by Roman Piso
FOLLOWING THE TRAIL
family of Vespasian to the Pisos):
The tie-in is that Arria the Elder was married to the emperor Vespasian’s brother (before Vespasian became emperor). He was
From this relationship we find the connection to the alias names of
the Pisos as “Paetus”. Quoting from “The True Authorship of the New Testament,” by Abelard Reuchlin:
“Vespasian relied upon Piso because
he was grandson of his own brother - Vespasian’s brother, T. Flavius
Sabinus, had married Arria Sr. (i.e., Arria the Elder), who was
Piso’s maternal grandmother. Piso’s identity as thus also a Flavian
is decipherable from the appearance in the Flavian family line of L. Caesennius Paetus
(Townend, Gavin, “Some Flavian Connections,”
Journal of Roman Studies, LI. 54, 62, 1961).
That was an alias (like Thrasea Paetus)
of Piso’s father, L. Calpurnius Piso [Note: we now know Arrius
Piso’s father to have been Gaius Calpurnius Piso who was executed by
See page 20 supra, wherein Piso himself also is mentioned as
a Caesennius Paetus. That is the true reason Piso used the literary
pseudonym of Flavius; it was not because of his alleged - but untrue
and hardly necessary - adoption by Emperor Flavius Vespasian. He was
in fact (already) a Flavian.”
This information leads us to:
(1) The son of Thrasea
Paetus/Gaius Calpurnius Piso (who is unnamed in history).
And then to…
(2) Flavius Josephus, and to…
(3) Montanus, as another alias name of Arrius Piso.
There are elements of this that are
given in “The True Authorship of the New Testament” that may not be
necessary to repeat here in detail such as how it is that Thrasea
Paetus and Arria are seen as actually being Gaius Piso and his
You can find that with the use of that booklet and your own
Instead, I will try to stick to the main issue here rather than
side-track or let this get too confusing for you the
reader/researcher. I will concentrate upon what you need to know in
order to ‘follow the trail’ from one alias name to the next.
To fill in the gaps and further deduce from this information, we
examine more closely the family of Thrasea Paetus and both of the
Arrias (Arria the Elder and Arria the Younger). From this, we find
the daughter of Arria the Younger as one “Fannia”. “Fannia” too, is
an alias name.
Her real name was used to make her alias name. She was Flavia Arria.
The feminine form of “Flavius”, and the name of her mother and
grandmother - Arria. They used the “F” in “Flavia” as an initial and
left it in front of her Arria name and changed the “r”’s in her name
to “n”’s (which is explained by the use of “royal language”). This
rendered the alias name of “Fannia” (F.Annia).
Her brother, likewise also already carried/used the Flavius name and
he would have the masculine form of his mother’s name and therefore
would be “Arrius”. And now we have the “Arrius” portion of his name.
But we will also find much more confirmation of this as we research
and deduce further.
Quoting from “The True Authorship of the New Testament”:
“Montanus” (the mountain?) “is spared out of consideration for his
father [having died because of Nero]” when Thrasea Paetus is
killed.” (pg. 20). Ref. Tacitus, Annals, XVI. 33., Loeb Classical
See the Bibliographical Index in the Letters of Pliny the Younger
(Letters and Panegyricus), Loeb Classical Library edition, for data
Thrasea Paetus, Arria the Elder,
Arria the Younger, Fannia, Montanus and Arrius Antoninus.
Note that Arria the Younger is called “Caecina ANNIA” also
Ref. Tacitus, The Annals, Book
XVI, XXXIV, pg. 387, Loeb edition.
(Flavius Josephus was a penname
of Arrius Piso)
This next section is called “Evidence”. Some of the items from above
may be repeated here for various reasons; emphasis, clarification or
because it also relates to other items that we are examining here.
First of all, this particular subject really requires a full book
length treatise to illustrate it fully - or ideally, several books
which explore the whole thing in detail. But this is simply a short
article and so we will do our best that we can here.
One of the first things that comes to mind in trying to explain this
is just “where to start?” And next is the reality of the fact that
the average reader is unprepared and not fully familiar with primary
information that they would need in order to fully comprehend what
would be stated regarding this. So, there is an extreme disadvantage
here right from the start.
Because of this and the fact that this is just a short article, it
would probably be best to just give a “list” of the various proofs
(1) Flavius Josephus was really
Arrius Piso, and
Piso was/played “Jesus” in the New Testament
In terms of Arrius Calpurnius Piso himself, he indeed made certain
that his full and real name was never to be found anywhere that was
obvious in history - therefore hiding his true identity from
everyone but a small few.
To restate this, the name “Arrius Calpurnius Piso” is not found
outright in ancient history. But, it can be deduced and therefore
reconstructed, because it is found in parts or ‘chopped up’ here and
there. It is a matter of putting all of the ‘parts’ together to get
his true full name. Remember, this name was deliberately hidden and
for an express purpose.
Abelard Reuchlin puts it this way:
“He does not appear (in history)
as Arius Calpurnius Piso. His true identity is decipherable only by
Ref. “The True Authorship of the New Testament,”
When his true name and identity are discovered and known the rest
starts to fall into place and the truth unravels. The easiest way to
find that “Arrius Calpurnius Piso” is his real name is to find him
as (C.) Caesennius Paetus when his father as Thrasea Paetus is found
out to really be Gaius Calpurnius Piso, who was put to death (by
order of suicide) by Nero in 65 CE.
At that point, you know that he is the
son of Gaius Calpurnius Piso, and that therefore the “Calpurnius Piso” part of his real/true name becomes known. From there one may
deduce from information available in ancient history and in articles
dealing with specifics of it that his firstname was “Arrius” as the
masculine form of his mother’s name (Arria). You may well wish to
note that the Jewish historic commentary tries to point this out
with the “Pantera” riddle. This will be explained in more detail
later on in this article.
And one may also wish to note that Arrius Calpurnius Piso’s real
name was not “Gaius Calpurnius Piso, Jr.”, as he just assumes that
as an alter or alias name for the specific purpose of indicating
that he was the son of Gaius Calpurnius Piso. His true name is the
one that people in his family knew him as and called him by - and as
we go on in our studies, it will become more and more apparent that
this name was indeed “Arrius”.
One of the best proofs for Flavius Josephus being the primary author
of the Gospels and the inventor of “Jesus” is simply the
correlations that are found between the works of Flavius Josephus
and the New Testament itself. Those correlations will be made
available to the public in the upcoming years.
It is quite fortunate for us that the Romans were not the only ones
who were leaving us records and information of persons and history
in those times. The Jews (Pharisees), whom Rome was at war with over
this very issue likewise left us what information that they could
within their particular circumstance. Like the Romans, they too used
what we refer to as ‘royal language’ as they could not write about
this openly either and had to resort to hints, riddles and clues as
well. But now that we know just how to read that ‘royal language’,
we can also read what they had written - just as they had wrote it
and intended it to be read by those whom could do so.
Because of what this reveals, it demonstrates to us that history
(especially ancient history) as we think we know it, did not happen
in the way in which we had previously thought that it had and we
must now expect that more and more evidence likewise will be found
that is consistent with the way in which it DID happen.
What this also means is that because the ancient authors were in
complete control of what kind of evidence (in terms of their
literary creations) and how much of various facts and information
that they would give to us, we more or less find ourselves at their
virtual ‘mercy’ as far as just what evidence they chose to leave to
us for the purpose of finding out the real truth of matters in
ancient history. And this should be considered when one is expecting
to find one type of evidence or another.
But this also means that what WAS left
was left to us in what may be called ‘near pristine’ condition as
far as what we find in the original texts - and that is much better
than what we had previously thought we had in terms of what texts
and info we had from those times. What I mean by this is that they
did not write about just anyone, all persons that they made mention
of in history was a relative of theirs whether by use of an alias
name or not. There were not a lot of different persons writing
either, which makes identifying just who wrote what much easier for
Now, a bit about Josephus and Joseph the father of Jesus. Jesus’
father is Joseph (Josephus), his mother is not impregnated by a mere
mortal man, but rather “God”. “God” came to mean something different
to us in this time than it did to those authors living in those
times. “God” had previously been a generic title inherited and used
by Kings and other rulers. But because we (as a society) do not know
this today, in our own time, we tend to think that Jesus’ mother had
to be impregnated by “God” and that “God” could not also be her
husband (figuratively speaking… remember, we are talking about a
fictional story). While writing his ‘histories’, etc., Josephus
deliberately mislead his readers (deliberate deception). And as
Josephus he is the first ‘historian’ to mention “Jesus” outside of
the New Testament.
Josephus, as “Joseph”, the father of Jesus was a High Priest, but he
was also a ruler/king (kings were sometimes called ‘governors’ in
ancient history - which is something recently revealed by our
research). However, as just stated, he (Josephus) would
theoretically not actually have to be a king or ruler to use the
inherited name/title “God”, if he was of the/a royal line. He would
just have it as a “birthright” to use when and how he pleased -
which, is precisely what he did.
Another thing that is quite telling about the Piso family and their
close relatives is that the Piso family had a history of being
‘governors’ of Syria. That is to say in actuality, kings installed
there by Rome. Syria was generally a region that was ruled over by
the Pisos for many generations consecutively, with perhaps a close
relative of theirs stepping in as a figurehead occasionally. But
primarily, Syria was the territory of the Pisos for a very long
expanse of time.
The Pisos and Syria in ancient history
had very nearly become synonymous with each other - and so, this is
another way of knowing what is being said regarding the Pisos in a
secretive way. There is a place where “Jesus” is said to have been
“famous” in Syria, for instance. It wasn’t “Jesus” most certainly
who was “famous” in Syria, but rather the person who was playing
the NT (Ref. Matt. 4:24, “Jesus” famous or well-known in
As Caesennius Paetus, Arrius Piso was the governor of Syria (Ref.
Flavius Josephus, Jewish War II, VII, 59,
Whiston translation; and
also “The True Authorship of the New Testament”, by Abelard Reuchlin,
pg. 20). Reuchlin says
"Then Caesennius Paetus appears as governor
of Syria, but because he is still Caesennius, he is still Josephus.”
As Claudius Ariston “he was called the “leading citizen” of Ephesus
(Ref. Pliny, VI.31.3.). Ephesus, was the Chief City of the Roman
province of Asia which was to the South West of Bithynia. We also
find him as Flavius Archippus who was supposedly a philosopher whom
emperor Domitian commended to Pliny the Younger (under Pliny’s alter
name/identity of Lappius Maximus, see “True Authorship of the New
Testament,” pg. 15-16).
The emperor ordered Pliny to “buy” him a
farm near Prusa (in Bithynia) and out of public funds it would
appear, or else by ruthless means to obtain this farm property. The
people of Prusa (supposedly) voted to put up a statue as tribute to
him (Flavius Archippus aka Josephus). Now, if we could just find one
of these statues or other likenesses of Piso from his time we would
really have something to show what he looked like.
IMPORTANT ITEMS TO NOTE IN THIS ARTICLE:
Pantera Riddle, solved and explained
2. The Correlations between the works of
Flavius Josephus & the New Testament
3. “Jesus” and Piso are BOTH famous in
4. The word “Denarius” used in
Revelations as a question!
5. Alias names can be used to build
profiles of the actual persons
6. Arrius Piso’s descent from Marc
Anthony (and Cleopatra)
7. The word “nini” and “dragon” meaning
“baby boy”, which is “Jesus”
8. Arrius Piso as founder of Annii Verii
and Annii Anicii
9. Arrius Piso’s inherited name of “Pollio”
10. Listing of those ‘historians’ who were involved
in the fraud
BACK ON THE
(following Arrius Piso
through his alias names)
Here is the order in which we will go so
as to keep this organized in a way that will be easier for the
reader to understand and to follow:
1. (C.) CAESENNIUS
PAETUS leads us to Arrius Calpurnius Piso
2. ARRIUS CALPURNIUS PISO (his real name)
leads us to Montanus
3. MONTANUS leads us to Arrius Antoninus
4. ARRIUS ANTONINUS leads us to Arrius Verus
5. ARRIUS VERUS leads us to Annius Gallus
6. ANNIUS GALLUS leads us to Cestius
7. CESTIUS GALLUS leads us to Gessius Florus
8. GESSIUS FLORUS leads us to ANTONIUS PRIMUS
9. ANTONIUS PRIMUS
We have already examined (C.) Caesennius Paetus and will have
references for that and other items here at the end of this
article. So, we can go on to examine Arrius Calpurnius Piso.
ARRIUS CALPURNIUS PISO
'The century of Arrius (built this)
The term 'centurial stone' is given to building
stones of Hadrian's Wall
on which a
century of 80 Roman soldiers scratched
the name of
their unit on completing 'their' stretch of Hadrian's Wall.
Arrius Calpurnius Piso definitely had many, many more alias
names. But for now it is important to know these names before
going on to the rest. Below you will find examples of his
“Arrius” name used both in the history of his time and in the
New Testament as well.
1. He is “Arrius” as
Arrius Antoninus, in the history of his time.
2. He is Areios/Arrius as the god Mars incarnate and
is mentioned as the god Mars throughout the works of Juvenal
3. He is “Arrius” (Annius) as the brother of Flavia
Arria (i.e. Fannia).
4. He is “Arrius”, because as Jesus he is called by
the Jews “ben Pantera”, meaning that he is “son of his
mother”. The Jews were pointing out that his name was
“Arrius” as the masculine form of his mother’s name (Arria).
One of the other things that we found in our research of
royal language is that “T” and “TH” were often switched or
So, “Pantera” (or “Pentera”) could also be “PenTHera”, which
is “mother” (i.e., HIS mother, “Arria”). Knowing this shows
us that “ben PenTHera”, means “son of mother” (Arria). The
Jews say that he is “son of mother”, so that when one finds
out that “Jesus” was really being played by the person who
invented him, and we know that person to be Josephus and/or
even (C.) Caesennius Paetus, that we would be pointed to his
MOTHER so that we could find his name as being “Arrius” as
the masculine form of his mother’s name. Another thing that
they knew and used was the hints and clues given by the
authors of the New Testament themselves!
The Greek word “PenTHera” for
“mother” is in Mark 1:30, Matt. 8.14, Luke 4:38. In Matthew
12:48, Jesus (or the person who was playing him rather)
says; “Who is my mother?” He is asking a question, a
question that of course the average person thinks that they
know the answer to - “Mary” (“Mary” is another form/spelling
of “Arria”), but it is a deceptive one. The question is
asked by him, Arrius Piso, to point towards his own mother
as the source of his real name of Arrius… and so more is
said in the form of questions.
Matt. 13:55; “Is not HIS (Jesus/Arrius Piso) mother called
“Mary?” If his name is “Arrius” as the masculine form of
“Arria” (his mother), then his sister would also have the
same name as his mother, i.e. “Arria”. Her name was hidden
in history by simply changing the r’s to n’s, and by putting
the initial of her first name (“F”) in front of her name
instead of spelling it out (“Flavia”).
5. As Jesus, he is the “Lamb”, and the word for lamb
is “Arnius” in Greek and in the royal language it is seen as
“Arrius” because r’s and n’s are interchangeable (Ref. John
1:29, Greek/English Interlinear New Testament).
6. His name is inserted into the New Testament by
several means. One of which is by the mention of the
marketplace of “Appius”, as in the royal language r’s and
p’s are interchangeable to render the name “Arrius” (Acts
28:15, Greek/English Interlinear New Testament).
7. In the Revelations, 6:6, “Arrius” is inserted by
mentioning the word “denARIUS”. And in his true ingenious
style the author of the Revelations (Julius Calpurnius Piso)
also makes this secretly as a question. And the reason we
know this is this, “den” means “did not”, and so it actually
reads; “did not Arrius?” And when one knows this, we also
get to read the question with the inferred words to give the
full question of; “Did not Arrius (Piso) do/create it?”
Sheer genius on the part of Julius Piso.
Now, with the combined knowledge
that (C.) Caesennius Paetus was an alias name of Arrius
Calpurnius Piso, we now go on to examine the name Montanus in
comparison with what we already know.
Well, we have already found that Thrasea Paetus and Caesennius
Paetus were alias names of Gaius Calpurnius Piso and his son
Arrius Calpurnius Piso because of the many factors involved with
each and their other family members. Thrasea Paetus and
Caesennius Paetus were not just alias names, but were also
“composites” for the real persons behind the names.
Note that this allows us to build profiles of these persons as
their alias names are revealed. That is the way that these
ancient authors had ‘designed’ this so that it WOULD be found
out. And so, we look to find other similar composites that may
be telling and we find the same similarity in the name and
figure of “Montanus”. So, we examine this critically.
Why “Montanus” for an alias name of Arrius Piso? Because he saw
himself as a large immovable object such as a large hill or
mountain. And he saw himself as the god Mars, who was the God of
War, incarnate. And then he could also joke about this in the
New Testament were “Mar’s Hill” is mentioned - because “Mar’s
Hill” in Greek is “Areios Pagos”. And a “mount” (like Olympus),
a large hill or mountain in Greek is “Pagos”, so here we have
“Areios (Arrius) Mountain/Montanus”. But “pagos” can also be
“opos” or “ipos” in Greek when viewing it in royal language and
“ip(p)os” is “horse” or “beast” which is also what Arrius Piso
was referred to. “Ippos” is the name “Piso” rearranged, and in
the Revelations, Julius Piso refers to his father (Arrius) as
“the Beast”. So, to say “Mar’s Hill” we could say in our meaning
in Greek “Arrius Ippos/Piso” (Ref. Acts 17:19 and 17:22).
A more detailed explanation of things not explained more fully
here will be found in other works on this subject. There is also
another joke in the New Testament where as Jesus, he (Arrius
Piso) is slyly referred to as a “Mountain” (John 4:21). But bear
in mind that many of these jokes and names cannot be seen in
translated or interpreted versions of the New Testament. To
‘see’ these, you’ll have to use a good Greek/English Interlinear
New Testament. You will have to go to the earliest Greek
translation (not “interpretation”) to see/read this. In any
case, this particular joke is rather interesting as it shows the
author clearly “talking out of the side of his mouth.”
In John 4:21, Jesus (Arrius Piso) says;
“Woman, believe me, the hour is
coming when you shall worship the (ancestral) Father neither
in (the form of) THIS MOUNTAIN (“Montanus”, i.e. Arrius Piso),
nor in Jerusalem.”
He is saying more than one thing
here. He is referring to himself as “this mountain”, that is
HIMSELF as “the Mountain” because he is “Montanus”. The reason
he says that she will not worship the (ancestral) Father (i.e.
“god”, whom was the original “god”, that being Pharaoh Adamenhept I whom
Arrius Piso derives his ‘power’ and inherited
name/title of “god” from) in Jerusalem is because he was
pointing to the fact that Jerusalem by that time had been
destroyed. It was later than 70 CE when this was being written.
And he is also saying that the day when Christianity will end
will eventually come. There is more and more evidence pointing
towards Arrius Piso’s son Julius Piso having a great concern
about Christianity, and that they, as the authors should make
statements in the New Testament that will allow humanity to one
day find out about all of this. And so, it appears that
statements referring to the end of Christianity that were
inserted into the New Testament were done to appease this son of
In Pliny (the works of Pliny the Younger), we find “Montanus” as
a senator. From the Bibliographical Index in the works of Pliny
the Younger (Loeb Classical Library edition): “Montanus, unknown
senator; letters on monument to freedman Pallas and honors voted
him, VII. 29; VIII. 6.”
We also see as we follow the trail, all of these who were
involved in this fraud as well (such as Pliny the Younger). And
we find, eventually, that this involved ALL of the Roman authors
and we also find them to be closely related to each other - the
Roman emperors and those who were writing their histories. Note
that this is not a “conspiracy”, but more like what would be
called an “oligarchy”. This should make some people sit up and
“Montanus” was spared (by Nero) out of consideration for his
father (Gaius Piso, who was forced to commit suicide by Nero),
with the proviso (provision) that his official career should not
be continued” (Ref. Tacitus, Annals, Book XVI, XXXIII, pg. 387,
Loeb). “Montanus” is also mentioned in many other places. A list
of these will appear at the end of this article. Now
knowing that “Montanus” is Arrius Piso, we continue looking for
“Arrius” and we now find “Arrius Antoninus”.
Why the alias name of Arrius Antoninus? We have already found
his name as “Arrius”. So, we wonder why “Antoninus”? We
have found examples of other alias names that were used that
incorporated the use of component parts of other names and/or
initials or abbreviations in some instances to create alias
names/identities. And it may well be further found that there
were indeed various purposes involved for the use of alias names
and their component parts as yet not fully recognized, such as
the use of these as “indicators” of ancestry. We are finding out
more and more about these things all of the time.
Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus (138-161 AD)
AR denarius of
Antoninus Pius (138-161 AD). Minted in 155/156 AD.
PIVS PP COS III on obverse, Pius facing right.
AEQVITAS AVG on
reverse, with Aequitas standing, holding spear and scales
Now we look at “Antoninus” and find an obvious indication of
descent from the Antonii line - and as we will find as we go
along, this WAS purposeful. It was given as an indication that
Arrius Piso was indeed descended from Marc Antony himself. And
that explains the “Antoni” portion of the invented name. When
one stops to think of all of this it is truly amazing that all
of this was done and remained hidden from the public for so long
- but there were a variety of methods and means used by them
specifically for that purpose. Even fooling the brightest of
scholars up to this time. But now all of this is known and
available to everyone on the Internet - that “Dark Age” will now
Remembering the purpose of these alias names and also realizing
that great pains were taken specifically to HIDE these things,
and not to make the appear obvious (except in small bits and
pieces), while likewise bearing in mind that they… the authors
were most ingenious, used the royal language, etc., we can
easily envision them making “double use” of letters already used
in these names as just another way of further hiding hints,
clues and other info.
In the alias name “Antoninus” we find the use of “ninus”. What
is “ninus”? “Ninus” is a secret title. It is really the Greek “nini”,
which is “baby” or infant - which, in reality refers, indicates
and confirms that this person was “a baby” - the baby JESUS! Do
you remember that it was mentioned above that Julius Piso called
his father a “dragon” in the Revelations? That was because by
doing so he was also pointing out that his father was “a baby
boy” as that is what the word used for dragon refers to - he too
was saying that Arrius Piso was JESUS!
Let’s take a moment to review what we have found so far. We
found that Flavius Josephus was really just a penname of
Calpurnius Piso, and that Arrius Piso had played the fictional
character “Jesus” in the New Testament. We also found that
Tacitus, the historian, was involved in this fraud as well as
Pliny the Younger. I sincerely hope that now that all of this is
known that ancient history will NEVER be viewed in the same way
again. How deluded must a person be to not recognize that this
is the true way in which all of this had happened? Who could
read and investigate all of this and say that it is merely a
No one at all I should think, as long as they have a working
brain, basic information - and are honest with themselves.
“Heart” and emotionalism does not enter into this as far as the
premise of “Jesus” being good, etc., because all of that is
depends upon the information about “Jesus” being true - and it
is not, it is a fraud.
Now why “Arrius Varus” as an alias? Well, it gives Arrius a
chance to use his real name of “Arrius”, and that is one reason.
But another is because he can really play with and use this
alias while honoring himself and his descendants.
The name “Varus” is the Roman form of the Egyptian “Veru,”
meaning “great men”, but when used as a ‘name’ of an individual
it means that the man who has and uses the name is a “great
man”. As Arrius Verus, he is found as the founding ancestor of
the later great Roman family - the “Annii Anicii.” “Annius” and
“Arrius” are the same as explained previously. And he (Arrius
Piso) is also the founder of the “Annii Verii.” Using the royal
language one sees in this alias name another name that was used
- “Severus.” Let’s look at this.
“Arrius Verus” (vowels were interchangeable always because they
are seen as not really being there excepting as to be used to
make names appear to readers to be different), the ‘s’ from
Arrius is given a vowel (“e”) to bind it to “Verus”, thus
rendering “Severus”. This is a name used by Arrius Piso’s son
Julius Piso as a commander of the Roman forces against the Jews
in the Bar Cochba revolt.
“As Antonius (that is, “Antonius Primus”) hurried
forward some dispatchments from the cohorts and part of the
cavalry to invade Italy, he was accompanied by Arrius Varus…”
He was “accompanied” by Arrius Varus, in this instance, because
he was one and the same person. Naturally, where ever Antonius
Primus went, Arrius Varus was sure to go… as they are the same
person! Are you starting to understand just how ancient history
was REALLY written? I hope so.
In the same passage, Tacitus says:
“However, Antonius (Primus)
and Varus (of course!) occupied Aquileia…”
Yes, they were BOTH
there, in one place, and in one body! Another interesting thing
that Tacitus does is to call “Antonius Primus” - “Primus Antonius”. One would think the purpose that Tacitus had in mind
was to further confuse/confound the reader into thinking that he
is speaking of two different persons, just as he does in calling
Arrius Piso several different (alias) names. He is VERY actively
participating in this fraud (Ref. Tacitus, II, Histories, Book
III, VI, pg. 337, Loeb Classical Library edition).
We will start to see proof that the other historians of the time
were also very actively involved in this fraud as well. This
name is particularly telling when we find just which authors of
the day had used this alias name to refer to Arrius Piso.
As if the circle has not been completed by this point, still
there is more to bring this all around “full circle” again. We
know by now that “Annius” is just another spelling of “Arrius”,
so we look for “Gallus”. Turning now to Suetonius we find that
the person who killed the emperor Vitellius was none other than
our “friend” Antonius Primus, and he is called “Gallus” there by
saying that he is a (“c” word for male chicken) “rooster” and a
person from Gaul. By the way, “Gallus” is also another way of
using the “Pollio” name that Arrius Piso had also inherited, as
they are the same in meaning. They both refer to the “rooster”
and in turn, the “rooster” is also a secret way of alluding to
the Phoenix, which ones finds to be synonymous with the phallic
symbol and in meaning, “god”. So, in a very hidden way, calling
Arrius “Gallus” is in fact saying or acknowledging him as “god”.
So, note that we now add Suetonius to the list of authors who
were contributing to this fraud. We also find “Annius Gallus” in
Plutarch’s “Lives” under “Otho”. And Juvenal also makes mention
of a “Gallus” in his works (Juvenal, VII. 144, Loeb).
Tacitus did not miss the chance to use this alias name of Arrius
Piso either. See: Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, XLIV, pg.
233; and Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, XXXIII, pg. 215; as
well as Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, XI; and Tacitus, II,
Histories, Book I, LXXXVII, pg. 151.
“Annius Gallus” by now should be easy to see as an alias name of Arrius Piso and should be seen as “Arrius Gallus”. This is a
connecting/affirming alias name that allows the reader who is
able to deduce things such as this and who has the ability to
make use of their knowledge of ‘royal language’ to make the
affirmation and connection to the fact that “Cestius Gallus”
also was an alias name of Arrius Piso. This is, after all, a
“trail” that was left to follow… and add Plutarch, Juvenal and
Suetonius to our list of participants in the fraud.
GALLUS & GESSIUS FLORUS
(We will look at both of these in comparison to each other to
help us better understand the other alias names that have been
listed and those that we are yet to find out about)
Why Gessius Florus? He disguises an ancestral name which is
“Cassius”, as “Gessius” and gives “FL” from “Flavius”, while
enjoying the name/title of (H)orus - as the Egyptian god which
is reborn/incarnate now in the form of Arrius Piso. As Gessius
Florus, he is a Roman procurator in Judea and is the cause of
the Jewish revolt at that time.
Writing as Josephus, Arrius Piso tries to make it appear that
Gessius Florus is a different person from Cestius Gallus, but
the name Cestius Gallus is telling. The name “Cestius” is the
same as “Gessius” as seen in royal language because “C” and “G”
are interchangeable to the point of being exactly the same
anyway. And “S” and “T” are likewise as well.
While we are on the subject of Arrius Piso and his use of the
name “Gallus” and that being another way of saying/using his
inherited name of “Pollio”, we should not forget another name
that he was known by; that of “Annius Pollio”. Again, we should
be used to ‘seeing’ the “Annius” name as “Arrius” and now we see
the use of the name that came down to him from many of his
ancestors and relatives -“Pollio”. Arrius Piso as “Annius Pollio”
is incriminated in the Pisonian Conspiracy (plot) against
and sent into exile. Which is exactly what happened to him under
other alias names! Refer to the article “Domitius Corbulo” by
Ronald Syme in the JRS (Journal of Roman Studies), post 1969;
and also Tacitus, Annals, XVI, 30, 3.; and Tacitus, Annals, XVI,
21, I. Arrius Piso as “Annius Pollio” was sentenced to exile (in
Tacitus, Annals, Book XV, LXXI, pg. 329, Loeb).
And by the way, the Roman writer Martial mentions Cestius Gallus
in his works (Ref. Martial, XLII, 2., Loeb). Add Martial to our
list of participants in the fraud.
And the name “Gallus” is very
a) it is another way
of saying “Poll(i)o”, which is an ancestral name of the
b) because they both
mean chicken or “fowl” in general, as previously stated.
c) chicken or fowl
refers to the winged-phallus that Jesus also was
synonymous with, and
d) Arrius Piso as
Antonius Primus is supposed to have been born in Gaul
(and so can be referred to as “Gallus”) according to Suetonius, and
e) Suetonius adds
that as a boy, Antonius Primus had the “nickname” (alias
name) of “becko” (rooster’s beak). And further...
f) as you can see,
this and other alias names of Arrius Piso lead us to yet
another one - that of “Antonius Primus.”
Why “Antonius Primus” as an alias name for Arrius Piso? Well,
for one thing we were led to this name by the process of logical
deduction. And here, we find the use and emphasis of the
“Antonius” name again. And “Primus” is used because he
considered himself the “prime” one or prime source (which he
was, because he made himself so), and numero uno - number “1”,
the big shot.
He was/is the “key” to finding out about all of the rest of
this. No one gets to anything of any real consequence regarding
this unless they first “go through him”. One needs to know that
Arrius Piso used many, many alias names (more than anyone else
that I could find!), and the rest of this comes out as a result
of that. The name “Antonius Primus” was used by Arrius Piso
himself in the works that he wrote as Flavius Josephus, and that
name is also found used in reference to him (Arrius Piso) in the
works of Suetonius, and in Tacitus (Ref. Tacitus, II, Histories,
Book II, LXXXVI, pg. 131, Loeb).
It seems that one way that reconciled to themselves the use of
alias for the purpose of deception was to think of them as
“nicknames” - nicknames for which only they were fully aware of
the full and true meanings. Arrius Piso was rather proud of his
ancestry and particularly that of his descent from Marc Antony.
His ancestry from Marc Antony has been reconstructed by us and
we were able to do it because he made certain that it was given
out in bits and pieces for those who were able to, to figure out
and to see this for themselves.
NOTES & REFERENCES
Caesennius Paetus and
C. Caecina Paetus
M. Arria the Elder
Caecina Arria the Younger
M. Thrasea Paetus
M. Helvidius Priscus
“Domitius Corbulo”, Ronald Syme, JRS.
Pliny the Younger, Epp. III, 16, 7ff.
Tacitus, Annals, Book XVI, XXXIV,
pg. 387, Loeb.
Thrasea Paetus’ wife Arria the
Younger was a relative of Persius the Poet. Ref. Suetonius,
“Lives of Illustrious Men”, “On Poets - Persius”, pg. 497, 499.
Tacitus is careful not to mention
that Thrasea Paetus and Arria had a son (Arrius Piso) also. He
says; “To touch Nero with shame for his infamies was an idle
dream, and it was much more to be feared that he (Nero) would
exercise his cruelty on Thrasea’s wife, his daughter, and OTHER
objects of his affection.” He does not mention son directly, but
leaves open the possibility that one (or more) might exist.
Then, to further hide the existence of this son (Arrius) he
says; “Arria, who aspired to follow her husband’s ending and the
precedent set by her mother and namesake, he (Thrasea Paetus)
advised (her) to keep her life and not to deprive the child of
their union of HER one support.” He could say this because
Arrius was in exile!
And that meant that he was not THERE to support his sister - as
it also implies that Fannia did not or would not have a husband
at that time (Ref. Tacitus, Annals, Book XVI, XXVI). There is
quite a bit of information about this family in an article
titled “People in Pliny”, by Ronald Syme, JRS (Journal of Roman
Studies), 1968-69, pg. 144, 146, 148.
(1) A. Caecina Paetus,
suff. 37 CE, of Patavium.
(2) P. Clodius Thrasea
Paetus (also of Patavium), who married the daughter of the
above A. Caecina Paetus.
(3) Arria the Younger as
wife of Thrasea Paetus.
(4) C. Fannius (Arrius
Piso) as barrister who wrote the biographies of Nero’s
victims. To quote: “Supposed relative of Fannia, the
daughter of Patavine (P. Clodius) Thrasea Paetus by marriage
with Arria, the daughter of A. Caecina Paetus (suff. 37),
cf. Groag in PIR-2, F 116.” Syme here says; “Why she should
be called “Fannia”, no clue.” He is right, one would think a
daughter of an “Arrian” would carry the name of her own
mother - somewhere. It is there. She is “F.” Arria/Annia w/
r’s as n’s.
Ref. for Thrasea Paetus and C.
Caecina Paetus; “Domitius Corbulo”, by Ronald Syme, JRS,
(post 1969). His source was Pliny the Younger, Epp. III, 16. 7
ff. As Caesennius Paetus, Arrius Piso married Vespasian’s niece,
who was probably his first wife (Ref. “Some Flavian
Connections”, Gavin Townend, JRS (Journal of Roman Studies),
1961. Also see Syme, “Tacitus”, 595, n5).
Ref. for Caecina Paetus and Arria
the Elder; Dio Cassius, 7. 407f. Polla, the wife of Lucan
the Poet is called “Queen” by Martial. Note that “Polla” is the
feminine form of “Pollo/Pollio” (Martial, Book X, LXIV, Loeb).
Arria mentioned by Martial (I. XIII). Pliny the Younger mentions
Arria in Epist. III, 16.3. Tacitus speaks of Arria (Tacitus,
Annals, XVI). “Thrasea” is mentioned in Juvenal (Juvenal, V.36,
Thrasea Paetus, Arria the Elder, Arria the Younger, and Fannia
are all mentioned in the Annals of Tacitus; Book XVI, XXIV, pg.
373; Book XVI, XXV, pg. 375-377; Book XVI, XXVIII, pg. 379-381;
Book XVI, XXXIV, pg. 387. Read through books: XVI, XXIV, XXV,
XXVI, XXVII, XXIX, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV (Loeb).
In Appian’s Roman History, there is C. Philo Caesennius (Paetus).
“Paetus” is inferred the same way that “Piso” would be when the
name “Frugi” is used (Appian, Roman History, IV. 27, Loeb). Note
that it has been discovered that Arrius Piso wrote as Philo of
Alexandria, and so it is natural to find “Philo” as another
alias of his or used to produce one. Arrius Piso wrote as Philo
for several reasons, not the least of which to historicize
characters and make mention of those which he wised to
emphasize. Case in point, (Pontius) Pilate (Ref. Philo, Vol. X,
“The Embassy to Gaius (Caligula)”, pg. 151, 153, Loeb).
History records that both Arria the Younger and Fannia were
alive when Nerva became emperor in 96 CE. They had been in exile
Arrius Piso as “Caesennius Paetus” was the governor
(president/king) of Syria, as the Pisos were noted for being
“governors of Syria” (Ref. Flavius Josephus, Jewish Wars, II,
VII. 59; or Flavius Josephus,
Whiston translation, pg. 597).
“Likewise “Montanus” (the mountain?) “is spared out of
consideration for his father” when Thrasea Paetus is killed.”
Ref. “The True Authorship of the New Testament,” in “The Proof
that Josephus as Calpurnius Piso,” pg. 20, Abelard Reuchlin,
1979, 1986.Note that this is found in the Annals of Tacitus,
XVI, 33, Loeb.
“Montanus” is found in “People in Pliny”, Ronald Syme, JRS,
1968-69, pg. 149-150. And in Tacitus, Histories, III, 35. 2; and
in Tacitus, Annals, Book XVI, XXIX, pg. 381, Loeb. Tacitus,
Annals, Book XVI, XXXIII, pg. 387, Loeb. “Montanus” is mentioned
in Juvenal, IV. 107, 131, Loeb.
Arrius Antoninus was proconsul under Vespasian in 69 CE (Ref.
“The Consulate of the Elder Trajan”, by John Morris, JRS, Vol.
43-45, 1953-1955, pg. 79-80. And Josephus, BF, 4, 9, 2 (499);
Tacitus, Histories, II, I, cf. 1, 10; Suetonius, The Twelve
Caesars”, under “Titus”, 5.
He is also in the Historia Augusta by this name. He is
grandfather of emperor Antoninus Pius. And we have found that
Antoninus Pius and Suetonius were one in the same (Ref.
Antoninus Pius, 1, 4; and “The True Authorship of the New
Testament,” Abelard Reuchlin.
Also see “”Marcus Aurelius” (A Biography), Appendix 2, “The
Antonine Dynasty”, B: ANTONINUS PIUS, pg. 242, Birley, published
by Yale University Press, c. 1986.
In the Historia Augusta, Annius Verus is given as the
great-grandfather of Marcus Aurelius (Ref. Marcus Aurelius, 1.
This “Annius Varus” (Arrius Piso) was obviously the founder of
the “Annii Verii” (i.e., the Antonine Dynasty). You will find
quite of bit of information regarding this family and the names
that they used in the work titled “Marcus Aurelius” (A
Biography), Appendix 2, “The Antonine Dynasty”, C: ANNII VERII
(pg. 243-244), by Birley, pub. by Yale Univ.,
c. 1986. Arrius is “M. Annius Verus” (even dared give us the “M”
for “Marcus in Marcus Antonius!), suff. in 97 (Ref. “People in
Pliny”, Ronald Syme, JRS, 1968-1969, pg 137).
“Annius Gallus” is in Plutarch’s “Lives” under “Otho”. And
Juvenal also makes mention of a “Gallus” in his works (Juvenal,
VII. 144, Loeb). Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, XLIV, pg. 233;
and Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, XXXIII, pg. 215; as well as
Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, XI; and Tacitus, II, Histories,
Book I, LXXXVII, pg. 151.
Cestius Gallus and Gessius
The Roman writer Martial mentions Cestius Gallus in his
works (Ref. Martial, XLII, 2., Loeb). Josephus speaking about
Gessius Florus (.ie., himself as Roman General and procurator of
Judea says; “… nor could anyone out do him in disguising the
truth.” He is right about that, his is the all-time champion at
doing that! Ref. Josephus, pg. 484,
Also note that as “Gessius”, Arrius could pronounce his alias
name as “Jes(I)us.” And in the royal language he could change
vowels to render “Josi(ph)us” or simply “Jos” as short for
Antonius Primus is found described in Tacitus, Histories,
Book II, LXXXVI, pg. 299. In the works of Flavius Josephus,
“Antonius Primus” turns into “Antonius Julianus”.
Church father Origen says that to find out about the destruction
of the Temple look in (the works of) Flavius Josephus and
“Antonius Julianus” (as if Antonius Julianus was a contemporary
historian with Flavius Josephus and well-known. But there is NO
historian “Antonius Julianus” except for being another name of
or alias of Arrius Piso!
Note that the name “Antonius Julianus” is in the works of
Flavius Josephus, but that is just another alias name that is
used by Arrius Piso
It should be appropriate to end with a few words from
Flavius Josephus himself:
Josephus calls himself "Joseph" (as
in the father of Jesus), on pg. 427 of the works of Flavius
There is a joke/allusion to Josephus being Arrius Piso by use of
a reference to a passage in the works of Flavius Josephus which
appears in the New Testament as given by Julius Piso in the
Revelations. It is the "I am Alpha and Omega, beginning and
end." The name "Arrius Piso" starts with "A" (Alpha) and ends
with "O" (Omega). Julius refers to a statement that may be found
on pg. 427 of the works of Flavius Josephus, Whiston. Ref. Rev.
1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13.
And here is a great piece of rhetoric in the works of Flavius
"…and where it must be reproachful to write lies, when
they must be known by the reader to be such."
Note that he says "known by the
READER," not the writer!!! (pg.
428, Josephus, Whiston).
Like Alexander (the brother of Aristobulus), Arrius Piso
"composed 4 books against his enemies." Those, of course, are
the "Gospels". This is what we know of as and call "propaganda",
and this was used during the ‘war’ as a part of the tactics
against their enemies. So, when it is said that the New
Testament was written as a part of the war, this is what is
meant. Arrius Piso, writing as "Flavius Josephus" was here
alluding to what HE did by writing the Gospels (Ref. Flavius
Josephus, pg. 458,
"…and by degrees he laid blame
on these men (his enemies) whose names were in these books,
Again, alluding to what HE did. And
we have found that this is true. He does place ‘blame’ on the
Jews for the death of Jesus in his story and he does get more
and more antisemetic in the Gospels as each one was written.
Another thing is that he does place them in his works by their
real names and by alias names with their ‘profiles’ so that
people who knew these persons with a great familiarity would
KNOW of whom he was speaking (Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg. 459,
And here is an admission to what he was doing:
"yet were there
fictitious stories added
to what was really done."
(Ref. Josephus, pg. 517, Whiston)
And about the ‘signs’ that the Temple and Jerusalem would be
destroyed, he says:
"… the signs were so evident…"
and that "… (the Jews) did not regard the denunciations that
God made to them. ["God" in this case being
himself] Thus, there was a star resembling a sword [he is
referring to his ‘sword’, i.e. "Jesus" which was his
strength as the bright morning star, like Achilles had with
his "evening star"], which stood over the city (of
Jerusalem), that continued (lasted) for a while year."
There at the end he could be
referring to his position as Roman procurator in Judea.
He states further…
"I suppose the account of it
would seem to be a fable, …." Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg 582,
And "… as if they had been ready to (play as)/be "actors"
against them." Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg. 602, Whiston.
"Some of them betook themselves to the writing of fabulous
narrations…" Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg. 608, in "Against Apion", Whiston.
"As for myself, I have composed a true history of that whole
war…" Josephus calls it a "war", not a "revolt" as most
others do. He says; "I "acted" as general…" Ref. Flavius
Josephus, pg. 609, in "Against Apion",
Josephus the Actor… He says:
"…and as for the History of the
War, I wrote it as having been an "actor" myself…" Ref.
Flavius Josephus, pg. 610, in "Against Apion", Whiston.
"I say nothing of such kings as have been famous for piety,
particularly of one of the whose name was Cresus,…" "Cresus"
is part "C(h)r(ist)" and part "(J)esus"… what
a joker! Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg. 628, in "Against Apion", Whiston