The Matthias Scroll: Select Second Edition

THE MATTHIAS

SCROLL

Jesus’ Life as He Would

Have Remembered It

Abram Epstein

THE MATTHIAS SCROLL

JESUS’ LIFE AS HE WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED IT

Copyright © 2017 Abram Epstein.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

This is a work of fiction. All of the characters, names, incidents, organizations, and dialogue in this novel are either the products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously.

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-5320-2711-6 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-5320-2712-3 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-5320-2713-0 (e)

iUniverse rev. date: 11/16/2017

Contents

Preface

Introduction

A scroll recollecting Jesus of Nazareth, in good faith put to parchment by me, his friend, Matia

The first treacherous slander: Jesus forgave sin

The leper

The hand-washing episode: insult and contempt

Sharing a meal with prominent Pharisees

The Kfar Nahum episode

The holy spirit

The Cana wedding

Temptation on the Jerusalem Temple mount

Jesus’ baptism by John

A paralyzed man lowered through the roof

Don’t think I wish to abolish Torah

Jesus’ eulogy for John

Jesus becomes a fugitive from Antipas

Jesus’ final Passover

Joseph’s interlocution

My last Passover with the disciples

To you, James with my deepest affection, I expect you shall have read the full scroll as you come to this coda recording what occurred on Purim eve, a month or so ago.

True Directions

I am grateful for the encouragement of my niece, Samara Epstein Cohen, whose unwavering confidence in my writing helped bring this novel to fruition.

PREFACE

AUTHOR’S NOTE: I understand many readers may wonder whether this book is totally fiction, or is a historical work. (The genre, historical fiction, indeed often raises that very question because of its inherent use of actual events to create literary drama.) The Matthias Scroll, while dramatized history, claims to present Jesus and the circumstances of his last two years realistically, with fictionalized characterizations and scenes added for color. The portraits of Matthias and Jesus are supported by my extensive background in New Testament research and Biblical studies. The Preface and Introduction are nonfiction guides intended to provide the reader with background, especially detailing the roles of Matthias and Joseph explicated in this work for the first time. Should the reader have interest in a strictly nonfiction examination of the Gospel text, presenting the Matthias thesis, and his portrayal of Jesus, my recent book, A Documented Biography of Jesus Before Christianity is available from Iuniverse and retail booksellers.

Before I begin these prefatory remarks, be assured that Matthias was real–and his Gospel text, covered-over linguistically by the canonized version, comprises its own scroll, recovered in fragments and re-assembled in the following work. The dramatizing fill-ins (as stated in the note above), which require this book be labeled historical fiction, are not far-fetched flights of fantasy, but amplify verifiable circumstance. Please be aware, Jesus’ words and activities are largely preserved without alteration and they vary from New Testament scripture only according to my translation of Matthias’ recovered account. Therefore, in this author’s estimation, they are a nonfiction element within a work labeled historical fiction. Farther on you will read about Matthias and the reasons his name is never mentioned in the Gospels, and only once in the New Testament. Suffice it to say at this juncture, he was Jesus’ closest friend, a companion for much of the last, fateful two years, and had actually been chosen by Simon/Peter (Acts I:21) to fill the vacancy left by Judas Iscariot after the crucifixion. Much of what he transcribed in the original Gospels, covered over by Simon/Peter’s theologizing enhancement of the messianic Jesus, comprises its own story, and, as explained, is put forth as a separate scroll in the following work.

As the reader may be well aware, almost every English-speaking adult, whether a faithful Christian, or a free thinker, has a fixed, even ossified, set of beliefs about Jesus. Often the individual’s perspective is shaped by components of theological dogma, institutionalized either at the family dinner table, or at parochial school, or church. Occasionally, those of other faiths may assimilate elements of Christian vernacular and have opinions about Jesus derived from social experience, such as the colorful sights and sounds of holiday celebration. Non-Christians will frequently refer to Jesus Christ having no notion they are saying Jesus the Savior. And even Jews will sometimes call the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament legitimizing the messiahship of Jesus comprised in the New Testament.

A fairly traditional Christian view of Jesus generally asserts:

1. He was not an ordinary human being. He was specially imbued with divine qualities, and was the spiritual or physical son of God, acting as God’s chosen king, sent to mankind to usher in the Kingdom of God.

2. His human side, including his suffering and death, were a model for the faithful to understand so they might follow his path to an eternal kingdom, the reward for righteousness and compassion on earth.

3. In contrast to the Hebrew God of revenge and punishment Jesus glorified forgiveness and the chance to be reborn into a redeemed life.

A multitude of scholarly books have shone a spotlight on the Gospels’ textual passages thought to reveal Jesus’ historical circumstances, explaining his persecution and arrest in common-sense political terms. More often than not, references to Roman occupation and unjust rule of Judea seem to be a reliable background to better grasp Jesus’ era and social experience. Varied interpretations have described his persona as a mix of divinely endowed warrior and prophet ushering in a higher-level lexicon of meaning to illuminate human existence.

Far more than the Romans, Jesus’ adversaries in the Gospels, are the Jews. Jewish religious extremism colors major portions of the Gospels and constitute daily aggravation toward Jesus and his followers. Repeatedly, he is castigated and chastised for demeaning and distorting Jewish tradition and Torah law.

As a consequence of such criticism by establishment Jews (often labeled Pharisees) whatever their actual complaint, the postmortem church sanctified the Gospel recollections and reached a verdict that the Jews had ultimately become so irate they conspired to arrest Jesus and have him crucified.

Those who have not spent their academic lives following the trail of clues brought by the church as evidence, may be unaware that dating from the late 1700’s a number of faithful Christian theologians were puzzled by certain incongruities in the evidentiary sequence propounded by the prosecutorial papacy and their fellow legates.

But here, in order not to unintentionally reveal the detailed tract (The Matthias Scroll) which deserves your more proportionate time, permit me to add only this: Even in the late 1700’s some Christians of renown, emboldened by faith God had granted them insight through Jesus, put forward this inquiry: What had he done in the eyes of his fellow Jews which they, according to their laws, believed warranted a death sentence?

These erudite Christian scholars knew, according to the church verdict, Jesus had been accused of equating himself with God, claiming to be a son of God, and to have forgiven sin, but when they examined the text closely it yielded a remarkably different translation.

Jesus had said he was a son of God, a title used by rabbis referring to venerated teachers of Torah famed for believing that its precepts were imbued with the Divine Spirit. He had even quoted his adversaries a psalm’s passage which described such Jewish teachers as sons of God… Surely, the local rabbis however much they disapproved of him, must have known he never claimed to be the actual son of God!

Further, the Gospels, on closer examination, never said he had forgiven sin. Jesus always assured the recipient of his healings "your sins will be forgiven, a profound belief in the merciful new time to commence as God’s Kingdom," which he, like all Jews, believed would unfold in their midst, even in their own lifetimes. Simply, his death sentence didn’t make Jewish sense.

By the 1800’s a growing community of scholars were dedicated to quieting areas of percolating uncertainty. It wasn’t so much the cynics who found accounts of supernatural miracles (walking on water, calming a storm, feeding a multitude from a small basket of fish) beyond belief–but more a question why Jesus, God’s chosen king–a prophesied king sent to save mankind, had never spoken about himself in those terms. (The few phrases which pronounced his own messiahship were recognized as early church insertions having the purpose of persuading new proselytes to have faith.)

Jesus’ secrecy about his messianic identity as well as his intention to be arrested and die on the cross, then to disappear from the tomb, had soon after his death been explained as tests of faith and mystery–but in the 1800’s his reticence about his agenda to save mankind was again the subject of theological inquiry, and with it would arise several daunting questions.

Who was it who recalled Jesus’ praying to God not to die in the Garden of Gethsamane, during the retreat after that last Passover dinner? (According to the Gospels, Peter and the Zebedees were asleep a fair distance away.) And, who provided the details of what occurred in the house of the High Priest, Caiaphas, when Jesus was interrogated just prior to his judgment by Pontius Pilate? Simon/Peter was outside–and only the Disciple was in Caiaphas’ house where the hearing took place.

One need not be Christian to wince as gruesome detail assails us when Jesus bleeds from mockery’s crown of thorns, and drags a cross to Golgotha. But who was the Gospels’ witness? What author of the Gospels, drawing upon the recollections of the disciples, will name the one present to see the travesty as it unfolded? A disciple? None of the familiar twelve were there.

Even at the cross as Jesus expires, the only individual who never left his side, the one who wrote the full account, still unnamed, reports Jesus’ last words. Yes, there such a one. He was Matthias, Jesus’ only close friend. And now you will have the benefit of his account, freed of the Gospels’ purpose of making him the son of God.

INTRODUCTION

Matthias’ Historical Role

Matthias’ choice as a replacement of Judas Iscariot is documented in the New Testament (Acts 1:21–26).

The relevant passage describing the moment reads:

[Simon said,] We must choose someone who has been with us the whole time that the lord Jesus was traveling around with us, someone who was with us from the time when John was baptizing until the day when he was taken up from us—and he can act as witness to his resurrection … then they [voted] … and Matthias was listed as one of the twelve disciples [also called apostles after Jesus’ death].

As the story unfolds, we become better acquainted with the historical Matthias, an individual with a unique role in the New Testament.

Because his name is completely expunged from the Gospel record (for reasons addressed below), we should first take note of any oblique references to him. Searching for his footprints in the account of Jesus’ final year, one may sense that Matthew 8:19–8:22 offers a clue to Matthias’ presence. It says: A scribe came up to Jesus and said to him, ‘Rabbi, I will follow you wherever you go.’

In all subsequent passages, although there is no explicitly mentioned scribe who follows Jesus wherever he went … only one individual is eligible for that title: Matthias. As one who stayed with Jesus (Matthew 8:19 joined to Acts 1:21), being accredited as a member of Jewish officialdom (see his authority to enter the Caiaphas hearing, below), Matthias meets that criterion. His role in creating the new testament is clear. Simon says as much, supporting his newly consecrated disciple with the words, He can act as witness …

In a word, he was expected to record the disciples’ recollections of Jesus’ teaching and life. As the group’s scribe, he would take down their witnessed testament, adding his own memories only occasionally and under Simon’s close supervision. (In this novel, he soon realized Jesus’ life was being distorted and set about writing his own private scroll. What the authorities had done to Jesus’ body on the cross, Matthias would not permit his followers do to his memory.)

More Footprints Leading to His Historical Identity

In John 13:23, at the Last Supper (the Passover meal in the other Gospels), Simon asks the disciple Jesus loved to inquire of Jesus who he meant would betray him.

Sitting at his side during the dinner, this mystery disciple’s relationship with Jesus is such that he is presumed by Simon to know more about Jesus’ preoccupation with the betrayal and impending arrest than any of the others. Surmising this individual is Matthias, he is thus cast in the role of Jesus’ close friend and confidant.

After Jesus’ arrest, when he is taken to the fateful hearing before Caiaphas, Simon is excluded, but the disciple (Matthias) is permitted to enter. Only when Matthias intercedes with a formal request based on knowing Caiaphas personally (John 18:15–16) is Simon permitted to even enter the gated exterior courtyard. The relevant passage indicates the individual’s (that is, Matthias’) administrative stature:

Simon-Peter and another disciple followed Jesus to Caiaphas’ house (the hearing chamber). Since the disciple was known to the high priest (he) went with Jesus inside, but Simon was standing outside the door (courtyard gate). So the disciple, being known to the high priest, went out, spoke to the woman watching the gate, and brought Simon in (to the courtyard).

There, a fire had been lit and Simon was able to stay warm, along with the servants and guards.

Several significant conclusions concerning the identity of the disciple emerge in this Gospel setting. First, he remained at Jesus’ side, just as he had several hours earlier at the Last Supper. Therefore, we may infer it was the same person. Furthermore, having the stature of a scribe, he enabled Simon to enter the gated courtyard of the high priest. Of undeniable importance, the disciple has enough political weight to be included at the hearing to witness the proceedings.

No other member of Jesus’ circle is present as the interrogation begins—and plainly, only that individual could later provide any information about what occurred.

Recognizing his scribal status, one may logically infer that whatever record the Gospels make pertaining to Jesus’ appearance before Caiaphas is drawn from the account subsequently offered by Matthias and revised in Simon’s version.

Not only was Matthias the single member of Jesus’ entourage to witness the hearing before Caiaphas, but he, alone among the group, saw the grotesque mockery and derision at Pontius Pilate’s Praetorium and Gabbatha scene of judgment.

Therefore, his detailed account would again constitute the only record of the event. (Although later Christianized and enhanced, it has been fully returned to the original in The Matthias Scroll.)

Two more chronicled appearances place him at the scene of the Crucifixion and at the empty tomb, with both accounts concealing the actual history beneath a heavy theological gloss.

As the only witness among Jesus’ companions at the Caiaphas hearing, the judgment by Pilate, and the Crucifixion, one may conclude that Matthias, having the skills of a scribe, could render a historical account of what actually occurred.

Why was his name expunged from the Gospels?

The evidence indicates he refused to exalt a glorified, supra-human Jesus.

As common sense suggests, whatever occurred to terminate Matthias’ function as the group’s scribe must have been tantamount to an emotional rupture. Almost certainly, the rift would have been accompanied by anger and, quite probably, mutual recrimination.

To extrapolate the likely expressions of contempt by the group—and especially Simon—toward a single individual who rejected Jesus’ divinity, one begins with the parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1–14; Luke 14:16–24).

In this parable, Jesus is symbolically represented as the bridegroom whose wedding (his coronation as God’s heaven-ordained savior/husband to mankind) is interrupted by the presence of a guest not wearing a wedding garment (Matthew 22:11).

The attire he is supposed to wear is the garment of knowledge that Jesus is God’s son. Because he does not conform to the expected dress code, the king (God) expels him from the banquet hall (that is, the Kingdom of God). Seething contempt toward the ignorant guest permeates the passage. God says, Cast him into outer darkness. There men will weep and gnash their teeth …

But is this a reference to Matthias?

The last line of the parable strongly supports such a conclusion. It reads: Many are invited but few are chosen (Matthew 22:14, using the parallel invited, as in Luke 14:24). Luke’s wording reads: "None of those who were invited (my emphasis) shall taste my banquet."

Therefore, the wedding guest who was only invited but not chosen is the one without knowledge that Jesus was God’s son. Matthias alone, in the Gospels, is invited to become a disciple (Acts 1:21) but was not chosen (that is, by Jesus as one of the original twelve).

Considering the vengeful, even murderous, attitude and action characterizing God in this text, one does well to recognize that it belongs with a group of similar, punishment-oriented postmortem parables. They stand in sharp contrast to the loving Jesus, who is given a far more forgiving persona during the time when he was alive.

One such parable that contradicts his teaching during his life and may be understood only as a postmortem reaction to those rejecting the supra-human Jesus is the Parable of the Pounds (selectively reading Matthew 25:26–30; Luke 19:22–27) with the master saying, "You knew that I was severe … I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but