portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

faith & spirituality

END OF THE "SAINT PETER" MYTH.

new testament "simon peter" is a fictional character lab-assembled by rewriting/overwriting bits of real and tragic history from jewish antiroman struggle.
there never was a "saint peter".

i discovered the historical simon peterS.
follow me down.

There is no hard historical evidence that the christian character known as "saint peter" ever even existed at all.
certainly the one depicted in the new testament book acts of the apostles,an anti-jewish jew who prefers to hang out with gentiles even to the the point of fraternizing with a roman centurion who belonged to a legion of jew-butcherers in roman palestine of the first century AD,could hardly have survived in the radical zealot antiroman milieu that was palestine at the time,let alone have founded a succesful coommunity or church there and led it.

having said this,foundational myth-making such as is the case with regime religions never invents stories from scratch - if the mythmakers fabricated everything,nobody would relate to their stories or believe them.
so the constant pattern that the new testament forgers show us is taking bits and pieces of underlying historical truth out of their original context and refit evreything together in a new mix with a good dose of overdubbed lies.
this is the case for the historical jesuses:
 http://portland.indymedia,org/en/2005/09/325351.shtml
and that was the case for "saint peter" too.
the forgers took a very real historical figure,Simon bar Ya'ir,a revolutionary zealot who fought rome to the bitter end in the 66-73 war,and transmogrified him into a pious antisemitic preacher who would become the first pope and founder of the church.
the forgers then proceeded to add to the inverted simon a bit of another simon,simon bar cleopas,probably a brother and successor of the real jesus,they shook both up in the shaker added a bit of mythology and came up with saint peter.
here's how.

the contemporary source we have to turn to for simon bar ya'ir is a turncoat jewish historian named flavius joseph,an asskisser and traitor who first fought the romans at the outbreak of the 66-73 AD jewish war and then betrayed his people and switched sides,in the process sucking up so much and so well to soon-to-become emperors vespasian and titus that they adopted him into their flavia family and gave him a mansion and a lifetime check in rome.

the only reason i've read such this creep's book Jewish War or Bellum Judaicum is because historians agree that his human faults notwithstanding he more or less told the basic facts in a reliable way.

so flavius joseph in his book jewish war IV.9.3.503 says that a Simon bar Ya'ir,also transliterated from the aramaic as bar ghiora,which strangely becomes bar ghiona elsewhere in the same book leaving us wondering as to just what precisely his last name had been,was a revolutionary militant of the sort joseph dubs "brigands" or "thieves",lestai in greek which is the language the book was handed down in to us although the original version was in aramaic that is the hebrew-like language spoken in palestine in the first century AD.

today a neocon like joseph would call a simon "terrorist" if you know what i mean.

anyway this simon bar ya'ir which means son of Jair or Jairus soon became one of the chief leaders of the antiroman jewish army.

joseph says simon was not the smartest guy,but quite strong of body and audacious.

now doesn't it already sound familiar from the new testament presentation of simon peter?
gospels and acts have it that simon was the son of a jona or john,which is the same as our variant form simon bar ghiona in flavius joseph.

but i incline towards the form simon bar ya'ir or Jairus because it's more frequent in flavius' book and because,oh coincidence,every time gospel simon peter pops up in the first part of the narrative that is in the galilean scenario he is closely associated with a Jairus chief of the Capernaum synagogue whose 12-year old daughter Jesus resurrects form the dead.
And when Jesus performs this gospel miracle,he takes only 3 disciples with him into jair's house - and one of them is simon.
possibly because simon was jair's son?
elsewhere in the gospels jesus heals simon's mother-in-law,always at Capernaum city on the lake of Tiberias also called sea of galilee or lake gennezareth at the time.
and this episode comes in close proximity with the jair-daughter episode.

so again although the gospels don't say so explicitly,gospel simon is always associated to a jair in capernaum where both live.

so maybe the reason why the gospels call simon peter son of john instead of son of jair is because it was dangerous to admit that simon was jair's son.

that's because elsewhere in the jewish war book flavius joseph tells us that simon bar ya'ir in the course of the first phases of the 66-73 antiroman war ends up in the fortress masada on the dead sea,at the time already occupied by another group of zealot-like militants led by a...Lazarus,or Eleazar...bar Jair!
with whom flavius' simon soon familiarizes especially since lazarus probably was his brother although flavius does not say so.
whatever and however this may be,eleazar or lazarus bar jair of masada fame was,says flavius,a descendant of the illustrious judas the galilean,founder of the zealot movement around the time of the census of cyrenius or quirinus roman official who had the task to identify all taxation-liable jews.
this was the time of the alleged birth of jesus in luke's gospel.
the year being 6 or 7 AD.
now who the hell were these zealots?
the best presentation i'm aware of is in robert eisenman's book
james the brother of jesus
vol 1
penguin 1997.
the zealots says joseph were a group of hardened antiroman antiromantaxation proindependence fighters who wouldn't call any man lord because they already had one and an only lord that is god.
so judas the galilean and his men rebelled against the romans and got duly massacred in the process.
not all of them though if some 60 years later at the outbreak of the roman/jewish war of 66-73,one of judas the galilean's sons Menachem was leader of resistance in jerusalem and a relative of his our Lazarus or Eleazar bar Jair was leader at Masada.
Zealot comes from the greek word zeal which means passion,zeal,ardor for something - in this case for the Law,the torah or mosaic law not the roman one.the aramaic for zealot is qanna'im that is cananean and guess what in one of the gospel apostle lists there crops up a simon...the cananean!!! in obvious dissimulation with an alleged provenance from the city of cana...

so simon bar ya'ir dwells in masada for a while with lazarus bar ya'ir.

and by now you will have thought i'm sure of gospel lazarus whom jesus also resurrects.
there are connections here too with flavius' lazarus because he before committing suicide in masada in 73 at the close of the war gives a last speech reported or invented by flavius in which he speaks of the immortality of the soul which is not exactly the resurrection of the dead but akin to it.

anyway there's more to that,and it takes us back to our simon-lazarus connection.
in john's gospel - the only one to recount the resurrection of lazarus - the miracle happens in bethania not far from the mount of olives near jerusalem.

guess what in flavius' jewish war another (the same?) lazarus dies near bethany that is at herodion a fortress just south of jerusalem.
this eleazar who dies at herodion doesn't have a last name,and he does not rise from the dead,but he is "one of simon bar jair's trusted men" just like gospel's lazarus is a guy whom "jesus" loved a lot.

anyway in flavius this cannot be the same lazarus as masada'a because the herodion episode happens before the masada suicide,but it's interesting to have two "lazarus" deaths in flavius one of which happens close to john's gospel's location of bethany for lazarus' resurrection.

and again i remind the reader that the general modus operandi of the new testament fabricators is to take bits and pieces of history out of context (they did the same with bible quotes) and remix them together in inverted meaning.

so they may have remixed the 2 flavius lazarus episodes after arbitrarily meshing them together.

interestingly,although john is the sole gospel to feature the lazarus-resurrection miracle,matthew also features jesus in john's bethany,at the home of...SIMON the leper!

so again you see the mixed salad of flavius' simon and lazarus bar jair becoming gospel lore - not about antiroman jihadists though anymore but about proroman miracle wizard "jesus" who'll tell you to give caesar's what's caesar's - just to stay in the salad metaphor.

anyway by now maybe you will be a bit confused so let's recap on evrything thus far and add to the mix as we go.

flavius joseph's jewish war's simon son of jair is suspiciously similar to new testament simon peter that is "saint peter":

1.simon=simon
2.simon bar jair is not the smartest guy in the world and neither is simon peter who's always messin'things up in the NT drowning sinking falling asleep at the wrong time you name it.
3.simon bar jair though is a tough strongman and audacious and so is NT simon peter,who goes around armed with a sword with which he chops off the high priest's servant' ear the night of the arrest of jesus.
he also scolds ananias and his wife sapphira so violently in the acts of the apostles for not duly bringing him all of their money but only half that the pair dies on the spot.
it is true that for dissimulation's sake gospel peter is also at times pictured as the very opposite,a creep who denies jesus 3 times in a row and is afraid of sinking etc.
4.we shall see more paralles below of simon bar jair's and simon peter's violent behavior.
5.both flavius' and gospel simon are closely associated to a jairus and to a lazarus son of jairus.
6.both simons are married,and travel around with women - probably meaning wife,12-year old sister and mother-in-law of gospel lore.
paul in one of his letters to the corinthians even whines about Kephas that is peter having the right to have women with him so why can't he?
7.flavius' simon bar ya'ir according to flavius' jewish war II.22.2.652 "not only looted the houses of the rich,but mishandled them physically too" - see NT peter again chopping off ears and shouting the rich ananias and sapphira into a heart attack for not delivering to him all their wealth.
8.one of the apostles in gospel apostle lists is called simon the zealot! and another is called simon the cananean that is zealot in aramaic wheras zealot is greek for the same thing that is ardent for the law - the torah not the roman law.
if you still don't think saint peter is the same as our simon bar ya'ir...i have 2 twin towers to sell you.

Eisenman avers that simon the zealot is simon bar cleopas about whom see further below that is the brother of jesus but i disagree,i think jesus' family was bar sabba or saffa not bar ya'ir although the 2 clans may well have had strong ties especially during the war see my jesus essay also at:
 http://rogueimc.org/en/2005/09/5341.shtml (i quote from a different link because it so happens that zealots for bush's law delete or hide my imc posts often enough...).

Yes Flavius says that simon bar ya'ir was from jerash in the decapolis so what the hell would he have been doing in capernaum,galilee in the gospels?
but author luigi cascioli in his funniest and most instructive book
la favola di cristo
2nd ed 2005
obtainable from  http://www.luigicascioli.it
avers - without supporting documentation though - that jerash didn't exist at the time. more dissimulation? was simon bar ya'ir originally from his probable ancestor judas the galilean's hometown of gamala on lake tiberias in the golan? see my jerash/gamala essay at:
 http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/18605/index.php
well maybe he moved in the course of his life like most of us do.if he was a descendant of zealot-founder judas the galilee,who was from gamala near the same lake of tiberias,then maybe his family had moved from gamala to jerash to escape the romans or something.
or the NT may be lying/dissimulating about jairus and simon peter in capernaum just like the NT forgers have been proven to have lied about nazareth as the hometown of jesus,see my jesus essay quoted above.

anyway,whether or not simon son of jairus was a brother of lazarus son of jairus at masada or not,he bears too much resemblance to NT simon peter for it to just be random coincidence.

and we've only just started,so be patient folks and bear with me.
have a cigarette break,cuppa tea or coffee,wine a beer or whatever.
refreshed?
let's move on,come on.

haven't i told you that there wasn't just one real peter just like there wasn't just one real jesus?
in my jesus essay i showed how gospel jesus' betrayal and resurrection stories are modeled after simon bar jair's attempted betrayal during the siege of jerusalem on the part of - of all people - a...Jude!!!
with 10 co-conspirators at that,matching the apostle number in the gospels almost exactly!
and flavius' simon bar ya'ir again demonstrates all the violence he's capable of and known for by not only slaying jude and his ten coplotters after finding out about the plot just like gospel "jesus" finds out about judas' betrayal in advance - no,simon bar ya'ir also mutilates the bodies just like in gospel lore peter chops off the high priest servant's ear - and then bar jair proceeds to cast the body parts down the walls of jerusalem for the romans to see and deterrance of future traitors/deserters.
pretty tough - well deserving of the surname peter which in greek and latin means rock and translates the aramaic kephas.
author luigi cascioli avers that simon was called rock because of his muscular complexion,which is possible in the context.
cascioli also avers that the gospels' last name for peter - bar jona,son of jona or john,-although cascioli says the name jona doesn't even exist as such in aramaic - is just a dissimulating pun for the aramaic barjona,one word,meaning fugitive,which our flavius' simon was indeed for a short while at the end of the roman siege of jerusalem,when he took refuge in an underground gallery carved in the rock under the temple.
acts of the apostles peter was also a fugitive for a short while after the jewish priestly establishment had arrested him again in jerusalem but an angel had freed him from his bonds and miraculously led him out of the prison.

anyway after 3 days more or less flavius' simon bar jair comes out of the tunnel and back...to earth,donning his messiah-style white priestly tunics and kingly purple cloak in the traditon of maccabean priestly kingship,and delivers himself to the romans.
which sounds supiciously like the resurrection of "jesus" from the jerusalem newly-carved rocky tomb.

again you cannot fail but notice how New Testament jesus and peter are the result of the conflation into one of bits and pieces of underlying truth,but in a skewed distorted inverted and mythologized manner.
such is the constant collage-like modus operandi of the NT forgers.

anyway,ready to go to rome?

act 2 - simon bar jair in rome.
just like saint peter who according to extrabiblical christian lore came to rome with paul founded the roman curch and in the process was crucified upside down.

except flavius' simon comes to rome in chains after delivering himself up to the romans and being transferred to the palestinian town of caesarea maritima first,where titus was waiting to sail home with the plunder and 700 muscular prisoners to be paraded in the triumphal party - among whom our poor jihadist patriot simon bar jair.
incidentally,acts portrays peter in caesarea too albeit in a totally different context as usual.

so,ever been to rome yourself?
well christian lore has it that saint peter was kept prisoner alongside paul,47 other martyrs and the 2 prison guards he'd converted to christianity in the so called tullianum,an unsavory dungeon in the forum at the foot of capitol hill - the roman capitol not its DC successor.
the tullianum is still visible today.
it's a heck of a scary undergound cave which the romans used not so much as a prison but as a death row jail and death chamber at the same time.
upon entering the site and before descending the steps to the tullianum,in the space called carcer mamertinum turn right and read the inscription mentioning all the famous death-row prisoners who got executed in the underlying tullianum,famous enemy chiefs vanquished by rome such as Jugurtha Vercingetorix...and our unfortunate simon bar ghiora in 70 AD - other authors say 71.
now go down the steps and enter the tullianum.
there's a well,which according to christian lore is a miraculous spring produced by peter for the purpose of baptizing his 2 prison guards,but for modern archeology it's a natural spring that had been there from time immemorial.
fountain and jail.remember:fountain and jail.
now the inscription on the plaque on the wall upstairs says that simon bar ghiora was beheaded.
but we know from christian tradition that peter was crucified upside down - for which there is not the slightest historical evidence as usual of course,but then again haven't i told you and showed you how foundational myth-making wouldn't have a chance of credibility if it didn't build on stories people may somehow relate to,albeit by skewing distorting twisting and ultimately turning the truth into lie?
it is not historically probable that a non-roman citizen would be beheaded,because beheading was the quick way out rome reserved to its citizens as a...special privilege.
non-citizens were first tortured and then strangled in there - we know this for sure from sources for king Jugurtha for instance.
anyway what is the underlying truth beneath the peter-crucifiction story?
now get out of the mamertinum-tullianum horror den and turn right - after a few feet turn right again and you'll see a stairway to hell.
well actually it leads up to the top of the capitol hill.the ancient romans called it scalae gemoniae,gemoniae stairs.
and according to ancient sources the corpses of the executed in the tullianum were...hanged in public along the scalae gemoniae both for deterrence and because the romans loved live gore as you may have heard re the sort of entertainment offered in the colosseum.
i wouldn't be surprised if the bodies were hanged or even crucified upside down - and that's how simon bar ghiora aka saint peter ended up in all likelihood.
another inspiration for the peter-upside-down story of christian lore certainly also comes again from our flavius joseph book Jewish War where he says that during the siege of jerusalem the romans must have gotten pretty bored so they took to crucifying prisoners..."IN VARIOUS POSITIONS"!...

oh but i already hear the rome buffs among you object "no,saint peter was crucified upside down at san pietro in montorio on the janiculum hill!".

sorry folks - he wasn't.
san pietro in montorio is a pretty church on the janiculum hill in rome.in its closter there's the so-called tempietto del bramante,a renaissance microchurch built on top on what is believed to be the very location of saint peter's martyrdom.

except i haven't been able so far to find not even one attestation/documentation of that story before the year 1500 when the tempietto was dedicated.of course the lore must have been around for some time before 1500 if popes decided to have a tempietto built there by top renaissance architect bramante.but precisely when the san pietro in montorio localization for saint' peter's crucifiction story started i do not know.Certainly it's a late myth - certainly later than the year 800 AD,when the itinerarium einsiedlense was composed according to experts.
no don't get desperate.it's easy! bear with me just a little longer.

what i have indeed found is a note in a document dating from 700 years earlier than the tempietto inscription,the so-called itinerarium einsiedlense,a guidebook of rome for pilgrims whose original is kept in the swiss monastery of einsiedeln whence the name.
and re the locale of san pietro in montorio,church that didn't exist yet in the year 800 AD,- though a first church on the site would be built soon sfter in the IX century,but i do not know if it related to the crucifiction story or the other saint peter connection i'm about to cite -the itinerarium says:
"fountain of saint peter,where his jail was".

remember? the fountain.the jail.all over again.
what the hell is going on here?
1.the notice in the itinerarium einsiedlense completely gainsays the crucifiction legend for san pietro in montorio,instead attesting to the memory of peter's jail cum fountain there.
2.the tullianum was a death chamber not a normal jail,so it would have made no sense to bring saint peter to the tullianum and then crucify him elsewhere.
3.it makes instead complete sense that the real "saint peter",that is our simon bar jair upon arriving in rome with his fellow 700 "martyrs" which would never have fit into the small tullianum anyway would have been brought first to a safe isolated prison on the edge of town then,awaiting the parade whose final stage was the execution of the enemy chief in the tullianum.
4.the san pietro in montorio location is perfect for a maximum-security prison facility of the time,because it was on the edge of rome in 71 AD,and on top of a steep hill surrounded by deep crevices on 3 sides as you will easily still see when you visit - there are marvellous views of rome from up there.
i am not aware that archeologists have ever dug under san pietro in montorio,but they definitely should.
it's absolutely impossible rome wouldn't have powerful watchtowers and garrisons at such a strategic spot then and now.
as for the fountain,nearby there still is the marvellous fontana paola,built by the popes but originally a roman aqueduct called aqua alsietina that is from the bracciano lake north of town.
no wonder there were fountains in the area.

And from san pietro in montorio it's not far down to the beginning of the triumphalis pompa of 71 - the triumphal parade commemorated in the arch of titus in the forum,which according to flavius joseph started in the campus martius near the tiber,near today's campo dei fiori square,and then proceeded winding its macabre way thru the circus maximus to reach the via sacra in the forum and finally the capitol,where vespasian the massmurderer and his 2 bloodthirsty sons titus the destroyer of jerusalem and domitian waited for the news of simon bar jair's tullianum execution,upon which they sacrificed to juppiter and called it a day.
Before reaching the tullianum,simon, says joseph, had been dragged like an animal with a rope around his neck and beaten - and probably spat at - by the gleeful savage and barbaric roman public -: sounds familiar from the story of gospel jesus mishandled after his trial?

The crucifiction story for saint peter also may have been boosted by the real crucifiction,documented in ancient sources mentioned by eisenman,of another simon,simon bar clopas or cleopas or cleophas,who according to eisenman was jesus' brother and successor as head of the jerusalem church.
but this other piece of the new testament collage was crucified reportedly in palestine under trajan at the age of 120,not in rome.
the old age,exaggeration or not,of simon bar clopas when he died accounts for peter always being pictured as old on the cross in the history of painting.whereas flavius' simon bar jair is a young man...in his thirties just like the "jesus" of christian lore.

so again you see what a lying mosaic the new testament really is - but the single pieces of the puzzle were real.only again taken out of the original context and given a completely inverted,proroman meek antijewish pacifist meaning.

makes me think of that classic george harrison song -
"i don't know how
you were perverted
someone inverted you":

But now i have alerted you to the diversion folks.
And if you still keep blind-believing in jesus and saint peter after all this,i'll sell you another little foundational myth about 19 alleged kamikazes who never hijacked any bloody alleged boeing at all on 911...but that's another story.

Interesting Stuff 26.Sep.2005 13:19

Roland

Since Josephus apparently wrote towards the end of the first century of the current era, it would seem that the writers of the gospels who used his works to spin their myths must have composed them at later dates. But, tradition, for example, has the Gospel of Matthew being composed around 70 CE. This can't be so if your thesis is correct. Assuming you are correct, Aletes, when, in your view, were the gospels actually composed?