Connect with us

The Pronunciation

Benson C Saili

When Simeon, the Essenes’ second-ranking  priest  who also went by the titles “Angel Gabriel” and “Angel of the Lord” (“The Lord” being the Zadok priest Zechariah) made his ruling,  he was in line with Essene protocol obligated to deliver it in person first to Mary (being the first respondent as she was a woman)  and then to Joseph.

     In the gospels, this direct communication is spun as a dream-communication by a spirit-angel when that was far from what actually transpired.  It all has to do with what was known as the pesher code – the cryptic Essene method of telling a story with two or several layers of meaning, with the surface meaning meant for general consumption and the underlying meaning meant for initiates – those who were part of the inner sanctum of the Essene order.

     The gospels say when Gabriel visited Mary, her “kinswoman” Elizabeth was sixth months pregnant (LUKE 1:36).   We have already  established that Elizabeth  was Mary’s aunt, being the elder sister of her late mother Anna. Since  Mary got pregnant toward the end of June, it meant Elizabeth’s baby, the future John the Baptist, was scheduled to be born in September in perfect conformity with dynastic procreational rules. Mary obviously was distraught that whilst her aunt’s child would be born in the stipulated month, hers would be born way off the mark. She had an even greater worry: she was liable to execution by stoning as her transgression with Joseph effectively amounted to adultery.    

When Simeon presented himself to Mary to deliver the verdict in June/July 8 BC, he did so as the second highest-ranking Essene as well as a representative of Zechariah, the highest ranking Essene who also went by the titles “Archangel Michael” and “Lord God”. The place at which Simeon met Mary was “the city of Nazareth in the Galilee” LUKE 1:26). To those unfamiliar with the pesher code, what immediately springs to mind is Galilee the northernmost province of Palestine and the town of Nazareth where Jesus is said to have grown up. Sorry folks, but you couldn’t be more wrong: this includes every pastor who is ministering today!

     To begin with, there was no town called Nazareth in gospel times. The Romans, who were the lords of the realm at the time, kept rather comprehensive maps of every corner of their empire and there isn’t a single one place on their map of the Palestine of the day that was called Nazareth. The Nazareth of today is a classic case of myth turning to fact by deliberate design and for purposes purely of profit – to cash in on the tourist allure.  So what Nazareth was Luke talking about?

     The term Nazareth was used for various places in the Judean wilderness (the broader habitation of the Essenes, see accompanying map).  The Judean wilderness had three principal settlements. They were Qumran, the HQ, Ain Feshkha, and Mazin. All three settlements were along the west coast of the Dead Sea and were exactly three kilometers apart. The other significant Essene settlements in the Judean wilderness were  Mird and Mar Saba, about 10 to 12 km southwest of Qumran. It is important that you keep these names in mind as  I shall be referring to them time and again.  

     According to the Dead Sea Scrolls, every place in the Judean wilderness where Nazarites resided was referred to as Nazareth. These were the areas between Mar Saba and Mird on the one hand and Ain Feshkha  on the other.  The Nazarites were Essenes who were married but abstained from sex for varying lengths of time from 100 days downwards. They included men and women as well as Jews and Gentiles. The chief Nazarite was always the Davidic heir. In 8 BC, this was Joseph. The term Nazareth stems from the Hebrew term “Netzer’, meaning “branch” or “shoot”. The future Messiah of  Israel was called the “Branch of David” (IASIAH 11).

Clearly therefore, since Joseph, the representative of the  Messianic line,  was the head of the Nazarites, it was fitting that  all the places where the Nazarites converged be named Nazareth as a tribute to the Davidic  heir.

     The Essenes were very specific in their use of language. When they said, “City of Nazareth”, they meant one particular quarter at Ain Feshkha  set aside for Gentile and female Nazarites. At the time Mary fell pregnant, she was a Nazarite and so was based at Ain Feshkha. It was at Ain Feshkha that Simeon met Mary.  

    As for “Galilee”, this again is pesher language at play here.  The Essenes had key representatives in regions of Palestine they called bishops. When, say, the Bishop of Galilee was  visiting a particular place in the Judean wilderness, it was said he had “brought Galilee with him”. For as long as he was around that particular place, it was provisionally called Galilee in his honour.  Thus when Simeon went to see Mary at Ain Feshkha/Nazareth, the Bishop of Galilee was also in attendance since Mary’s official place of domicile was Galilee. Ain Feshkha/Nazareth was accordingly referred to as “the Galilee” – with the  definite article “the” as per the literal translation – at  that particular point in time.  This system of naming we glean from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The first thing Simeon said to Mary was to recognise her as Joseph’s wife despite what had transpired. She would not be divorced and the child she was carrying would not be denounced  as a bastard child but as a procedurally sired child of Joseph. Simeon even prophetically pronounced a titular name for the begotten child. He was to be called Yeshua (Jesus in Greek), which is Joshua in English.  The name not only was reminiscent of  Joshua, the  great Israel general who had succeeded Moses and led the Israelites into the promised land of Canaan, as Palestine was previously called, but it also honoured  Yeshua III, the late grandfather of Mary.  The name Jesus was therefore meant as much to honour a great Jewish liberator  as to appease Mary.

     Simeon proceeded to say that the Essene High Priest Zechariah (the “Lord God” in the gospels, one of his titles in the Essene  hierarchy) had pronounced that Jesus would be recognised as the new David after Joseph had passed on. Thus to the High Priest and indeed to the Essene movement, Jesus was not  illegitimate but the  rightful heir to his father Joseph’s inheritance. As such, baby Jesus was going to be called the Son of the Most High. In today’s parlance, the “Most High” is rendered  “His Royal Highness”, which simply means Crown Prince. As the Davidic heir, Joseph was the Most High. Since Jesus would be next in the line of succession, he would be called Son of  the Most High.

     All this was like music to Mary’s ears. The Essenes regarded women as potential seducers (I refer the reader to Dead Sea Scroll No. 4Q184 in this regard). Therefore, Mary’s pregnancy, technically a fornication pregnancy (hence the reference to herself as of “low estate”, LUKE 1:48),  was not the fault of Joseph as such but hers. Ordinarily, she would have been delivered to a mob for stoning, but since her pregnancy had now been legitimised and the unborn child was recognised as the son of the Holy Spirit, the  Essene  title of  Joseph, she was excused from such a fate.

    The unborn Jesus was also given another title. He was to be called the Jacob, the same title his grandfather Jacob-Heli had carried. Before a Davidic heir became the David, he first had to be the Jacob. Presently, Joseph was the David and so his heir would be the Jacob. It was only when Joseph died that Jesus would become the David. The emphasis on the title of Jacob by Simeon demonstrated that the Essenes had at this juncture reconciled with King Herod, at least officially. If you recall, Jacob-Heli was to be a third-ranking King in the post-Roman global empire ruled by King Herod, in which he would be  allotted the Western world. So what Simon was saying was that this arrangement still stood and Jesus as a descendent of Jacob-Heli  would rule not as King of global Israel but as King of  the Western division of global Israel (the House of Jacob as per LUKE 1:33).   Modern-day Christians are scarcely aware of the labyrinth of power politics Jesus had to navigate in first century Palestine.

     Mary was not exactly sure as to how she would be received by the wider Essene community as her unborn child was technically illegitimate. Simeon set her at ease when he declared to her that he would ensure he got the Essene community to understand that Jesus was the “Son of God”. All Essenes called themselves Sons of God, which simply meant they served at the pleasure of High Priest Zechariah, the “Lord God” as per one of his titles as the highest ranking Essene.  As I made clear at some stage, Essenes used the term god very loosely: it seldom had the “Heavenly” connotation it has today.

Next, Simeon called on Joseph. Matthew  seems to characterise Joseph as “righteous” or a “just man” (MATTHEW 1:19), meaning an above-board person. Once again, this is symptomatic of the usual tendency to wrong translation that we often encounter in the scriptures. The term “Righteous” or “Just” was a Davidic title. All Davidic Crown Princes were addressed as “the Just” or “the Righteous”, similar to the way we address judges, such as “Justice Key Dingake”. In the first century, this title was held by Joseph, Jesus, Jesus’s brother James, and finally Jesus Jr, who was best-known as Jesus Justus.  Of the four, it was James who was best-associated with the title: almost all extra-biblical accounts of the day refer to him as James the Just.   

     Simeon informed Joseph that he had ratified Mary’s pregnancy as legal. The child she was carrying must therefore be recognised as his  (“child of the Holy Spirit” as per the gospels) and procedurally conceived. There was therefore no need to divorce Mary quietly as he had initially pondered. Accordingly, Joseph was to proceed with the first marriage ceremony, due in September. Ordinarily, there would have been a second and final marriage in March 7 BC but since Mary had hastily become pregnant, Joseph was to regard the first marriage ceremony as the second and final one. Nonetheless, he was with immediate effect barred from indulging in  sexual relations with Mary as per Essene dynastic  rules. The next time conjugation would be allowed was when time was ripe for him to sire another child. This would be in 5 BC if  Mary’s firstborn turned out to be a girl or 2 BC if it was indeed a boy – that is, a 3-year-wait in the case of a girl and a 6-year-wait in the case of a boy as per Essene dynastic procreational rules.    

     Joseph fully heeded Simeon’s pronouncement, which is commonly referred to as the Annunciation. Meanwhile, Mary went to stay with her aunt Elizabeth at Ain Feshkha. Since Zechariah the “Lord”, Elizabeth’s husband,  was senior to Joseph in the Essene hierarchy, Mary was effectively a maid to Elizabeth (LUKE 1:38). Elizabeth was already six months pregnant at the time. She was “heavy with child” and therefore it was fitting that she be tended to by Mary, who was only one month pregnant.  Mary served Elizabeth not as an ordinary maid but as the supervising  maid.

     Mary stayed with Elizabeth for approximately three months (LUKE 1:56), from mid-July to mid-September. Elizabeth gave birth to John in September 8 BC. At the same time, Mary and Joseph had to wed in September,  which was apt: Mary  was now three months pregnant and the odds of a miscarriage were very low. The wedding did take place and according to Essene dynastic rules it was irrevocable: there would be no divorce whatsoever.

Mary stayed with Joseph for three months only, that is, up to December 8 BC. All along, she was still a titular virgin even though she was pregnant. In December, she ceased to be a titular virgin, being six months pregnant. At this juncture, she was promoted to Mother and was obligated to move to the Queen’s House at Qumran. The reasons were two-fold. First, as Mother Superior, she had to oversee the destitute women as well as orphans and illegitimate children who were housed there. This was the role of the potential Davidic Queen, which Mary had become after her final marriage to Joseph.  Second, the High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple, Simon Boethus, had overruled Simeon and  pronounced that Mary’s child be born not in a conventional home but in the Queens’s House at Qumran. This was because in the view of the Temple establishment, the child she was carrying was illegitimate and had to be raised in a setting befitting of such an ignoble conception.    

    The Queen’s  House was also  known as the Manger. Its other name was Bethlehem of Judea!  

Continue Reading


Honesty – a fundamental human characteristic

12th October 2021

“When honesty is lost, then wait for the Hour (the Day of Judgment)”.  These are the words of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).  They paint a picture of the time leading up to the Day of Judgement, when righteous people will be sorrowful due to the lack of honesty around them. 

Influence of materialism

Honesty, like morality, is an in built and essential characteristic of every human but the influence of materialism and the greed and desire for status, position, fame, wealth, etc. have wreaked havoc in human society, to an extent never seen before. In the 21st century, we live in a world where honesty is less valued than ever before and in fact even shunned at times.  We expect people to be honest in their dealings with us yet we ourselves promote deceit and dishonesty through our action and speech on a daily basis.  Many of us even watch and applaud television shows and movies that promote and encourage lying, infidelity and deceitfulness.

Desire for worldly gain

In the corporate world, ‘deceitful’ statements and figures are announced and pronounced to lure investors, glamorous yet deceitful adverts to attract customers, etc. have all become the norm and honesty goes out of the window. Even in the media industry, honesty seems to be waning very rapidly. Let alone the due regard of one’s conscience but without a second thought or due consideration of the rights of the others, stories are churned out with so-called “sensational” add-ons, etc. simply for the sake of being the “first” to break the news or for the sake of having the “best” story or maybe even for the sake of just having increased an readership or viewership.

Thoughtless individual behaviour

Without thinking, we indirectly teach our children that dishonesty is acceptable.  When we expect our children to tell the caller on the telephone we are not home, this is a lesson in deceit.  When we answer the cellphone and say that we are busy in a meeting yet we very much relaxed and free, or we say we are out of town yet we are at home, etc. we are being blatantly dishonest. When we refuse to settle our debts and dues making all sorts of pretences, we are actually lying.  We admonish and reprimand our children for lying, yet the reality is we have been their teachers.  Whether we tell lies, or whether we allow our children to live in a world surrounded by deceit, the lesson is learned and the honesty begins to disappear from the hearts of people – in particular the next generation.

Integrity and reliability

We must understand that honesty incorporates the concepts of truthfulness and reliability and it resides in all human thought, words, actions and relationships.  It is more than just accuracy; it is more than just truthfulness, it denotes integrity or moral soundness.  Belief in God Almighty commands truthfulness and forbids lying.  In the Holy Quran, God Almighty commands that humans be honest: “O you who believe!  Be conscious of God Almighty, and be with those who are true (in word and deeds).” (Ch  9 : v 119). A renowned Holy Quran scholar explained the meaning of this verse.  He said, “Being truthful and adhering to truthfulness, means you will be among the people of the truth (by speaking and behaving in a truthful manner) and be saved from calamity and that is what will really make a way out for you from your problems (in the long run)”.

Honesty and truthfulness go hand in hand

A true Believer, one who is truly submitted to God, has many characteristics by which he/she can be identified.  The most obvious of these noble characteristics are honesty of character and truthfulness of speech.  Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) was a perfect example of honesty.  The records of history clear show that even before he was bestowed Prophet hood by The Almighty, he had earned the titles of “As Saadiq” (the truthful) and “Al Ameen” (the trustworthy one), within the community. They had full trust in his honesty and integrity to such a degree that they would accept anything he said. Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), once gathered all the people of Makkah at the base of Mount Safa and asked them, “O people of Makkah!  If I say to you that an army is advancing on you from behind the mountains, will you believe me?”  All said in one voice, “Yes, because we have never heard you telling a lie.”  All the people, without exception, swore to his truthfulness and honesty because he had lived an unblemished and extremely upright life among them up to that point in time – for forty years.

Honesty in a comprehensive manner

This honesty, an essential ingredient of the human character, includes being truthful towards God by worshipping Him sincerely; being truthful to oneself, by adhering to God’s laws; and being truthful with others by speaking the truth and being honest in all dealings, such as buying, selling, social interaction, marriage,etc.  There should be no deceiving, cheating, falsifying or withholding of information, thus a person should be the same on the inside as he/she is on the outside.

Prophetic teachings

Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) informed us of the great benefits of living in an honest and truthful way and warned us of the dangers inherent in dishonesty and falsehood.  He said: “Truthfulness leads to righteousness, and righteousness leads to Paradise.  In addition, a person keeps on telling the truth until they are recorded by God Almighty as a very truthful person.  And falsehood leads to wickedness (and evil-doing), and wickedness leads to the (Hell) Fire. In addition, and a person keeps on telling lies until they are recorded by God Almighty as a very great liar”.

For those who wish to be among the truthful, Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) has left us with these words of guidance, “Let he who believes in God and the Last Day either speak good or (otherwise) remain silent”.

A successful, vibrant society is based upon honesty and justice, and is intolerant of dishonesty in all its various forms.  The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) exhorted the faithful to be scrupulously honest in all their social dealings, business transactions, etc. at all times.

Continue Reading


A Sham of a Trial

12th October 2021

Verdict a foregone conclusion as Pilate is bought

Although the interrogation of  Jesus in a joint hearing by Annas and Caiaphas was not a trial, General Atiku, it was more or less conducted along the lines of a trial.

Jesus had a defending witness. This was one of  his disciples, Bartholomew, whose real name was John Marcus. Apparently, Jesus was allowed only one such witness. Besides his principal accuser, the turncoat Judas Iscariot, there were a number of witnesses who testified against him. The gospels  refer to them as false witnesses but this is probably an exaggeration: they simply misunderstood some of his statements largely because he tended to use allegorical language, which could be properly interpreted only by Gnostics. On occasion, he chose to be deliberately ambiguous, as when he said, “Do to Caesar what is due to Caesar and to God what is due to God.”

The crux of the matter  was whether there was anything in his conduct that could associate him with the Zealots. For example, he was accused of harbouring and voicing designs to destroy the Jerusalem Temple within “three days”. The Zealots did band about such threats, General. In truth, what they sought to destroy it was the Temple establishment – the priesthood and the Herodian Sadducees. The perception was that these somewhat benefitted from Roman patronage. Thus, if Jesus did instigate doing way with the Temple establishment by foul and crook, this could obviously not sit well with Annas and Caiaphas, both of whom belonged to this clique. But Jesus’ words had been taken out of context. In Gnostic language, the Temple (the correct translation should be “palace”  as the Jewish word for temple and palace is the same)   was the human body because it housed the real being – the spirit-soul. So what Jesus was saying to those who wished him ill, General, was that even if they physically killed him, his soul would continue to live (a person can be clinically dead but at the etheric level, he is irreversibly dead only after three days). Clearly, General, he was grossly misunderstood.

Jesus vehemently denied being a Zealot. He made it clear to the panel that every time he taught or preached, he was heard to promote peaceful co-existence with Rome. How then could he be a Zealot, who preached enmity with the Romans? Put differently, General, Jesus was saying he had played no part whatsoever in the November 32 AD riots against Pilate. The fact that Simon Zelotes was his father-in-law was pure happenstance.

In their heart of hearts, both Caiaphas and Annas were aware Jesus was not inclined to violence and therefore could not be a  Zealot. So the matter they seized upon was his claim to be Priest, Prophet, and King. This was what revolted them the most, the sin for which they sought to teach him a lesson.  The gospels say they set men (the Jerusalem Temple police who had escorted Caiaphas) on him who blindfolded him, slapped him around, spat on him, and dared him to “prophesy” as to “who has hit you” – a sneering allusion to his claim to be Priest and Prophet as only the High Priest could prophesy. This physical mockery did probably take place but there is an underlying symbolic language, General.  When a person was spat upon (by a “holy man”, such as the  High Priest),  it meant he had been demoted from priest to a mere layman. A “blind man” was another characterisation for an Essene who was of Grade 8 level, a novice. A novice was not yet initiated and therefore he was blind because he had not yet “seen the light”, that is, not yet been illuminated.

What it all boils down to, General,  is that by decree of the three priests Annas Sr, Caiaphas, and Jonathan Annas, Jesus had been downgraded from Grade 2, the third position in the Essene hierarchy (the first two being Grades 0 and 1), which was the position of the Davidic King (now held by his young brother James), to Grade 8, the position of a novice, a virtual nobody. Thus, when he appeared before Pontius Pilate, that was the status he would declare when his occupation was asked of him. This lowly social status would significantly bear upon Pilate’s psychology and therefore his contemplation of Jesus.


Now, when a hearing or trial was in progress, General,  the Essene rule was that there had to be two doorkeepers. These were two people who were close to the person who was the subject of the proceedings, typically a relative and an associate/friend.

In the case of Jesus, the doorkeepers he selected were Simon Peter and his mother Mary. Besides being Jesus’ disciple, Simon Peter was Jesus’ personal bodyguard and chief ecclesiastical minister. As the Davidic King, Jesus was entitled to a bodyguard and chief spokesman, both roles of which were ably performed by Peter. That made Peter arguably the closest to Jesus in an occupational sense. As for Mary, she substituted for Jesus’ wife Mary Magdalene, who was now three months pregnant and therefore was on mandatory separation from her husband according to Essene dynastic procreational rules. The two doorkeepers ceremonially opened the doors for the panelists or judges to enter the hearing room. As the male doorkeeper,  Simon Peter stood by the door in the inner corridor whilst Mary stood by the same door in the outer corridor.

Peter, however, had been assigned another role – that of the rooster of the night. The rooster that crowed three times as per the gospels was not a bird, General: it was Simon Peter. “Rooster”, or “Cock”,   was the term for a religious person assigned to call out the time. Remember,  they had no clocks those days and at nighttime, the sundial, which was used during the day to read time, could not be used. So during a momentous occasion such as this one (the week of Passover), a person was detailed to announce the time every three hours at Qumran. Since Jesus’ hearing took place shortly before midnight, Peter was expected to announce the times at 00:00; 3 am; and 6 am. 3 am was specifically called cock-crow (see MARK 13:34). It was just before 3 am that Peter “denied”  Jesus. He did not deny him at three intervals, General: he denied him only once but before three inquisitors.

Now, Simon Peter was also a Zealot, a point we have long underscored. It explains why in the gospels he comes across as combustible, argumentative, and highly assertive. He was known as Simon Bar-jonah, which has been wrong translated as “son of John”. Bar-jonah actually derived from “baryona”, which was Aramaic (the most widely spoken language of the day in Palestine) for “outlaw”. We know, courtesy of  Flavius Josephus, that Zealots were referred to as outlaws by the Romans. So as Jesus was being interrogated, one of the witnesses against him made mention of the fact that he must have been a Zealot since his own bodyguard was a Zealot. Peter was therefore instantly called upon to confirm or deny that he was a Zealot. As could be expected, Peter stoutly denied he was. He also proceeded to say that he was not as close to Jesus as many people thought.

Once he had exculpated himself, Peter resumed his vigil as doorkeeper. The hearing lasted for hours and there were intervals in between, during which Peter also took time off to warm himself before a fire. During one such break, Mary, Joseph (Jesus’ second brother)  and James (the son of Zebedee) also confronted him and demanded to know why he  without shame or scruple just stopped short of disowning Jesus. Peter was unflinching, saying they were all mistaken: he was not as close to Jesus as they thought. It was at this point that he stood up to announce the time 3 am for the hearings to resume. Shortly thereafter, it dawned on him that he had stabbed Jesus in the back and later apologised teary-eyed to Mary. The man Jesus called “Rocky” was far from being a rock: he was a chicken, a flip-flopper.  Maybe it was no coincidence, General, that on this fateful night he was assigned the role of a male chicken!

That said, Peter had very valid reasons to deny Jesus anyway. Jesus had elevated Judas Iscariot to his second-in-command in an independent Israel at the Last Supper and Peter was irate that that role should have been entrusted to him and not to Judas. Maybe Jesus deserved Peter’s betrayal given that Peter had served him loyally through and through both as a bodyguard and confidante.


Pontius Pilate, General, arrived at Qumran towards 6 in the morning to conduct a kangaroo court trial for the people wanted for the November 32 AD uprising in which some Roman soldiers were killed. Why, if we may ask, General,  did the Roman governor have to travel all the way from Jerusalem, where he was based during the Passover week, to Qumran and not insist that the trial be held in Jerusalem itself?

There were two reasons for this in the main. First and foremost, there was something in it for him. He had been backhanded with a tantalising bribe by Herod Agrippa to excuse Judas Iscariot. We know Pilate was hopelessly weak where it came to palm-greasing and extra-legal trials. Philo, the Jewish philosopher and historian who was a contemporary of  Pilate, records that Pilate was prone to corruption (a streak that ran through all Roman governors and of which the emperor himself was acutely aware) and “continuous executions without even a form of a trial”. Second, a trial of the leading Zealots in Jerusalem at Passover time would have provoked another uprising as Jerusalem at this time of the year swarmed with Galilean pilgrims most of whom were either Zealots or pro-Zealot. Qumran was therefore a safe venue as it was remote and was not crawling with too many people. The trial would thus pass practically unnoticed by the wider population.

Arriving at Qumran, Pilate was determined that he was going to sentence the culprits (save for Judas of course) to death. The November uprising had tarnished the record of his emperor: it was the only insurrection in Judea during the reign of  Tiberius Caesar. Pilate would use the sentence as a showcase to the emperor that he was a no-nonsense man who did not in the least brook dissident tendencies.

Now, Herod Antipas had learnt of Agrippa’s bribe to Pilate and he and Agrippa rarely saw eye to eye, being rival claimants to the Jewish monarchy.  Antipas was aware that the crucifixion Jesus would be subjected to would not be fatal but a partial one that would ensure his survival. However, Theudas Barabbas was too old to bear the strain of even partial crucifixion whereas Jesus and Simon Zelotes were much younger. Chances therefore were that Barabbas might perish right on the cross.  So in a private meeting with Pilate before the trial commenced, Antipas offered Pilate a bribe substantially higher than that which Agrippa had given him. Accordingly, the two agreed that Judas should be reinstated as a culprit. At the same time, Barabbas should be released. It was game, set, and match, General.


The trial was held in the north vestry, the same place where the hearings by Annas and Caiaphas took place. Annas, Caiaphas, the Herods, and the brothers of Jesus were in attendance.

The trial, General, was a farce. The proceedings were almost wholly orchestrated. On trial was Judas Iscariot too, who courtesy of  the Antipas bribe had been re-arrested, bringing the number of  respondents in the dock to four. Judas, as the overall commander of the Zealots, pleaded guilty. That is what the gospels mean when they say he “hung himself”. Now penitent of having falsely implicated Jesus, Judas also told the court that Jesus was innocent and had played no part whatsoever in the November 32 AD insurrection. Judas’ absolution of  Jesus is what is cryptically referred to in the gospels as “returning the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priest”, meaning he no longer was leader of the 30-man group that John the Baptist had established: its leadership had now reverted to the current Essene high priest Jonathan Annas. Judas was resultantly sentenced to death by crucifixion along with Simon Zelotes and Theudas Barabbas.

However, General, Agrippa was determined that Jesus be found guilty in order to get even with his brother-in-law Antipas. He and Caiaphas were in full flow, insisting that Jesus not only was a “Galilean”, which was another code name for Zealots, but he urged Jews to refrain from paying taxes and also fancied himself as “King of the Jews” when that title now belonged to Emperor Tiberius Caesar. This was treason and for that he deserved to die.

Although Pilate had no intentions of acquitting Jesus (it was he who was to be sacrificed for Barabbas as per his stratagem with Antipas), he at least wanted to superficially cast himself as a reasonable and impartial judge. Judas had exonerated Jesus and the priests had countered that. So Pilate announced to the gathering that since Jesus was of Galilean origin (he feigned ignorance of the fact that the term Galilean was used in the context of  his being a Zealot), Herod Antipas, under whose  jurisdiction Galilee fell, was to break the ice. Antipas was asked to try Jesus in another room and whatever verdict he rendered would be binding. This aspect was not part of the pre-plan with Antipas but Antipas did welcome it nonetheless as it openly underlined that in the eyes of  Rome, he took precedence over his rival Agrippa. As for Agrippa, all he could do was froth at the mouth. From that day on, General, Pilate became his mortal enemy: on the other hand, Antipas and Pilate became abiding friends.


Continue Reading


Distress Flare

12th October 2021

No one could have predicted what we have just gone through with COVID 19, lock downs, State of Emergency, banning of international travel etc. etc. In fact that’s not quite true as many had been predicating the possibility of a global pandemic for a while – I guess it was the case of not listening or not wanting to listen.

This week I was left thinking what life would be like if the internet crashed. This was prompted after being deprived of social media when the services of Facebook, Instagram & WhatsApp were disrupted for hours on Monday night. I am not much of a user of the 2 former platforms but I do use Whatsapp extensively and even had a call scheduled on the app which I was clearly unable to make. It is also the main way that I keep immediately updated of family whereabouts, comms etc.

Like many I felt quite cut off even though I could have made a normal telephone call or gone on the internet and sent mail messages. People kept saying that the internet was down because to some people Facebook is the internet!  Twitter, realising this, saw it as the perfect time to enjoy its rare spotlight and tweeted “Hello literally everyone” from its main account. It garnered 2.4 million “likes” in just four hours and a stampede of users eager to sign up.

In other parts of the world where apps are essential to commerce, health care and basic functioning of government it was a serious matter. In India, doctors sounded the alarm about being unable to coordinate their schedules or share patient scans. And in Malaysia, some small-business owners were left without a way to manage day-to-day operations as all business communications are conducted through the app.

In many developing countries, services including WhatsApp, Facebook and Facebook Messenger have become deeply integrated into the delivery of primary health care, education and other government services,” Marcus Leaning, a digital media education professor at the University of Winchester in the U.K., said. “In the global North, we tend to (merely) use such services as supplementary to other channels of communication, so the global outage will have a disproportionate impact.”  These platforms are also often offered on restricted-access (or non-smart) phones, meaning that those on lower income were disproportionately  disaffected in 3rd World countries, our own included.

Meanwhile, as netizens (citizens of the internet) were feeling somewhat inconvenienced and annoyed, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg took a financial hit losing $6 billion in just a few hours as Facebook stocks plunged, principally through lost advertising revenue and loss of business confidence and he himself personally dropped to No. 5 on the list of the world’s richest, below Gates. Talk about a bad day at the office!

The impact on myself was considerably less but with my ability to WhatsApp stopped I did feel quite put out and wondered what it would be like if the whole internet crashed one day and what that would it do to the markets, the military, the hospitals, not to mention how would I be able access all the movies on Netflix?

It couldn’t really happen, could it, if you understand that all the internet is, is a bunch of interconnected computers and that they would all have to crash at once? Conventional wisdom tells us that as a planetary network of computers and machines the internet is too big, too decentralised and too redundant to all fail at once?  But wait! Didn’t they say something similar when the Titanic was built? Surely the lessons of that hubris are still valid today?

According to Laura Brandimarte, Assistant Professor, Management Information Systems, University of Arizona, ‘Everything being connected today may bring along significant convenience, but it also implies that everything can be hacked. What if the nation’s power grid were successfully attacked? No electricity also means no internet access. The internet also relies on physical infrastructure, such as subsea cables and other fiber cables: any infrastructure issues (cable cuts, damages), whether due to criminal activity or natural disasters that were to affect major subsea cables could potentially shut down the Internet.

In a different sense, authoritarian governments can also potentially shut down the internet if they somehow all colluded against it, either blocking internet access to citizens altogether (we have seen that in Egypt during the Arab Spring, for example, or in the Democratic Republic of the Congo  HYPERLINK “” \t “_blank” during a period of unrest); or substantially limiting it (we see that in countries where internet censorship is widespread and information access is controlled by the central government, as it happens in China). There are ways around censorship, of course: Privacy Enhancing Technologies, or PETs, such as virtual private networks or VPNs, and anonymous browsers such as Tor, can help circumvent it, but censorship essentially prevents the vast majority of the population, who may not be familiar with these tools, to access the internet, de facto making it disappear.’

And there are natural disasters that also could create havoc.   Patrick Juola, a computer science professor at Duquesne University, offers up one such interplanetary electronic disaster. “A sufficiently powerful solar flare could produce an electromagnetic solar pulse [EMP] that would shut down most of the computers in the world. While some systems are protected against EMPs, any human-built protection is only so strong, and the sun can be a lot more powerful.”


An internet crash resulting from this type of solar flare sounds like science fiction or one of those once-every-10,000-years events, but it isn’t. The worst recorded X-class (highest level) solar flare, called the Carrington Event, was a coronal mass ejection that produced a geomagnetic storm that spread across the earth over two days, September 1-2, 1859. The storm produced auroras around the world. The ones in the northern hemisphere reached as far south as the Caribbean, and were so bright people in the north-eastern United States could read newspapers by their light at night. The major electric utilities affected were the telegraph systems that failed across Europe and North America. The telegraph pylons threw sparks and shocked operators still at their keys. 

The frequency of recorded CMEs is worrying. Less powerful geomagnetic storms were recorded in 1921 and 1960, and a 1989 storm disabled power over large sections of Quebec. Then, on July 23, 2012, a “Carrington-lass” solar superstorm narrowly missed the earth by nine days when it crossed the planet’s orbit.

The Titanic was built to be unsinkable – all engineers and scientists agreed to that. Yet obviously they had not thought of every conceivable scenario and so when the boat was in the wrong place at the wrong time, the rest, as they say, was history. The same must be true of the internet. The thing that can take it down – not so much governmental censorship but some of that super global warming we hear so much about – could yet prove its downfall.  Now that really is solar power!

Continue Reading
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!