tiberius. For example, Tiberius not only delivered up the expected "Horus/Jesus" (Germanicus/Archelaus) to a literal death, but also two of the sons of Germanicus to symbolic deaths, namely Nero (Titus Sabinus) and Drusus (Vespatian). The "death" of Drusus was announced in 33 AD. The "death" of his older brother Nero possibly came later, but certainly before the succession of the youngest brother Caligula in 37 AD.

The New Testament name "Judas Iscariot" would doubly suggest a prince who had been betrayed rather than one considered as an evil betrayer. And perhaps that was actually the case. That is, the real-life prince corresponding to Judas Iscariot may in fact have been a chosen successor who was set up by a devious sting operation and then libeled as a damned betrayer!

Most likely, the Book of Acts is alluding to at least two betrayer figures that died shortly after the mock crucifixion of Jesus. Certainly Tiberius Caesar had "the charge" (of the world) and lived in a "desolate place" (on the island of Capri). But he could not have been the one who betrayed Jesus son of Mary. In question is whether or not Nero son of Germanicus, as heir apparent, was the one "chosen" for that task, and whether or not he was himself betrayed in the process. (Nero son of Germanicus was supposedly sent to another "desolate place", Pontia, a volcanic island some 70 miles west of Naples where his sister Agrippina the Younger would also later be sent.)

The "betrayer" Tiberius was succeeded by Caligula. In his first year as Caesar, Josephus was born. Hmmm, that sounds suspicious! (Was Josephus/Nerva claiming to be the true son of Caligula?)

Nero (as Titus Sabinus) son of Germanicus eventually recovered, and was Prefect of Rome when his younger brother Drusus (as Vespatian) claimed the throne.

Regarding the rule of Israel, Herod Antipas was accused (betrayed?)by Agrippa (future Herod Agrippa I) of conspiring against Caligula and was deposed. Agrippa was eventually rewarded with the rule of Israel but died from an affliction of the bowels (guts spilled out?).

The point of this is that we have to become comfortable with a multiplicity of types and more than one prince competing for or sharing a particular type at any given point in time. This, we now understand, was an inherent feature of royal culture.


Responses To This Message

(There are no responses to this message.)