This book is so freaking cool. It's like it was designed for me, and the story about how it has wound up in my possession is even better.

The book is divided into two parts:

• Part I is historiographical rebuttal to Joseph McDowel's logically unsound proof of the resurrection of christ (failed to consider all possibilities, so debunking the handful he takes a stab at is by no means conclusive). This is some high octane conspiracy theory stuff, and I think that Eskov is uniquely positioned to 1) respect the subject matter and 2) not really have an agenda other than tamping down the over zealous intellectual-seeming argument advanced by McDowell for his own protestant ends. Accordingly, the navigation of scripture is respectful but honest.
• Part 2 is a fictionalized narrative that explores (one of) the unaccounted for possibilities which McDowell overlooks. A memo authored by Pilate's head of secret services, Afranius, recounting the clandestine operations at play in Palestine c. 33AD which supplements all the gaps/contradictions in the Gospel account. While this part is clearly closer to fanfic, Eskov's soviet touch is delightfully fun and since it stands on the shoulders of the very thorough and earnest Part 1, I'm easily able to overlook any "gotchas" since Eskov has already established his ethos.

Part 1

Historical background

I felt the need to go on this historical excursion for one reason, and one reason only. Whenever anybody (McDowell included), referring to Christ's Judea, casually writes that "the authorities did this" or "the authorities wanted that," that is pure nonsense. There were really two sets of authorities (as well as a clandestine, albeit quite powerful one), and their interests, while sometimes overlapping on certain issues, were completely different on the whole. To top it all off, the general instability of the situation clearly hindered these authorities' ability to maintain internal unity. In these conditions, the natural rivalry between groups, or the individuals within them, could take the form of open conflict, combined with the most unexpected and unnatural of temporary alliances. ... Biblical scholars have long highlighted a strange fact: even though Jesus spoke out just as sharply against the decadent Sadducee elite as he did against the dogmatist Pharisees, not once did he say a single word about the Zealots, whose activities were one of the most pressing issues of the day. Taking into account that the Zealots held the greatest power and authority in Jesus' native Galilee, the English biblical scholar S. G. F. Brandon argued in his monographs Jesus and the Zealots and The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth that Jesus, if not an outright member of the Zealot movement, was at the very least quite sympathetic to it.

The Procurator of Judea

You can argue all you want against early Christianity's assessment as a peace-loving doctrine by citing verses such as "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Mt 10:34) and other, equally noteworthy passages from Holy Scripture. The fact remains, however: thirty years later, members of the first Christian communities actually refrained from taking part in the Great Revolt and the Jewish War, for which their fellow countrymen branded them as Roman collaborators and exiled them to Transjordan. So if Pilate's attempts to save Jesus really were motivated by the aforementioned considerations of state, he was certainly right on the money. As for the long-term consequences, the procurator---honest to God!---had far more important things to worry about than someone else's future headache.

plus Jesus being the perfect scapegoat for both the Sanhedrin and Roman interests.

The deal was that 23 relatively smart members of the Jewish clergy understood Christ's teachings just as well as Pilate did, and realized the threat posed by the young prophet's continued growth in popularity---both to the Temple of the Jewish faith and to them personally. And with that knowledge, they made a counterintuitive yet, as it turned out, perfectly calculated move: they arrested Jesus and came to Pilate with a blatantly illegal request---to execute him as a political criminal. This resulted in a magnificent "fork": either their hated rival would be liquidated at the hands of the Romans (with time, he could even be canonized asyet another hero who died at the occupiers' hands), or the procurator would let him go free, thereby acknowledging that the notorious Christ was a Roman "agent of influence" and rendering the prophet a political corpse.

There are serious grounds to believe that the Sanhedrin found the second option far more desirable, and more likely. Recall that if the high priests' only goal was to have Christ's head, then it would have been far simpler to go with the foolproof option of rendering a religious verdict. In any case, Pilate's approval of the execution of the "King of the Jews" clearly took them by surprise---kind of like someone who theatrically asks for his dismissal, then actually gets it. Only pure bewilderment could explain their panicked request for a Roman guard to patrol the burial site---this, in a city chock full of temple guards!

...The procurator realized he had lost: it was useless to keep up the fight for Jesus. Of course, he could simply pardon the Galilean, stamping a big fat X on his viability as a political figure, but that would just be pure capitulation. Nonetheless, he could still try to derive some benefit from the death of the popular prophet (as a benefit in this case meant anything to the Sanhedrin's detriment). And so, after making a show of washing his hands, Pilate---entirely of his own accord!---hands Jesus over to the soldiers for torture, then demonstrates to the crowd: it is the Sanhedrin that is guilty. From this moment on, the Sanhedrin will be guilty of everything, down to the gall and sour wine Christ is given by Roman soldiers (Mt 27:34). I've got to hand it to him---despite being down a piece, Pilate ultimately won the initiative and, to some extent, managed to equalize the game. The persistence and ingenuity of this ruthless chessmaster are certainly worthy of respect, but as for what could have possibly led anyone to canonize him, I admit I haven't the slightest idea.

Golgatha

In the Gospel of John, of course, these words are nowhere to be found. On the other hand, you find, for example, a quotation from Jewish scripture that Roman soldiers casually recite verbatim (Jn 19:24)---just in case the people around them fail to notice that they are not merely casting lots for a dead man's clothes, but fulfilling an ancient prophecy? There is also the sublime conversation that a dying man, suffering the most terrible of agonies, carries on with the people standing at his cross: his mother and the "disciple whom he loved," that is, John (Jn 19:27). [McDowell provides a detailed description of the medical aspects of crucifixion. It is often believed that death results from shock, combined with dehydration and heatstroke, but that is actually somewhat inaccurate. Several hours after crucifixion, a person starts to develop pulmonary edema due to the difficulty in breathing; the immediate cause of death is asphyxiation. Hence, a person undergoing crucifixion is incapable of holding an extended, coherent conversation as a matter of principle. (K.E.)]

John the Baptist

Super interesting insight into the more probable relationship between the "puritanical" John the Baptist (the Forerunner) and the man for whom he claimed to be Forerunning on behalf of. Alternate reading of the "surely u have to baptize me." Love Eskov's allowance of sarcasm / bluffing in the Gospels (see also: Thomas seeing, but not needing to actually touch Jesus' wounds).

Matthew and Luke go on to recount the so-called "Embassy from John the Baptist"; after hearing of the miracles Jesus has performed, the prophet sends two of his disciples to him to investigate:

"Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?" Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them." (Mt 11:3-5)

After John's disciples depart, Jesus delivers a panegyric in honor of his Forerunner:

"Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist. [...] And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come" (Mt 11:11-14).

When you really think about it, this episode contradicts the entirety of the narrative preceding it. It's bad enough that the Forerunner is continuing his ministry alongside the Lamb of God, who has already come into this world. That aside: if you have any grounds to believe that the Messiah has arrived, then surely your first instinct would be to go see him yourself, and not send your disciples to check things out. However, the Synoptists already have this question covered: the only reason John the Baptist didn't come in person was because he was in prison at the time (Mt 11:2), having been arrested almost immediately after Jesus' baptism.

But then John snaps back: nothing of the sort---the Baptist was still a free man for quite some time afterwards, and was performing baptisms side-by-side with Jesus. It seems the Evangelist understood the true meaning of this episode far better than the Synoptists did, for which reason he deliberately excluded it from his narrative---as this episode makes it abundantly clear that even in the best case scenario, the Forerunner had his doubts as to whether Jesus really was He who would "baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Lk 3:16). What's more, the Synoptists are completely silent as to how John reacted to his ambassadors' report. If that's the case, then what to make of everything John said upon meeting him personally ("Lamb of God," "you come to be baptized by me?"), or the sign given directly to John in the form of a dove? Incidentally, I should point out that the entire scene of the baptism (as well as John's subsequent "exhortation on Christ"---Jn 3:22-36) is what is known in legal terms as "hearsay," as none of the Evangelists were personally there to witness it.

plus

Christian commentators often claim that John himself directed his crowds of followers to Jesus; however, this is completely unsupported by the Gospel texts. It's possible some members of John's community actually did leave him for Jesus (Christ would go on to see many of his disciples leave him as well---a common occurrence), but this migration was clearly neither organized nor widespread. John the Evangelist's account of the Baptist "gifting" Jesus his first disciples, as we may recall, is unanimously contradicted by the Synoptists. A rather telling detail: after John's execution, his disciples made a special trip to tell Christ the news (Mt 14:12), but not one of them ended up joining his community!

On the time and placement of John the Baptist's execution:

And now, the actual episode of John's beheading. Let's start off with a seemingly basic question: where did it take place? Well, the king is celebrating his birthday with his courtiers, military commanders, and elders; in light of the absence of any specific indications in the text, it would be logical to assume that the feast was held at its typical location---Herod's palace at Tiberias, on the Sea of Galilee. But during that time, John was held captive at the fortress of Machaerus (or Macheron), which is on the Dead Sea---and this comes from the same testimony by Josephus that the Church takes as fact! It should be noted that the Evangelists' account states that Herod did not merely give the order to execute John the Baptist (for which purpose he could have sent messengers from Tiberias to Machaerus, about 60 kilometers as the crow flies); no, right then and there, after several minutes had passed, he presented his stepdaughter the platter with the prophet's severed head.

In trying to resolve this obvious contradiction, some Christian commentators have tried---completely arbitrarily---to move the scene's location to Machaerus (if the mountain won't come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain). Gladkov, for example, goes so far as to tie this to political events:

Insulted [due to his daughter's divorce---K.E.], Aretas started a war against Herod; as a consequence of this, Herod and his entire court moved to Machaerus, where he had imprisoned John the Baptist, and took up residency in his palace there.

Well, let's start with the fact that Macherus was a small border outpost in the outskirts of the Arabian desert, and needless to say, there were no palaces there to speak of. Only recently, at the start of the protracted border war between Herod and Aretas, had the Jews captured the fortress from the Arabs, who had controlled it in previous years. Pretty strange idea to go to a place like that for your birthday, don't you think? Not to mention---what king brings his entire court, including his wife and children, out to an active war zone?

Or consider this detail: after Herod's ill-advised promise, Salome "went out and said to her mother, 'What shall I ask?' And she said, 'The head of John the Baptist!' Immediately she came in with haste to the king and asked, saying, 'I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter'" (Mk 6:24-25). Well, I'll be... I guess the princess put on a striptease for her stepfather's drunken guests just for the hell of it, with no concrete goal in mind beforehand?

For these reasons, I cannot help but be extremely skeptical of the Evangelists' version of the events. From an artistic perspective, though, the story is truly magnificent. It manages to organically combine obvious folklore elements ("Even if you ask for half my kingdom!") with a tightly structured plot---and just by itself, the semantic hieroglyph of the "head on a platter" provides ample fodder for pretentious art critics and psychoanalysts! Of course, to preserve the dynamism of the action (the immediate fulfillment of Herod's rash promise), it was necessary to sacrifice some degree of accuracy and move John to Tiberias (or alternatively, Herod to Machaerus), but such a sacrifice seems fully justified. It seems highly improbable that such a plot could spontaneously "clump together" from the various rumors circulating about the death of the popular prophet.

The Raising of Lazarus

Interesting speculation on "sham" miracles which the disciples wanted to cover up (Eskov praises views this to be something to their credit, didn't need fake miracles, rather than an inconsistency which dismantles the entirety of Gospel truth).

3. Farrar calls attention to the Synoptists' "special reticence about the family at Bethany;"they call it "the house of Simon the Leper" (while John doesn't mention any lepers at all), and they call Mary merely "a woman," without any clarification. He conjectures that when the Synoptic Gospels (the earliest chronologically) were written, there was still some danger that the Judean authorities might liquidate Lazarus and the other witnesses to his resurrection (Jn 12:9-11). Under these circumstances, it was clearly far too risky to give the Sanhedrin's investigators any information about the family at Bethany. By the time John wrote his Gospel, however, he no longer had any reason to "keep his mouth shut," and he could finally recount the miracle. Sounds logical, right? The way I see it, not really. Just as a reminder, how did this resurrection end? "Then many of the Jews who had come and seen his signs said, 'Surely this man is the Prophet!' Others said, 'He is the Prophet!' But others said, 'He is the Prophet!"' (Jn 12:10-11). Sounds like a pretty clear case of a conspiracy to smear the reputation of the Savior. Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him. But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did" (Jn 11:45-46). And rightly so; the very first thing you do in such a situation, after all, is tell the authorities---and somewhere down the line, they'll sort things out... So I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that, even if they wanted to, there was nothing the Apostles could have told the authorities about the family at Bethany that they didn't already know.

Then, explaining why the raising is included in the Gospel of John, but absent from the Synoptics despite the mention of Mary and Martha (seems like something significant worth including in mention of that pair/trio):

But why didn't John see through this hoax? Without a doubt, the answer to this question lies in this Apostle's very personality. The man who wrote the Book of Revelation in his early thirties clearly had to be somewhat "out of this world" (and I don't mean that as a euphemism for "out of his mind"). What was patently obvious to someone like Peter or Matthew, whose feet were planted more firmly to this sinful earth, did not at all come off that way to John. In the surreal world he created and inhabited, miracles like the Raising of Lazarus were in fact quite normal and natural.

Judas

I should note that the text of the New Testament contains a direct indication that Christ foresaw Judas' betrayal long before his last trip to Jerusalem. I am talking about John's interpretation of the statements his teacher made after giving his Bread of Life Discourse and subsequently having many of his companions desert him:

Then Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also want to go away?" But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go?" [...] Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve. (Jn 6:67-71)

However, this is not as simple and clearcut as John would have it.

Let's start with the fact that, generally speaking, it does not follow from this text that Jesus specifically had Judas in mind; while this speculation may be logical in retrospect, it is speculation nonetheless. Furthermore, if one assumes that John's interpretation was valid, a serious theological issue arises: Holy Scripture now explicitly affirms the rather pagan idea that man's actions are fatally predetermined, which seems completely incompatible with all Christian philosophy. So, let's suppose that the statement John recorded was a legitimate one, and let's also suppose that it related directly to Judas. Even then, however, there's nothing that implies that Christ is referring to his future betrayal, as opposed to some other act of Judas'---perhaps one that he had just committed at that very moment.

While we're at it, what were the circumstances of Judas' death? The most common version is that of Matthew---he "went and hanged himself" (Mt 27:5). Meanwhile, Acts of the Apostles says something completely different:

He burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem. (Ac 1:18-19)

Farrar opines, however, that this version is "not irreconcilable with the first," and even comes up with a sort of hybrid: the rope Judas is hanging from snaps, he hits the ground from a great height, and his belly bursts open... I feel no need to comment on the plausibility of this theory.\footnote{Archpriest Alexander Men was at least honest when he wrote that "the information contained in Mt 27:3-9 and Ac 1:16-20 is still [?!---K.E.] quite difficult to reconcile." (K.E.)}

Additionally, Eskov zeroes in on the questionable composition of Jesus' arrest party on Holy Thursday:

"The Johannine version that Jesus was arrested by the whole or a part of a Roman cohort, commanded by its tribune, with the Jewish temple police and its commanding officer in attendance, is now being accepted as the true statement of facts by most contemporary scholars" (Haim Cohn, The Trial and Death of Jesus, p. 78). Cohn himself, whose book specifically analyzes the legal intricacies of the "trial of Jesus of Nazareth," considers this detail extremely strange and demanding of special explanation. Small wonder---you have to think the former Attorney General of Israel would be well-informed on how to actually carry out an arrest... (K.E.)

The Last Supper and Gethsemane

Implied evidence of the Zealot connection re: usage of safehouses:

The description of how Christ and the Apostles found this house is worth quoting, in my opinion. On Thursday morning, the Apostles ask their teacher where he is going to have his Passover meal. Then, Christ sends Peter and John out to Jerusalem, supplying them with the following instructions:

And He said to them, "Behold, when you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house which he enters. Then you shall say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with My disciples?"' Then he will show you a large, furnished upper room; there make ready." So they went and found it just as He had said to them, and they prepared the Passover. (Lk 22:10-13)

Quite frankly, this episode doesn't sound like it's from Sacred Scripture so much as Seventeen Moments of Spring (or rather, Aquarium).\footnote{A memoir by former Soviet military intelligence officer Viktor Suvorov. (Z.B.)} It's pretty clear we're dealing with liaisons, physical and verbal passwords, a safehouse, and a classical technique to detect shadowing (by means of countersurveillance, as carried out by the partner of the "man with the pitcher"). On that note, it's also clear that Peter and John were sent there specifically to check whether or not the safehouse had been compromised. The owner of the house, in full accordance with the requirements of secrecy (which evidently haven't changed over the past twenty centuries), never once met his visitors---for which reason the Gospels lack any information about him whatsoever.

The Evangelists clearly deemed these facts unworthy of their attention; for us, however, it is quite significant that Jesus clandestinely (or at least discreetly) kept in contact with at least one group of people in Jerusalem with whom the Apostles were not familiar. The members of this group, on the other hand (which included the "man with the pitcher"), knew the Apostles by sight at the very least.

Additionally, the repeated appearances of angels/prophets/men whom the disciples didn't recognize and were sworn to secrecy about

Not long after his third (and last) trip into Jerusalem, Christ, accompanied by Peter, John, and James, ascended a mountain to partake in prayer. A number of events subsequently occurred, from which, as usual, we will refrain from commenting on the outright miracles: the illumination of Jesus' face and clothing, the cloud that hung over those present, and the voice from the heavens. Here is the "solid residue" that remains:

But Peter and those with him were heavy with sleep; and when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men who stood with Him. Then it happened, as they were parting from Him, that Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah"---not knowing what he said. (Lk 9:32-33)

However, Jesus never said anything to confirm his disciples' speculation that the men speaking with him were really Moses and Elijah. The most interesting part is what happens afterwards:

Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead." (Mt 17:9)

So they kept this word to themselves, questioning what the rising from the dead meant. (Mk 9:10)

Simply put: three of the Apostles accidentally witnessed a meeting between Jesus and two unknown men, which was clearly not meant for their eyes. Why else would their teacher have demanded that they keep their mouths shut until his dying day?

Followed by:

Let's compare the Agony in the Garden with the Transfiguration of the Lord (see above). In both cases, Christ breaks off from the disciples so he can pray in solitude. In both cases, he is accompanied by three Apostles---the same three, no less: Peter, John, and James. In both cases, all three "bodyguards" strangely fall asleep. Doesn't it sound like there's a few too many coincidences going on here, and the two stories actually describe a single meeting the Teacher took part in, the true nature of which was poorly understood by his Apostles? Especially considering there's also a direct indication that Jesus was not alone in the garden (Lk 22:43); admittedly, the Evangelist believed his teacher was accompanied by an "angel," but that is just pure speculation.

The Empty Tomb

Why in the world Roman guards would subscribe to messianic Christ narrative:

I am perfectly willing to admit that there were some members of the Judean hierarchy who genuinely believed in the divine, messianic essence of Christ. The Romans, however, are a different story altogether; everything historical and literary sources tell us about their mentality suggests that Roman society at that time was actually quite secular in nature. It is precisely this fact that is typically used to explain ancient civilization's fundamental inability to counteract the moral expansion of Christianity several decades later. For this reason, the very thought that the pragmatic Romans, who failed to show piety even to their own gods, were seriously willing to accept the Jewish legends of a Messiah who would rise again three days after his death---the very thought of that seems absurd to me. That's point number one.

Point number two: it bears mentioning that the disciplinary code of the Roman army was quite severe. McDowell notes that soldiers who had fallen asleep at their post were subject to execution without exception (regardless of the result of their negligence). With both these points in mind, we have no choice but to admit that every action taken by every party involved in this incident---the guards, the high priests, and Pilate---is completely absurd (no matter the actual reason for the tomb being empty). It's like they each agreed to do the one thing that would work most effectively against their own interests. Judge for yourself.

The Second Warning to McDowell

The soldiers roll aside the stone covering the entrance to the burial chamber. The "delegates" from the Sanhedrin---devout Jews---are in a rather unenviable position. It's bad enough they've already defiled themselves by breaking the Sabbath; even worse, now they need to look over a tomb (recall the Jews' shock at Jesus' desire to see the deceased Lazarus). Do you really think they'd risk adding another terrifying breach of Mosaic Law---coming in contact with a dead body---to their list of Sabbath labors, just so they can check whether the tomb's occupant is actually a corpse or... an empty cocoon of burial shrouds? I'd bet my life that at most, they stuck the very tips of their noses into the vault, then made a mad dash for the nearest synagogue to atone for their sins, yelling over their shoulder, "Seal it up!" The legionnaires presumably exchanged glances, twirled their fingers by their temple, then sent one of the rookies to the next village over for some hooch and leisurely started going about their duties.

plus more speculation on the plausibility of a thorough inspection of the body:

Meanwhile, Joseph and Nicodemus brilliantly finish up their scheme. In the most dangerous scenario, the Romans conspire with the high priests to reseal the tomb at once and make it look like nothing has happened (an act Pilate wouldn't dare carry out himself, fearing it could be a clever provocation on the part of the Sanhedrin). In that case, of course, Joseph could open the sealed tomb in front of witnesses the next day---he owned it, after all!---and "discover" the disappearance of the body; the problem there, however, would be that his part in the scheme would become so obvious that it could no longer be denied. For that reason, the first person to discover the open and empty tomb needs to be someone other than him. And that's where the Myrrhbearers come in.

For almost two millennia, people have read this scene over and over and surprisingly failed to ask themselves a simple question: what goal, strictly speaking, did Mary Magdalene, Mary of Jacob, and Salome have when visiting Christ's tomb at the crack of dawn? Just what rituals were they planning to perform, if they themselves had witnessed his interment on Friday and knew that their teacher had been given a "first-class" burial (Jn 19:39-40)? Why did they bring spices with them (hence the title "Myrrhbearers"), if Nicodemus had already applied "a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds" (Jn 19:39), a fact they were more than well aware of? And just where did they get the brilliant idea to disturb the peace of a dead man---a sin in any set of human laws, and completely unthinkable in Jewish law? But if we assume that the true goal of the Myrrhbearers' pre-dawn vigil (as well as that of Peter and John, who were soon mobilized by Mary Magdalene) was to serve as witnesses to the body's disappearance and prevent the authorities from quietly resealing the tomb, then everything immediately falls into place.

plus

But what goal did they have in mind when hatching this scheme? Well, the answer to that is pretty clear. It's plainly obvious that if a major scandal were to break out, it would be the powerful high priests---Caiaphas and his father-in-law Annas---who would bear the brunt of the outrage. In the year AD 36, Caiaphas was disgracefully "dismissed from his present position" and even stripped of the title of high priest, which, as a rule, lasted for life. And who's to say it wasn't the scandalous story of some Galilean pretender's body disappearing almost two years previously (or alternatively: killing the Son of God) that wound up being the last straw? Moreover, Caiaphas' fall led to the rival Sadducee faction coming into power, under the leadership of the new high priest Jonathan; it was evidently this faction to which Joseph and Nicodemus belonged as well. Jonathan's policy was more pro-Roman than his predecessor's, for which he was killed by Jewish terrorists known as the Sicarii; as for Joseph, let us recall that he was a "friend of Pilate and the Lord." Looks like everything's coming together...

Appearance of the Risen Christ

Curious how the disciples don't seem to recognize him, and Jesus only appears "clearly" to people who's testimony is shaky at best acc to the Sanhedrin i.e. women.

These considerations, incidentally, apply just as strongly to another event that McDowell makes no mention of (and is technically not the subject of our analysis): the Ascension of the Lord. For what it's worth, note that this episode only appears in the Gospel of Luke (Lk 24:50-52) and Acts of the Apostles (Ac 1:2-11), which is based on the testimony of St. Paul, who did not witness it directly. Neither Matthew, Mark the Evangelist (who records Peter's account), nor, strangely enough, John---in other words, none of the direct participants in the events---say a single word about the Ascension. Returning to the "appearance on the mountain in Galilee," I'd like to note that factually speaking, things are nowhere near as clear-cut as McDowell would have them (see below).

plus

Moreover---take note!---it is these two appearances that hold the least meaning out of all of them: the Savior appears solely to show his wounds twice over, eat fish and honey, and admonish his disciples for their lack of faith. Conversely, there are only two appearances where Christ makes lengthy speeches on key points of religious dogma: on the road to Emmaus and on the Sea of Galilee. In these cases, as we may recall, the wounds are not present, nor is there a sufficiently high degree of confidence in the identity of the man making these speeches. Speaking of the wounds: they paint an interesting picture. So, he doesn't have them in Emmaus (in what universe could you assume the disciples didn't notice such a "tiny detail" in the hours they spent talking with him?), but then they appear the moment he makes his appearances in Jerusalem---yet by the time he makes his appearances in Galilee, they've vanished without a trace...

The Gospel of Afranius

I love that, instead of delivering a straightforward conclusion in light of all the gaps in McDowell's argument, Eskov instead just segues into the narrative portion of the book. The stage has been set, the actors are ready, the reader has been primed – time for some fun.

I found it fun, rather than "historically compromising" or whatever, how much Eskov imported KGB paranoia/respect into the environment of this portion of the book. It leads to some anachronisms (maybe translation calls) and some scheming which flirts with the line of how much cloak and dagger there actually was in 1C, but it's fun and is something that is not explored at all by the Gospel accounts, or at least not the modern treatment of "sacred scripture":

However, we had to proceed with the utmost caution. As a rule, the members of the sect walked the streets of Jerusalem in a single group, closely monitored---for their own protection---by Judean surveillance agents; thus, it was impossible to approach John undetected. If absolutely necessary, of course, we could move in regardless: perhaps we could organize a minor street riot and use the commotion to quietly jab an awl under the traitor's shoulder blades, or perhaps we could have some snipers from the Special Forces shoot him with a poisoned arrow from 200 cubits away. If the hit was carried out too professionally, though, Judean detectives would quite easily be able to sniff out the "Roman trail," which would inevitably lead them to the correct (and extremely undesirable) conclusion; besides that, it would cause a panic in the sect itself. Ultimately, however, we still had no particular cause for concern: Yeshua's preaching, and his activity in general, were anything but private, and this wannabe stool pigeon was simply no match for an agent of Judas' caliber. The most sensible course of action here was to widen our web and wait patiently; we would keep a close eye on the sect itself and monitor the places where the turncoat was most likely to appear---namely, the approaches to the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas' house, and the Temple Guards' headquarters. We would have no trouble trailing an amateur like John; sooner or later, he would have to leave his comrades behind and travel alone to a secret rendezvous---and that would be the moment he'd get stabbed by "robbers."

Love Zack's translation notes. All are helpful, some are cheeky and fun too (which perfectly fits Eskov's style):

"Well, there you have it, chief. The whole mosaic's come together: first his little moonlight stroll, then the six days' silence, and finally his slander of John. Speaking of John: I'd bet half a year's salary the guy'll live to 100 at this point, and not a day less."

with the added footnote:

Fabricius' bet turned out to be a safe one; according to legend, John actually did live to 100, and was the only Apostle to escape martyrdom. (Z.B.)

Judas ending up being a triple agent is a fun + clever twist which helps explain both the composition of the arrest party and Judas' presence there:

After letting silence reign for a moment, I gave the order, "Fire 'em up!", and the light of several torches began to dance atop our helmets and armor. Only after this did I approach the line of Judeans bristling with their swords; I took a moment to look them over, then proclaimed in astonishment, "Goodness gracious! I say, these aren't robbers at all, but His Holiness' temple guards! All clear, men, sheathe your swords!" Then, in Aramaic: "Squad leader, come over here at once!" A ripple ran through the rows of Judeans as he pushed his way through, and I was greeted by the sight of a tall man who, for some reason, was wearing civilian clothes---a blue chiton and a brown headband; as soon as I saw him, I froze.

That Judas was the squad commander could only mean one thing. Standing before me was not some puny little turncoat, but a career employee of one of Judea's special services---perhaps the secret police, or perhaps the intelligence department of the Temple Guard Corps---who had successfully completed his mission and returned to join his comrades. At this point, dishonorable discharge was the least of my problems; now, this was guaranteed to have a lethal outcome.

So from what I gather:

• Judas is an asset managed by Afranius and embedded among Jesus' disciples as a guardian angel to keep him alive against Sanhedrin assassins but also a kill switch in case Jesus gets out of hand
• But then he goes unresponsive to Afranius once the trail gets hot leading up to the Passion, shows up Holy Thursday with the temple guard joined by "Nathaniel ben Ananus [who ] had been a notorious terrorist in his youth; now, however, he was the chief of the Temple Guard Corps' Special Operations Department" which runs into Afranius' party. So Judas double crosses Afranius and gets into trouble as a loose end w/ Ananus as well. No wonder he winds up "hanged" and disemboweled.
• Eskov also points out that a 30 silver piece bribe would be a pittance for Judas as the effective treasurer for the disciples. Could've easily made much more with the slightest bit of discretion. Killing himself out of guilt makes no sense, regardless.

Throughout both Parts 1 and 2, I will say it is kind of funny how Eskov is like "yeah Yeshua Ha-Nostri was definitely an enigma, but his disciples were rubes":

With everyone's attention on the circle of light, where my men had now made a ring around Yeshua, I quietly slipped into the shadows. Leaning over the unconscious Peter, I felt for his sword on the grass and tossed it off into the darkness; the last thing I needed was for Nathaniel to arrest the disciples for armed resistance. It wasn't so much that I'd need them in the future; right now, the only thing I cared about was denying my esteemed colleague even the consolation prize of their arrest---the more pitiful this turned out for him, the more actively he'd try to sink Judas. And the funny part? From what I can tell, none of these guys ever managed to figure out what was happening literally right in front of them; hopefully, they never will...

Also love the development of Afranius letting Fabricius take charge of the operation since he seems eager to become the scapegoat for the cluster which inevitably will result in court-marshaling at best, execution/liquidation at worse. It is he (Fabricius) who then "appears" to the disciples on the road to Emmaus/other places where the disciples "don't recognize Jesus" in order to steer the early Church. And slowly he starts to drink the kool-aid (Ha-Nostri also uses the same phrase "What you do, do quickly!" which he used to give Judas an out). Towards the end, Fabricius starts to use capital pronouns of reverence to refer to Him (Ha-Nostri) and it also starts to rub off on Afranius who starts to use the singular "God" instead of "gods" as an exclamatory invective as well as the reverent pronoun and eve "Lord." Very cool subtlety which I can see the other translator missing the mark on.

Another cool tie-in is that Fabricius' testimony/account of operation FISH becomes the basis for the synoptic source -- Q:

Right that very moment, my eyes fell on a thick manuscript lying on the advisor's desk; to change the subject, I politely inquired if he had returned to his translations from Canaanite as a way of curing his melancholy. Fabricius, for some reason flushed with embarrassment, began to explain that the manuscript (he called it "Document Q," ostensibly from quaesitio\footnote{The Latin for "investigation." (Z.B.)}) was his literary translation into Greek of all of Yeshua's known sermons, as gleaned from our field agents; it also contained a description of the events that took place in Jerusalem, though of course, he had purged it of any and all operational details. By no means, in his opinion, did all this evidence deserve to be lost to history. In short, I left the centurion with the firm conviction that we were thinking and acting as one, the only difference being that I was afraid of the Hegemon's Precaution, while the centurion was afraid of mine. Of course, that was the usual state of affairs---certainly no cause for offense.

great conclusion:

I am only capable of thinking logically, and it seems this is the sort of problem that logic cannot even begin to solve. And so, Proconsul, there is one advantage I have over you now, dubious though it may be: by the time you read this sentence, I will definitely have gotten the answer I've been looking for. An absolutely perfect answer.

fmt Q's

In the chapter "Procurator of Judea," there's a quotation from The Faculty of Useless Knowledge which reads

Second: the only thing Jesus that sought to destroy and actually was undermining all the time, were the authorities.

wondering if this is a preserved typo, or an errant transposition of "Jesus" and "that"? feel like it would make more sense if it read

Second: the only thing that Jesus sought to destroy and actually was undermining all the time, were the authorities.

In the chapter called "The Last Supper," Is this a typo? Cursory googling tells me it's also a reference to Mount of Olives, so I wonder if it just varies based on translation of the bible one is working from (or, in this case, Gladkov's Accessible Interpretation perhaps?) NOPE THIS IS JUST VERBATIM FROM THE NKJV

Now, as for how Judas managed to guess the location, that’s more or less clear: apparently, Gethsemane served as a constant refuge for the Apostles over the past few days (“And in the daytime He was teaching in the temple, but at night He went out and stayed on the mountain called Olivet”—Lk 21:37).

In the appearance of the risen christ chapter, there's reference to "Announcement from TASS" - is this just common knowledge that escapes me? alternatively phrase this as the FNs were helpful, the only thing I felt like I had to google which wasn't already explained by FN was "Announcements from TASS"

Curious about some of the anachronisms like psychiatrist, "special forces," SWAT, etc.

Is FISH an acronym?

related