Flavius Josephus:
A Pseudonym?

This genealogy is perhaps the most difficult to explain. The reason is that a plethora of intricate and difficult information needed to be researched and investigated, which included biblical writing, the writings of ancient historians, and the work of past and present scholars and classicists. The following information, for whatever reason, has not been pieced together by mainstream academia.

 

If you have read my book, you will be aware of the parallels (over which much debate has taken place) between Jesus’ ministry in the Gospels and the writings of the man known to us as Flavius Josephus. However, there are many more parallels between Josephus’ works and the New Testament, those parallels are presented at the end.

​

The man known as Titus Flavius Josephus, or to use the original name, given by him, Yosef ben Matityahu, produced four major writings: The Jewish War (approx. 75 CE), Antiquities of the Jews (approx. 94 CE), Against Apion (approx. 97 CE), and The Life of Flavius Josephus (approx. 99 CE).

​

It is known, at least in the academic world, that Josephus’ work has been very closely linked to the New Testament, as he describes the same prophecy that appears in the Gospels. It is odd then that those in control of the Church, since the middle ages, chose not to promote his work, but instead make the religion more about faith rather than evidence. Only recently have apologetics been considered important so people can have a somewhat rational reason to believe based on evidence. For that reason, the work of Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger, etc., are unknown to many. We are told by Josephus that he was a Jewish priest, scholar, and historian who wrote valuable works on the long Jewish War of 66–70 CE and on earlier Jewish history. He says he was a son of Matthias, a man of priestly descent, and a mother who claimed royal blood.

 

Josephus becomes an incredibly suspicious individual, especially due to 1) the known fact that the message of the New Testament emerged after the war, 2) because when this man surrendered to the future Emperor Vespasian, he was treated exceptionally well thereafter, which is in contrast to the fate of other Jewish leaders, such as Jesus ben Ananias (Josephus, The Jewish War, 6.5.3) and Simon bar Giora (Josephus, The Jewish War, 7.2.1) and 3) because Roman generals routinely took enemy generals to Rome to be publicly executed, Josephus, however, escaped this fate. He was treated immensely well, even living in Vespasian’s house and, as we read, receiving the Flavian name through adoption. I find it very difficult to believe this, especially considering he tells us that during the siege of Jotapata (Yodefat) he had his men pour boiling oil down upon the Romans and boiling fenugreek over the Roman assault planks in 67 CE (Josephus, The Jewish War, 3.271-279).

 

If there were only a few parallels that contained the same concepts, we could speculate that these events were common occurrences at that time, however, that is not what has been presented, so we must investigate further. The first important detail to mention is that no Jewish historical commentary mentions Josephus, not even in the Talmud, which is suspicious, considering the background he has as a high priest. As Historian and Biblical scholar Steve Mason states:

​

“Although Josephus most often refers to himself as a general (στρατηγος), he is plainly much more than that: governor, chief magistrate, teacher, and supreme patron (ευεργετης, § 244; προστατης, § 250). He quickly evolves from membership in a triumvirate (§ 29) to sole mastery of the region (§§ 244, 259). Essentially, he is “the man,” whose position is legitimized not by an office, but by the populace’s overwhelming affirmation of his virtue, prestige, and authority (auctoritas, on which see Galinsky 1996: 10-41).” (ref - Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary, Volume 9, Introduction, XXXV)

​

Now one reason they may not mention him could be because they saw him as a traitor, but it could be logically assumed that he was important enough to at least have been mentioned as being a traitor to his people. Given we find nothing in the Talmud or other Jewish commentary relating to Josephus, we must investigate other sources.

​

His genealogy can only be traced back through two individuals - a) King Herod ‘The Great’, and b) his first wife, Mariamne I, who was the daughter of Alexander and Alexandra Regent. But the way Josephus presents his genealogy makes no reasonable sense. Whiston’s translation of ‘The Life Of Josephus’ states Josephus wrote that his grandfather’s father [great-grandfather] was named Simon, with the addition of Psellus. But as the Loeb Classical Library translation is considered the standard for scholarly study, our investigation here will be based on that translation. In the Loeb translation of ‘Life Of Josephus’, it reads ‘My great-grandfather's grandfather was named Simon surnamed Psellus’.

 

This makes a man named Matthias Curtus (born 135 BCE) his great-grandfather; Matthias was a contemporary to the last rulers of the Hasmonean dynasty, particularly Hyrcanus II, who served as high priest from 76–67 BCE and 63–40 BCE. Matthias married an unnamed Jewish woman through whom he had a son called Josephus (Yosef), which should make this son the paternal grandfather of Flavius Josephus if Josephus is correct in claiming Matthias was born the first year that a man named Johanan Hyrcanus was a high priest (134 BCE). However, the genealogy Josephus gives raises questions that are historically unanswerable when the information is studied literally, as the males of Josephus’ family would have had to have married late or often.

 

Regarding this, Steve Mason, states:

​

“It remains unclear why Josephus should have chosen Simon as the patriarch of his family, rather than one of Simon’s ancestors or Simon’s son Matthias, who actually married into the Hasmonean line. Perhaps the coincidence in name with the contemporary Hasmonean Simon provided a motive. If Simon Psellus was already a priest, then Josephus has spoken ambiguously (open to doubt or uncertainty) at Ant. 16.187 in attributing his priestly heritage to the Hasmoneans.” (ref - Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary, Volume 9, Page 8, Life of Josephus)

 

Also:

 

“If Matthias II (Curtus) was born in 135 BCE and produced a son Josephus I in 68 BCE, he was a father at about the age of 77. This would have been a remarkable feat, especially in view of ancient mortality rates: When Abraham fathered Ishmael at 86 (Gen 16:16) it was a charter miracle of Israel’s history. Since Josephus does not draw attention either to this feat or to its counterpart in the next generation, it is unlikely that he notices, or expects his audience to notice, the chronological problem. More likely, he has accidentally omitted a couple of generations or fabricated much of the genealogy. Possibly our text is corrupt.’...‘If Josephus I was born in 68 BCE and fathered Matthias III at age 73 or 74 (in 6 CE), we are once again faced with a patriarchal feat unmentioned by Josephus.”

​

Given the chronological gaps & Josephus’ tendency to defend himself, rejecting his family tree as a fabrication would not be unreasonable. But because he insists that his genealogy is based on public records, (Loeb, Life Of Josephus, 4-11) and also states that priestly pedigrees were carefully preserved in the major Judean centers and that after a war the priestly survivors would quickly recreate those records that had been destroyed (Apion 1.31.5), it makes this assumption hard to justify when studying the information literally. Priestly lineage was enthusiastically recorded by Jerusalem’s conservative ruling aristocracy, and it was the priest’s job to regulate the priestly courses (groups). It is highly unlikely that Josephus would have claimed descent from the Hasmonean royal house if he was not of that lineage, especially considering the audience for his works.

 

Therefore, he must have been a descendant of that royal house, surely? When taking a step back, there are only certain facts available to work with, those being that his genealogy can only be traced back through King Herod ‘The Great’ and his first wife, Mariamne I, as mentioned above. As a son of Matthias, Josephus’ descent would be from the Hasmonean royal house, but because of what is known about that royal house, his genealogy makes no sense. Therefore, if we note the reasoning of Steve Mason above regarding a possible genealogical fabrication, and follow the advice of Sir Ronald Syme: ‘When the attempt is made to expose a fraud, attack on all fronts is to be commended...’ (Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta) it is logical to examine more deeply other possible ancestral lines for Josephus, and this is where preconceptions need to be put aside. From his wealth of knowledge and experience regarding ancient Rome, Sir Ronald believed that simply reading classical works on a superficial level was not enough if someone wished to learn all the information necessary to have a complete understanding of ancient history.

​

 

Josephus, or the man who used this name, gave the necessary information to discover his actual genealogy via his writings, but vital information needed to confirm it was not given in a straightforward way, it was, it appears, very much scattered into little pieces of information here and there, the question to ask is, why? The individual who appears to have used the name Flavius Josephus used what I can only describe as naming techniques to disguise his genealogy, and those naming techniques incorporated literary ‘rules’ already used by the Roman aristocracy, for example, nomenclature, a combination of personal and family names used to create a new name.

​

There is no connection to the Hasmonean royal house under the name ‘Flavius Josephus’ using the genealogy presented. Flavius Josephus was a pen-name that belonged to a particular individual who was a member of a powerful and distinguished senatorial family the ancestry presented belongs to, the family in question was a Roman-Jewish family called the Calpurnius Pisos, of the noble ancient house of Calpurnii. The house of the Calpurnii claimed descent from Calpus, the son of Numa Pompilius, the second legendary king of Rome, succeeding Romulus. The Calpurnius Pisos were related to the family of Emperor Vespasian (see his genealogy here), and the Pisos’ relationship to the Flavians was discovered by investigating the historical writings that document Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus Flavius, and their descent from Herod Pollio (see Vespasian’s genealogy). If Josephus was apparently ‘adopted’ and given a wife and house by Vespasian, we could expect to find contemporary records mentioning and confirming this. But again, we find none, only quotes from historians of the time, and any mentions are brief, Suetonius mentions him, but even what he says is slightly suspicious:

​

“…Also, a distinguished Jewish prisoner of Vespasian’s, Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who had now put him in fetters and who would then be emperor…” (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Vespasian)

​

Notice that Suetonius says ‘Josephus by name’, why would he say by name? To me, this implies ‘Josephus by name and not by birth.’

​

Researching historical documents related to the Flavian’s, and taking into consideration the many parallels between the Gospels and the writings of ‘Josephus’, this name is revealed as being an pseudonym for a man called Arrius Calpurnius Piso. This name has been found within the original Koine Greek writings of the New Testament, particularly the Gospel of Mark and the Book of Revelation, and those writings present the words ‘Arrius’, ‘Calpurnius’, and ‘Piso’ using the languages and numbers of the time. Through prior research done regarding the Flavian and Piso family history, most notably by Sir Ronald Syme, the connection between the two families is revealed.

 

To learn that Arrius existed and was a son of the distinguished senator Gaius Calpurnius Piso, of Neronian Persecution fame, the investigation must begin with a lady called Arria Clementina (Arrecina Clementina/Arria the Elder/Sr./Major) who married Emperor Vespasian’s brother Titus Flavius Sabinus II before Vespasian became emperor. Vespasian’s brother T. Flavius Sabinus II, which is the same name as his father Titus Flavius Sabinus I, was also recorded in history using the name A. Caecina Paetus. In historical documentation, and through an inscription connected with T. Flavius Sabinus II, the name ‘Paetus’ in regard to the marriage of Flavia Sabina (Arria the Younger) is shown as being a name used by the Pisos; although the name on the inscription looks to have been connected with the wrong Piso family member. (ref - ‘Doctors and Other Health Professionals In the Latin Epigraphy of Rome and the Italicae Augustae Regions,’ page 239  - Flaviae T(iti) [f(iliae)] / Sabinae / Caesenni Paeti (uxori) (CIL XIV, 2830)).

​

Sir Ronald Syme in his Roman Papers, Volume 2 states on page 716: "C. Fannius (v 5). Barrister who wrote biographies of Nero's victims. Supposed a relative of Fannia, the daughter of the Patavine (P. Clodius) Thrasea Paetus by his marriage with Arria, the daughter of A. Caecina Paetus..." On page 821 Syme states: "C. Caecina Paetus, the father-in-law of Thrasea Paetus."

 

Next Professor Gavin Townend's 'Some Flavian Connections' published by the Journal of Roman Studies, identifies the son of Caesennius Paetus on page 59, note 20.

​

From 'Suetonius' we learn that Emperor Nero forced Gaius Calpurnius Piso to commit suicide in 65/67 CE as the main instigator of the 'Pisonian Conspiracy'. This is given by Suetonius in Lives of the Twelve Caesar, Nero, 36. Further, Tacitus gives the name of Gaius Calpurnius Piso as Thrasea Paetus, Stoic Philospher in his Annals, 16, with his wife recorded as Arria the Younger (Tacitus, Annals, 16.34) Suetonius in Persius, 1, also states: "...In boyhood be composed a comedy, and a few verses upon Arria, the mother-in-law of Thrasea, that Arria whose death has been rendered so celebrated by the narratives of Pliny and Dion Cassius." Tacitus also names Calpurnius Piso as the leader of the group of conspirators against Nero (Tacitus, Annals, 15.59) with Calpurnius Pisos wife given as 'Satria Galla'. 

​

Also found in the work of Tacitus, and researched by Syme in his Tacitus, Volume 2, page 595, n.5, is the fact that Caesennius Paetus (son of the former Paetus) is apparently married to Vespasian’s niece, Flavia Sabina, which would be Arria the Younger, in the early ’70s and governs Syria.

​

From the above the following is deduced: Emperor Nero executed a very wealthy politician called Gaius Calpurnius Piso, in 65/67 CE, as a result of the failed ‘Pisonian Conspiracy’. This is recorded under the name Thrasea Paetus, Stoic philosopher (Tacitus, Annals, 16, note 69), whose wife was Arria the Younger (Tacitus, Annals, 16.34) and a few pages previously in the Annals, the leader of the group of conspirators against Nero is named as Calpurnius Piso (Tacitus, Annals, 15.59); here, as noted above, Gaius’ wife is presented as ‘Satria Galla’, which can be viewed as T.S. Aria Galla, Titia (the feminine form of Titus) Sabina (the feminine form of Sabinus) Aria Galla (the feminine form of Gallus, which has the same meaning as Pollio, ‘rooster’/‘cock’/male chicken - again, see Vespasians’ genealogy). But the name 'Satria Galla' connects Arria the Younger to her father T Flavius Sabinus II using the name A. Caecina Paetus: S (abina) A(ula) T(itia) (A) ria Galla.

 

From the above the following can be deciphered: Gaius Calpurnius Piso was also recorded as Thrasea Paetus and Caesennius Paetus and was married to Arria the Younger. Their daughter is called 'Fannia' in history and Arrius Calpurnius Piso is recorded as governor of Syria Caesennius Paetus (Jewish War, Book 7, 56-64) the son of the former Caesennius Paetus. The name 'Fannia' is actually Flavia Arria, Flavia being the feminine form of the name Flavius. They used the ‘F’ in ‘Flavia’ as an initial and left it in front of her Arria name and changed the 'r's in her name to 'n's, which created the name 'Fannia' (F.Annia). Now we remember the above the information about a C. Fannius: 

 

“C. Fannius (v, 5). Barrister who wrote biographies of Nero’s victims. Supposed a relative of Fannia, the daughter of the Patavine (P. [Publius] Clodius) Thrasea Paetus by his marriage with Arria, the daughter of A. [Aulus] Caecina Paetus (suff. 37) [T. Flavius Sabinus I].”

​

Sir Ronald Syme, who researched this information, even stated in his paper ‘People in Pliny’:

​

“Why she should be called 'Fannia', no clue.”

 

​

Sir Ronald Syme was right to be confused, it would be safe to think that a daughter of an Arria would use the name of her mother. But, as demonstrated above, 'Fannia' is revealed as 'F. Arria/Annia' where the r's are replaced with n's, but why are the r's replaced with n's? That is difficult to answer, however, one possible reason could be that the letter 'n' was used as a link to Christianity. The Phoenician letter was named 'nun', meaning 'fish', and the fish and anchor symbols were used on the Flavian coins and other artifacts of that period, and the first symbol of Christianity was a fish. Let us not forget that one of the letters that make up the number '666' in the Book of Revelation, is Phoenician.

 

Arrius is also recorded under the name ‘Montanus’ (Tacitus, Annals, 16.33). It seems Arrius used many created names through the use of nomenclature, which will be shown, including L. Caesoninus Junius Paetus, discussed in Gavin Townend’s paper above. The name Arrius of course is a masculine form of his mother’s name Arria, the daughter of Arria Clementina (Arria the Elder/Sr./Major) and T. Flavius Sabinus II.

​

The information presented within the text of the New Testament (as investigated in my book) indicates that Arrius Calpurnius Piso used the literary pen-name/pseudonym of ‘Flavius Josephus’. It appears this name was created to not only provide a historical appearance of authenticity regarding the new religion of Christianity but also provide a ‘role model’ of sorts for later generations of Jews turning away from Judaism. The information above shows Arrius was already a Flavian through his inherited name usage, and not because Emperor Flavius Vespasian adopted him, as the ancient writers have told us. Essentially what we have is information leading us to understand that T. Flavius Sabinus II (Flavius Vespasian’s brother) and Arrecina (Arr(ia) (Ca)ecina) Clementina (Arria the Elder/Sr./Major) had a daughter called Aria/Arria, who married Gaius Calpurnius Piso, and this is where the alliance of the Flavian’s and the Piso’s would begin.