False History: Jesus, King of Edessa
Bliv bruger af LibraryThing, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg
Dette emne er markeret som "i hvile"—det seneste indlæg er mere end 90 dage gammel. Du kan vække emnet til live ved at poste et indlæg.
The book is Jesus, King of Edessa. I'm sure I won't be buying but there's a very cynical assessment here:
and a more generous one on Goodreads.
And out of curiousity or annoyance with Ellis, why would it be that Josephus, who writes and was familiar with some of the Jesus story only a few decades later, completely missed that before his cricifixion he was the king of another realm? Plus the dates are all wrong, and Pilate -- acknowledged by Josephus to be the man who had Jesus crucified -- had been gone for 30+ years according to this account. No.
In short, Verenna never even read the book he was reviewing, and so not one single thing in his review bore any relation to the book.
If you are interested in the subject, try to get the 2017 edition, as it contains new evidence from the Huqoq site in Israel.
Because King Jesus-Izas-Manu was the leader of the Jewish Revolt, and this story was dictated by Emperor Vespasian. Vespasian demanded that Jeosephus delet Edessa from history, which he did. And to make this king a pacifist who paied his Roman taxes, which he did.
The gospels are Roman propaganda, to prevent further revolts in the East. (Which did not completely work....).
With due respect to you, I take claims such as this (King Jesus of Edessa) with a large grain of salt when it is so far out from widely held scholarly and historical opinion. Sure the masses can be wrong, but as far as I can tell, not with this.
Part of the URL that doesn't show here is -wildly-irresponsible-crackers-
More explanation of a few of the details Ellis gets wrong are at https://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/jesus-was-king-arthur-and-a-pharaoh...
I don't think a grain of salt is enough.
Two thoughts. First, >7 MarthaJeanne:, you're right. A grain of salt was not enough. Second, never trust a book using the Papyrus font. The second is entirely personal. Nothing ever good comes from using the Papyrus font.
Two more so-called 'academics' who declared this theory to be 'crackers' without even reading the book. Does academia now do reviews via telepathy? I think you will need a new tin-foil hat if you believe these two academic dissemblers.
And the Daily Mail 'academic' said this coin cannot be Jesus because the image has long hair, and first century Jews were clean shaven. So here is an 'academic' who does not know that Jesus and Saul were Nazarene, and the Nazarene were forbidden to poll their hair.
The Edessan royalty were Nazarene too, which is why all their imagery depicts them with long hair. And if you look at the Huqoq mosaic, you will see that the high priest of Jerusalem also had long hair. So once again we see that academia has no clue - no clue at all.
What is clear from all of this, is that if you want to know the historical truth about 1st century Judaea, you have to give academia a wide berth. They have a creed and a faith that is more firmly fixed than any religion, and they are sticking to it.
Perhaps you did not read my rebuttle of Aaron Adair, who is yet another Mormon trying to preserve his faith (scroll down a bit). So I repeat it here.
We now have another player in this field, one Aaron Adair, who has again made a critique of my work through studying blogs ( not reading the book).
Ok, so let us have a look at what Aaron has written.
>>Ellis has written several books about Jesus, trying
>>to argue that he was, for example, the king of Edessa,
>>a city in a region that is also known as not Judea.
And your point is, Aaron? Do you think that people did not travel in the 1st century. Indeed, since both Acts of the Apostles and the Doctrine of Addai state that there were ambassadors shuttling between Edessa (Antioch) and Jerusalem, and since it was the Queen of Edessa who furnished the Temple of Jerusalem, I think there are many links between the two regions. Indeed, in the guise of King Izas of Adiabene, it was the king of Edessa who fomented and prosecuted the Jewish Revolt, and was captured after the siege of Jerusalem.
So do tell us in what way Edessa is NOT linked and related to Jerusalem.
>>Ellis also claims that Jesus is King Arthur, sent with his wife
>>and queen Mary Magdalene to exile in Britain by the Romans.
I will deal with this at a later date, as the explanation is too long.
>>You know, just like what the Romans always did with rebels,
>>right? I mean, it’s not like there are any sources that say Jesus
>>was crucified by the Romans or anything, right?
I think you need to look up the history of King Caracatus – for this is precisely what the Romans did. They took rebel barbarians, civilised them, and sent them back home as representatives of the Pax Romana. They did exactly the same to King Abgarus V of Edessa too (in my opinion, this was Jesus’ father).
As to being crucified, Josephus Flavius specifically mentions that one of the leaders of the Revolt survived his crucifixion. No prizes for guessing which one.
>> Here is the word for star (sba, and not saba)
>> Somehow, Ellis has added a few more characters
>> to his word for ‘star’ at the end.
Umm, you do know that Egyptian does not have vowels, I hope. Thus sba can be siba, seba or saba. The Coptic equivalent suggests seba may have been the original.
And if you look at a decent Egyptian dictionary, instead of a wiki web reference, you will see that the Egyptian sba is often spelt with a ‘kite glyph’ denoting ‘a’ at the end of the word.
So apologies please. It is highly unprofessional to make sweeping statements and personal attacks like this, if you are not certain of your facts.
>>The connection between the Greek word
>>for ‘star’ (aster) and the goddess Ishtar are
>>also very distant.
No they are not. And if you had bothered to read the book, you would have found out why.
The foundation of this widely venerated goddess was the Egyptian Isis, who was called Ast or Est in the Egyptian. It is from Ast that we derive Aster, Ashtoreth, Ishtar and even Easter (the direction).** And these goddesses (and the word) are closely linked to stars because Isis (Ast) was known as the Queen of Heaven (Queen of the Stars), which is what she is called in the Tanakh (Jeremiah). And of course if we translate Queen of the Stars into Egyptian, we derive the Queen of Saba (the Queen of Sheba). This is why the latter was so famous – she was an incarnation of Isis.
Apologies please, for not understanding enough about Egyptian and biblical history.
** Why do you think we have Easter Eggs, at Easter? Answers on a postcard please….
>>Barton argues it (goddess Aster) comes from ‘self-waterer’
You need to brush up on your Egyptian deities a bit (quite a lot, actually). The water is not water at all, it is more cosmic. Think of the cosmic Sun Boat of Ra. Why do you think Mary Magdalene was known as the Stella Maris or the Star of the Sea?
Gosh, this feels like the first day of the academic year, with freshers being on the back of the drag-curve.
>>Now, Ishtar was connected to Venus, called
>>the morning star, but not because of her name
This is going to be a long evening.
Isis (Ast) was Astarte, and Ishtar (and Esther). But she was also Aphrodite (foam of the sea, or the Milky Way – get it?). And in Rome they called her Venus (the Morning Star). Thus Ast (Isis) and Ishtar are stars and seas and connected to Venus. Do you understand now?
>> I’m also impressed by the made-up god name
>> of “Zoroastra”. I think Ellis is referring to Zoroaster
>> Zoroaster is the Greek transliteration of the Persian
>>word for the prophet (not a god);
Both forms of the name are valid, as is Zarathustra if you really want. Your reference to camels is a mistranslation by Eugene Burnouf. We are not so sure what this name really means, but the most common etymology in the books I have indicates that the name means ‘Golden Star’, which happens to fit with my research very nicely. (House of Orange, and all that).
>>But the real problem is that ester is not the Hebrew
>>word for ‘star’; what would be kokab (כוכב), which in
>>Aramaic becomes kokhba,
Who said that Esther is “HEBREW” for ‘star’? It was not me. Apologies please.
In clarification, the BDB Aramaic dictionary says:
*** Esther, of PERSIAN derivation
*** Esther = “star”
*** The queen of Persia, heroine of the book of Esther
Aaron, if you have never read the Tanakh, then just hold up your hand and admit you have made some mistakes here. We will not hold it against you, we all make mistakes sometimes.
>>1 PossMan: Cor 15 gives a list of people that saw the
>>resurrected Jesus before Paul
Actually, it mentions that Jesus ‘rose from the dead’. And the meaning of this?
So did Lazarus rise from the dead.
So have I been raised from the dead.
And if you still have not twigged as to the meaning, then go down to your local Masonic Temple and ask them what it is all about.
>>If anyone could be said to be the founder of Christianity
>>who was not Jesus, you would think it was Peter, the first
>>person to see Jesus according to Paul,
Gosh, gosh gosh. Aaron, where do I start with this one? What this statement means, is that you know nothing of the history of Christianity and the religion that you are following.
There were five sects in the 1st century. Sadducees, Pharisees, Essene, the Fourth Sect Nazarene, and Simple Judaism for Gentiles. The Nazarene were the sect of Jesus, which is why Jesus was called The Nazarene (as was Queen Helena). Simple Judaism for Gentiles was the sect of Saul (Paul), and he was given permission to evangelise this sect from James, the brother of Jesus (Acts 15:23-29).
You will note that Saul’s sect were not circumcised, while Jesus’ was. This grew into such a dispute that Saul said if Jesus’ sect liked circumcision so much, why did they not just cut of their entire penis? Simple Judaism also did away will all of Judaic law, and replaced it with ‘faith’. In the end, Simple Judaism triumphed and the Nazarene sect was destroyed. We now call Simple Judaism Christianity – which is why Christians do not abide by the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Thus Christianity has nothing to do with the Nazarene Church of Jesus, because it was invented by Saul. Q.E.D.
>>We also have to ignore other details about Paul’s life.
>> For example, 2 Corinthians 11 has the tale of Paul’s
>>escape from Damascus during the reign ofAretas IV
That is one of the most obvious interpolations in the N.T. Read it again, and see what I mean.
>>The usual date Gamaliel is said to have died was about
>>50 CE, which is too early for Paul to be his student if Ellis
>>is right about Paul being born in 37 CE.
I would agree with that date, for many reasons. (And so there is no disagreement between my books.)
But why cannot Gamaliel be Saul’s tutor? Please explain.
You seem to forget that a Jew becomes a man at 12 or 13, at his barmitzvah, and so Saul would have had to have demonstrated his great knowledge of the Tanakh before the priesthood (high priest) at that age (ie: in about AD 50). So where is the conflict here?
This is why Jesus is said to have amazed the priestly elders, aged twelve.
And it came to pass, that after three days they found
him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers,
both hearing them, and asking them questions.
And all that heard him were astonished at his
understanding and answers.
This is why Josephus did the same thing as a ‘child’ (ie: not a man- before his barmitzvah).
Moreover, when I was a child, and
about fourteen years of age, I was
commended by all for the love I had
to learning; on which account the
high priests and principal men of the
city came then frequently to me together,
in order to know my opinion about the
accurate understanding of points of the law.
Do you not see the parallels? (And no, Saul was not Jesus, he was Josephus).
And if you do not believe this, then please explain all the major parallels in the lives (life) of Saul and Josephus. Especially them both being on the same shipwreck.
>>So not only does Ellis take the amazing story
>>of the Star of Bethlehem and the Magi as history,
>>but he doesn’t seem to think that the genealogy
>>at the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel is worth
>>considering; you know, the one that has Jesus
>>come from the line of King David and many Jews;
>>there isn’t a Persian in sight.
And herein lies your whole problem – fabricating a straw man out of thin air to knock down a book you have never even bothered to read.
If you had the decency to read the book, you will discover that I maintain that Jesus WAS of the line of David. Do you think that royals never travelled in this era?
The line of Jesus came from Queen Thea Muse Ourania. She was sent from Rome to Parthia by Emperor Octavian, where she became the wife of Phraates IV and the Queen of Parthia. But she was kicked out of Parthia in AD 4, and travelled to the west and established a new city state at Edessa.
So here we have a royal family of the line of David,
And also of Egyptian extract,
Who were in a journey, in AD 4,
Somewhere in Syria (Bethanya),
In search of an Inn to stay at,
Whose child WOULD have been of interest to the Persian Magi,
Whose child WOULD have been a threat to Herod.
What is there in this theory that detracts from the established story? Indeed, this theory explains things that were previously inexplicable, like why Herod was afraid of this birth of a ‘lowly carpenter’ !!
Face facts, Aaron. This theory is built on firm foundations, and explains everything in both the Old and New Testaments. It even explains the identities of Adam and Eve – now that one was REALLY difficult to solve.
Why would anyone waste their time and money on this?
The book was written in a popularist format for the general public. There is no point writing this sort of book for academics - they have blinkers and closed minds, as witnessed by the condemnations from those who have never even bothered to read it.
P.S. What exactly do you disagree with? You don't know, do you, because you have not bothered to read the book. You are displaying the same faith-based logic as the majority of academia.
My understanding of the Roman Catholic narrative is that it is Mary the mother of Jesus, not Mary Magdalene, who is know as Stella Maris or Star of the Sea.
Ralph Ellis on the other hand jumps from theory to theory, unless he's saying that Jesus was both King of Edessa and Arthur of Camelot. The titles alone place Jesus in multiple places and times. This isn't a question of academic versus populist writing... it's sensationalist. I'm waiting for the book revealing that Jesus piloted the planes (yes, both) into the Twin Towers on 9-11. (I don't intend to be flippant... just putting Mr. Ellis' writing into a modern media versus fringe news perspective. The media doesn't always get it right, and they sometimes have their own axes to grind, but by and large they're accurate, and if not, gets debunked by a competing news outlet).
>>I wonder why they're in Greek instead of Latin?
The Romans had a problem with radical Nazarene Judaism (the kings of Edessa), who had started the destructive Jewish Revolt. Their response was propaganda. They deleted the Nazarene Edessan royalty from history (Josephus never mentions them). And through their pet Jewish historan, Josephus Flavius, they recrafted the Jewish Revolt into the AD30s, to separTe it from the Revolt, and covered it with fairy dust. The result was the gospel stories.
Which is why King Izas Manu VI, the leader of the Revolt, was now recast as a prince of peace who willingly paid his Roman taxes. How convenient.
Since Josephus did not speak much Greek, he crafted the first "Jewish War" ( and gospels) in Aramaic, as he himself says. He then rewrote them in Greek. Funnily enough Josephus and Saul (St Paul) used the same translator and publisher - Epaphroditus. And Josephus and Saul had both been on the same ship that was wrecked on Malta. They both went on to Naples and Rome, both to see Nero. Funny that... Are you starting to see the links and similarities here?
Why do you think you know nothing about King Abgarus au Kama of Edessa and his wife Queen Helena, even though Helena had become the Queen of Judaea in the AD 50s? And nothing about King Izas Manu of Edessa, even though he was the leader of the Jewish Revolt (and the King of the Jews)? Why do you think this royal family has been deleted from history??
The only mystery here, is why modern academia is seemingly working for the Catholic Church, and perpetuating this millennial cover up.
>>Edessa and Arthur of Camelot. The titles alone place Jesus in
>>multiple places and times.
There is no jump in the chronology. My historical Jesus has always been a late AD 60s character, since 1997. He has always been the leader of the Jewish Revolt.
The only change of name has been due to Josephus Flavius, who refuses to properly name the leaders of the Revolt. Josephus calls the leader of the Revolt Jesus (of Gamala) and Izas (of Adiabene). But these are not real historical characters. It took many years before I discovered that Adiabene was Edessa. And therefore King Izas was King Manu. (King Izas Manu ... ie: King Jesus Em Manuel).
As to the link with Arthur, you have to think about what happened to the leaders of the Revolt. Josephus says the three leaders were crucified, but that HE (Josephus) took them down early, and one survived. (familiar stary??). It is my contention that they were all then shipped out to a prison fortress in Chester, England - as far from their power base as possible.
This secret history was not discovered until the First Crusade, in 1096. And the first city the Crusaders liberated was Edessa. Funny that, eh? Why Edessa? Did they know something?
I think they found the true history of the Edessan monarchy and the Jewish Revolt. But this new history was decidedly heretical. What they needed was a secret society to keep it safe - the Knights Templar. And the Templars decided to keep it sectret in plain sight - and crafted Athurian legend. Which is why Arthurian history only came into being in 1135, just after the Knights Templar were formed.
Thus, surprising as it may seem, the central character of Arthurian history is actually Joseph of Arimathaea. And many of the Arthurian manuscripts say that the original author of this history was Josephus Flavius. Yes, that is true - read the book "The Grail Cypher". You see the many links here - that have never before been joined up (well, for the last 800 years at least).
>>who is know as Stella Maris or Star of the Sea.
Which is true, but I often conflate their titles, because they were probably mother and daughter. Mary simply means 'bishop' in Syriac Aramaic.
In addition, these princess were all linked to the Egyptian Isis, who was the Queen of the Stars. She was Astarte, Ishtar, Ester, Aphrodite, and Venus. And Magdalene is related to this symbolism. Magdal means 'tower' and also 'pyramid'. And two Magdals (pyramids) make one Magan - the Star of David.
This was a 'star family'. And in the AD60s the key prophesy was the Star Prophesy, which said that a star from the east would become the new emperor of Rome. This was the phophesy that Josephus Flavius gave to Vespasian. But who was born under the Eastern Star? The prophesy originally referred to Mary the Virgin, because she was an incarnation of Isis-Venus, and therfore referred to Jesus (King Izas Manu of Edessa).
That's rather a big assertion to make as a throw-away one-liner.
Perhaps it's part of the human psyche to espouse something different to what is normal. Communism? Or those who claim to be pagans, wicca, druids, or witches. I myself doubt there is any continuity between present day "druids" who attend the solstices at Stonehenge and the druids of Julius Caesar's time in Britain. And were there ever in England witches as part of an organised devil-worshipping community?
Not speculative, more like a certainty. Incest was the norm within the pharaonic dynasties, to keep the bloodline pure, and that is where the Israelites and Jesus came from. (Out of Egypt I have called my son.)
And within Syrio-Judaea...
King Agrippa II married his sister.
Simon Magus married his sister.
Queen Helena of Edessa married her brother (Abgarus-Monobazus)
Queen Thea Muse Ourania married her son, Phraataces.
And Saul asks why he cannot have a sister-wife, like the other disciples 1Cor 9:5. Only the Derby and Rotherham Bibles translate this properly as sister-wife. But the Greek wording is clear.
Since I maintain that all of this story is linked to the Egyptian royal line, a brother-sister marriage for Jesus would be a sacred duty.
PS. Here is a coin of Queen Thea Muse Ourania and her husband-son Phraataces. In my genealogy, Thea Muse is the grandmother of King IZAS Manu (ie Jesus).
Because histories, mythologies and rumours of this genre have been swirling around, especially in southern France, for centuries. And the Catholic Church has done its best to squach those rumours.
The Church destroyed the Templars because of their secrets. And the Church destroyed the Cathars, because of their secrets. So are you surprised that all we have left is vague mythologies?
I am the first person to have filled out the crossword correctly, in some 700 or more years. It is clear from my research that the Arthurian historians understood this, and encoded it in Arthurian history. And I expect the Templars and Cathars did too - Mary Magdalene being central to the Cathar creed.
But the Church ensured that this information would be lost from overt history. That is why the Templars covertly encoded this history within Arthurian legend, so it could be preserved in plain sight, even if their order was destroyed. It was a strategy that succeeded brilliantly.
Everything Mr. Ellis says is a farrago of nonsense. But this isn't a valid critique. The Roman elite was more or less bilingual, and a long list could be made of Romans who wrote in Greek—from Fabius Pictor to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Apart from the army, Roman administration in the Eastern half of the empire, and certainly all communications with the locals--such as letters, decrees--was done in Greek. The Greek elite rarely spoke Latin, and, apart from the army itself and some ex-military settlements, Latin was unknown outside of the elite. By contrast, Greek had far more purchase on the Latin west. Paul wrote to the Romans in Greek, and indeed we know the early Roman church conducted its liturgies in Greek, not Latin (the kyrie eleison is a remnant). If there were indeed a conspiracy to engineer texts to prop up Roman rule in the east, Greek would have been the right language to do it in. Certainly the anti-Roman texts--from Revelation, to the "Sibylline Oracles"--were in Greek.
The larger argument is crazypants, of course.
You've erred in connecting this with Egypt, rather than Persian religion ( see http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/marriage-next-of-kin ). See also Incestuous and Close-kin Marriage in Ancient Egypt and Persia by Paul John Frandsen (2009).
No doubt you already know that a Daily Mail academic living in Ballidserfedrick, that unfortunate & unduly notorious village near Belfast, has claimed that the name 'Stargazy Marsh' given to the local wetland is a corruption of 'Stella Maris' and that the marsh has a fascinating if esoteric link to the most famous virgin if not to one of the most famous whores in this part of the world or possibly to navigators' Pole Star.
Heh. Well, if you're going to be defending the Catholic Church, as you apparently are, you need to get your facts straight.
The fact that incest was common in Pharaonic (or, as >31 timspalding: corrects, Persian) dynasties has little or nothing to do with demonstrating that Mary Magdalene was the daughter of Mary the mother of Jesus.
As with most religious conspiracy theorists, you overrate the power of the church to suppress things. Of course the Cathars and a number of other groups were suppressed violently, but that doesn't mean that knowledge of them or their creeds disappeared from history. At the same time, conspiracy theorists underrate the integrity, tenacity, professionalism and independence of many church academics, historians and researchers who are not, as you might suppose, in thrall to the church but are genuine independent researchers seeking knowledge, understanding and truth. Far from being suppressed, some (including some I know personally) have left the institutional church to pursue their studies if they have felt undue pressure, and have continued to publish.
Well, it was common in both. But Edessa was much influenced by Persian religion and culture, not Egyptian. Among other things, Bardesanes, a Gnostic/Christian author, born in Edessa and writing in Syriac/Aramaic, specifically refers to the practice and connects it with Persia. (We don't need to take his word on that--the Zoroastrian texts speak of it directly.) Bardesanes is surely at the fulcrum of much of the data Ralph must be using (warping) in his argument.
Speaking of which, Ralph, do you read any of the relevant languages? I don't read Syriac or Aramaic at all (my Greek and Latin are decent, if rusty). I certainly wouldn't consider myself capable of writing something scholarly--let alone field-overturning!-- here unless I could read Bardesanes, Ephrem and the Peshitta in the original. One might as well fashion a novel theory of organic chemistry without a basic knowledge of chemistry. Can you?
FWIW, ancient-historical autodidacts and let's say "outliers" have long been an interest of mine. My graduate school studies, partially on magic, astrology and divination, frequently brought me into contact with such material--not a few obscure texts there were translated not by scholars but by "believers." My first or second year, when I was running a site on Alexander, a guy approached me with a "new" text of the Alexander Romance--a fantastical text, originating in the Hellenistic period, but changing until modern times, that was, at one point, the most read novel. He had taken the trouble to translate the whole thing (the first time this particular version had been translated into English), and believed that it was the the real history of Alexander. It took me only a few minutes of work to find the text he "found" on the CD of basically all Greek literature every grad student in Classics uses. He didn't believe me, so I sent him the text of pages he hadn't showed me. Nothing worked. I tried to convince him that he should abandon his silly theories, in favor of a normal (and useful) first English translation of the text. He never agreed. I wonder what happened to him. He was old, so I'm guessing he's since died, probably still working on his true history of Alexander.
Anyway, I have a sort of affection for autodidact scholars. But I don't think they often move from useless and crazy to useful, however nice it would be to see that.
This is my letter to Dr Gathercole, who criticized my work in the IBT. This sums up the vacuous nature of modern academia.
Dr Simon Gathercole,
Reader in New Testament Studies,
Re: Dr Gathercole - defamation of Mr Ellis
Jesus, King of Edessa.
Dear Dr Gathercole,
cc Mr A Harvison, Palamedes PR Consultancy
cc Ms M Henriques International Business Times
You made the following incorrect assertions in the IBT about my book Jesus, King of Edessa, and you overtly impugned my character and expertise.
All the evidence from the time indicate that Jesus conducted his ministry in Galilea and Judea, in modern-day Israel, not in Mesopotamia
But I never said that Jesus conducted his ministry in Mesopotamia. But since you could not be bothered to read my book before commenting, you would not know that, would you? Why do you presume to comment from a position of ignorance?
In addition, if you knew anything about 1st century Judaea, you would know that the Edessan monarchy became the queens and kings of Judaea in the AD 50s and 60s. Why don’t you know that? Since you are obviously only a fresher of limited ability, let me fill in a few details for you.
Firstly, Queen Helena of Edessa became the de facto queen of Judaea in the AD 50s, owning the largest palace and tomb in Jerusalem and furnishing the Temple of Jerusalem - including the solid gold menora. And then King Izas Manu of Edessa became the de facto king of Judaea in the AD 60s, and led the Jewish Revolt against Rome. But he lost that Revolt to commander Vespasian and was crucified alongside two others, but he was taken down early by Josephus Flavius and survived.
Why don’t you know any of this? And therefore not know of the obvious links to the similar gospel story?
So what you said in your IBT ‘review’ of my book was completely wrong. Are you going to write an apology to the IBT, and to their readership? You have defamed my work and severely impugned my character, and so the very least you can offer is an apology. And if you do not do so, I can and will take the matter further.
"There's no evidence from any sources, Christian or non-Christian, that say Jesus ever even went to Edessa. There are legends form the 4th Century that Jesus wrote to the king of Edessa, but there's nothing from the time
There is plenty of evidence that the disciples went to Edessa. Acts says:
And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great famine throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Acts 11:28
It is obvious to any academic with the capacity for independent thought, that Agabus was King Abgarus of Edessa. This is supported by the mention of the AD47(?) famine, which was alleviated by Queen Helena of Edessa, the wife of King Abgarus. Professor Eisenman agrees with me on this - is he ‘crackers’ too? (They deliberately changed his name to mean ‘locust’ - typical wordplay of the region.)
From these verses we know that the apostles Saul and Barnabas were the ambassadors of the Edessan monarchy, and took the Edessan famine-relief money to Jerusalem. And so the Antioch mentioned in Acts, must therefore be Antioch Edessa. And so we also know that Edessa was at the epicenter of the gospel accounts. (Also because Queen Helena was a Nazarene Jew, and became the de facto queen of Judaea.)
Why don’t you know any of this? Why have you not handed back your doctorate?
So what you said in your IBT ‘review’ of my book was completely wrong. Real fresher thinking. Are you going to write an apology to the IBT? You have defamed myself and my work, and so the very least you can offer is an apology. And if you do not do so, I can and will take the matter further.
Simon Gathercole - New Testament studies at University of Cambridge - said Ellis’ thesis was “completely crackers”.
That is both incorrect and defamation, and I demand an apology. Or there will be consequences, for both yourself and for the faculty.
Jesus, King of Edessa:
I link this family mainly with Egypt, but also with Persia.
I say that:
a. Cleopatra was pregnant when Caesar was murdered.
b. The child was the infamous Thermusa (Thea Muse Ourania), who became the Queen of Persia.
c. This family were all exiled to Syria in AD4 (the nativity story).
d. The daughter of Thermusa was the redoubtable Queen Helena.
e. Queen Helena became a Nazarene Jew and the queen of Judaea in the AD 50s.
f. She owned the largest palace and tomb in Jerusalem.
g. Her son was King Izas Manu - the biblical Jesus.
So Jesus-Izas' royal line stemmed from the imperial line of Caesar, the Ptolemaic line of Cleopatra, and the Parthian line of Phraates IV. Perhaps now you can see why Herod (Herod Archelous) was afraid of this new prince in his realm, who was far better connected than he could ever dream of being.
>>Of course the Cathars and a number of other groups were
>>suppressed violently, but that doesn't mean that knowledge
>>of them or their creeds disappeared from history.
Spoken from the relative safety of the English shires in the 21st century. I think you seriously underestimate the power of institutional coercion.
What do you think would happen to you in the 12th century, if you said that Jesus was a warrior monarch who lived in the AD 60s, and survived the cross (as a living man)? Would you prefer the rack? The fires, as Bloody Mary did to the Protestants? Or a slow roasting like a piglet - as they did to Jaques do Molay?
Or even into the modern era.
What do you think would happen to you in the 21st century, if you said that Muhummad was a genocidal murderer who oversaw the beheading of all the Jews of Medina?? A stabbing? An axe? An AK47? Or the boring old semtex belt. Which would you prefer?
So tell me - are you going to stand outside Westminster next week, protesting that Muhummad was a genocidal murderer? Why not? Are you "underrating the power of the Mosque to suppress things" ?? Either we see you outside Westminster next week, or you should admit that you are wrong.
>>writing in Syriac/Aramaic, specifically refers to the practice
>>and connects it with Persia.
Indeed, because they came from Persia.
The Edessan royal family are quite obviously descended from the exile of Queen Thea Muse Ourania and King Phraatases to Syria, in circa AD4. But it is highly likely that the controversial Queen Thea Muse Ourania (Thermusa), was the 'forgotten' daughter of Queen Cleopatra. Thus we have a distinct Egyptian link.
This is why Jesus was called "The Egyptian False Prophet" in both the gospels and Josephus. And why he went to Egypt (Alexandria) for his education. And why he used one of Heron of Alexandria's trick "water to wine" jugs at his wedding in Cana, when he married Mary Magdalene.
"We may also pour in the water first, and then, stopping the vent, pour wine upon it, so as to pour out wine for some, wine and water for others, and mere water for those whom we wish to jest with."
Yeah - sorry to disappoint anyone here, but it was a magic trick. And the Catholic faithful fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
Oh, and John the Baptist was a well respected teacher in Alexandria too (Clementine Recognitions). All roads point towards Egypt
I'm afraid you'll find me standing in the relatively less safe environment of South Sudan, although I'll accept a free air ticket to London if you're offering one. We don't seem to have much semtex here, but the rest of your list is alive and well, plus a few more choice ways of dying.
Your comment regarding protesting about Islam outside Westminster is a complete red herring and has nothing whatsoever to do with research about Jesus. If you read my post >36 John5918:, you'll perhaps notice that I'm not talking about Islam (or religion in general), I'm talking about Christianity, and I'm not talking about the 12th century but the 21st. The point is that despite the persecution that took place then, during which the Cathars were pretty much destroyed within the mainstream church, knowledge of them and their beliefs has not disappeared, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it. And I repeat that there are many brave and independent scholars within the church who continue their studies without being intimidated, to say nothing of secular scholars who have no truck with the institutional church anyway. The same is true of Muslim scholars, incidentally, who face much greater threats, but still persevere - I know some of them personally.
That's 'cheating' - South Sudan is Christian.
Try North Sudan. Or Egypt. Or even Turkey.
>>The point is that despite the persecution that took place then, during
>>which the Cathars were pretty much destroyed within the mainstream
>>church, knowledge of them and their beliefs has not disappeared,
>>otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.
I'm afraid the knowledge did disappear, which is why modern academics and theologians are so clueless. The only thing that remained is some of the original texts. But since there was so much disinformation in the past (the Talmud is a sea of pseudonyms, to avoid persecution) the story is too disjointed to easily see. Unless you are VERY well read, and VERY dispassionate, and with no agenda to maintain, you will never see the Jesus = Edessa story. Never in a million years.
Witness my problem with the central aspect of this story - that Saul is Josephus Flavius. You would have thought I was trying to prove that 2+2=5. Mild academics treated the suggestion as if it was a heresy worthy of a slow-roasting - in the 'enlightened' 21st century.
It is clear that had I been an academic, my career would have ended, I would have been made unemployed, I would have lost my house, and wife, and kids - and been reduced to living on the streets. You see how both academia and theologians control the narrative. As with the 'global warming' industry, if you step outside the orthodoxy you are shouted down as a heretic, and become academic toast.
But they have no control over me - none at all. And they hate that.
I also wrote a peer review science paper 'proving' that Co2 is not the primary warming feedback mechanism. And they hated that too - because they again have no control over me. The cannot sack me. And they cannot effectively ridicule me, because I reside outside the 'system'.
‘Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks’.
There is no such country as North Sudan. I suppose you are referring to Sudan, which is where I lived for many years before South Sudan seceded.
>>I suppose you are referring to Sudan.
Talk about splitting hairs.
There is a south, but there is no north - north is a figment of your imagination...
It is 'negative south' or 'anti-south'.
Nice one, John.
I have no idea what your point is, but there are countries called Sudan and South Sudan but there is no country called North Sudan (and in fact never has been). If you want to refer to "north Sudan" with a small "n" you would be referring to places such as Dongola or Wadi Halfa in the northern part of Sudan, whereas "south Sudan" with a small "s" would refer to places such as Kordofan or Kosti in the southern part of Sudan. South Sudan with a capital "s" refers to the new country that was created in July 2011 (previouslyi known as southern Sudan), while Sudan refers to the rump of Sudan remaining after the secession.
I rather hope that your attention to detail ("splitting hairs") in your book is greater than in your treatment of geopolitics, and for that matter your understanding of the power of the church and who is referred to by Catholics as Stella Maris.
>>countries called Sudan and South Sudan
Oh, you are really full of it, aren't you - thinking you are clever.
Well this is not a book, and I don't give a sh!t about Sudan.
On the other hand this is good because it shows your general attitude about how you react when your statements are shown to be wrong.
No, I don't think I am particularly clever, but I happen to have spent over 30 years working in Sudan and, since 2011, South Sudan, so I do have some idea what I am talking about in this particular instance. You are the one who raised Sudan as an issue when I informed you that I am based in South Sudan, not Westminster, so I'm wondering why you were so certain about it if in reality you don't give a shit about it. Strange.
>>general attitude about how you react when your statements
>>are shown to be wrong.
No, it shows the general attitude of the members of this board. They cannot demonstrate anything wrong with my thesis, so they resort to deflective tactics to divert attention. Yes, I know that is the typical response of people with fixed ideas (their own personal creed), but it is sad to see such closed minds in the 21st century. We achieved Enlightenment in the Victorian era but have regressed back into the Middle Ages, where we now desperately find excuses for religiously inspired beheadings.
And this also shows up in historical research, where Victorian historians had a much greater depth of knowledge than today's academics. Compare the breadth of research in James Bruce's 'Evolution of Arthurian Romance', with Guy Halsall's 'Worlds of Arthur' and you will see what I mean. But if we lose the gains of the Enlightenment, many freedoms will be lost with it.
Excuse me? Are you seriously suggesting that anyone other than the handful of misguided people who actually carry out "religiously inspired beheadings" is "desperately" trying to find excuses for this practice? I think you'll find that pretty universal condemnation is the order of the day.
Victorian historians had a much greater depth of knowledge than today's academics
As well as living in Africa, I read a great deal of Africana, and I can say pretty confidently that Victorian historians do not have a greater depth of knowledge in this field than today's academics.
But now you make inaccurate statements about something that is verifiable and attack the person with personal knowledge about the matter when he gives you a clear statement of the facts. We know him. We know about his work in South Sudan. If we had any doubts about his report we could check the details. But you don't think accuracy is important.
I can't help but think that if you don't care about facts that I can easily verify, I'd better not put a lot of trust in what you say about things I can't check. I'll stick with the version of events that is accepted by historians and theologians who have won my respect by their clear and rational writings.
"Knowing anything" is, of course, knowing something nobody "knows" but you.
Why don’t you know any of this? Why have you not handed back your doctorate?
See? This is just mean. And with that, off come the gloves: Sorry, but your views here are ignorant and unhinged. They deserve no listen from anyone--not even one that might be afforded to a really bad idea from one who was polite and willing to learn.
Incidentally, you didn't respond about reading Syriac or Aramaic. I expand this to Greek and Latin, two other necessary languages for what you're doing. Armenian would also come in handy, if you're going to be arguing about Adiabene and Osrohene (and see below). Do you know these languages? Any of these languages?
There's a reason scholars are scholars, and amateurs amateurs. To get a degree in plain-jane Classics you need many years in Greek and Latin, as well as reading ability in French and German, to understand the scholarly literature. Other languages are added on as necessary--e.g., if you're doing Archaeology in Italy, you're going to need Italian. Here, your Greek has got to be great, and you'd better have at least Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac. Depending on where you're going, reading ability in Armenian, Middle Persian, and so forth would be advisable. These languages aren't even achievements for such a scholar; they're prerequisites. Speaking as someone who ascended most of that mountain (with some extra linguistic hills added, covering my interests), attaining high fluency in at least four languages is exhausting. But it's necessary--and why I restrict myself to reading Greek and Latin privately, and running a company, not doing crazy pseudoscholarship. There are many fields that don't require such learning before any real work is done--can't you go prove that Abraham Lincoln was really Betty Ford, or something?
Witness my problem with the central aspect of this story - that Saul is Josephus Flavius. You would have thought I was trying to prove that 2+2=5. Mild academics treated the suggestion as if it was a heresy worthy of a slow-roasting - in the 'enlightened' 21st century.
First, there is no Josephus Flavius--the name is Flavius Josephus, that is, in the Roman naming system, his nomen was Flavius and his cognomen Josephus. Josephus Flavius sounds like some sort of modern first-name, last-name, but it disrupts the Roman system, and the use of the Flavian nomen, which he took as a freedman of Vespasian. As there is no "Josepha" gens, there is no Josephus nomen.
The notion that Paul is Flavius Josephus isn't a question of heresy, but of eye-popping ignorance. 2+2=5 is at least an error; this is more like 2+2=fish sauce. There are a thousand ways to prove this isn't so--and zero compelling evidence to believe it is.
Speaking of sources, the Verenna piece quotes you as saying this:
"This is a scholarly study of all the available historical evidence, including the Tanakh, Talmud, Josephus Flavius, the Roman historians, and venerable Syriac historians like Moses of Chorene and Yohannes Drasxanakertci."
Excuse me? Moses of Chorene and Drasxanakertc'i did not write in Syriac, but in Armenian. Armenian, an Indo-European language, is utterly unlike Syriac, a Semitic one. (A name like "Drasxanakertc'i" ought to have clued you in!) How can we trust your scholarship when you list a half-dozen sources and get the name of one, and the language of two others, wrong? Sheesh Louise!
There is no such country as North Sudan. I suppose you are referring to Sudan, which is where I lived for many years before South Sudan seceded.
Since we've decided that Adiabene is Osrohene, and Arbella (Erbil) is Edessa (Urfa)—that is, two well-known and well-attested cities as far apart as Boston and Philadelphia are the same thing—why should we not create a North Sudan, or a New Sudan, United States of Sudan, or whatever.
My late husband used to refer to the Retired Professor Syndrome
Yeah, that happens. Martin Bernal would be another, in the Classics/Egyptology field. As scientists tend not to do good work after their 30s, they can "retire" earlier, although they usually just pontificate on the public state, outside their field (Dawkins, Tyson, Sagan and indeed Einstein), not attempt actual academic work there.
Sir, I contend that other members of this board have clearly, repeatedly demonstrated you are mistaken. Your Achilles heel is the language and disregard for scholarship. Speaking from experience, it stings like hell when people adamantly disagree with a theory of mine but that's life.
>>of misguided people who actually carry out "religiously inspired beheadings"
Unfortunately beheading infidels is a commandment from god, and so the deeply religious strive to carry out those divine commands:
"God said ... I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels.
Strike off their heads, strike off the tips of their fingers." Koran 8:12
And if you think that these verses do not influence vast swathes of the devout in Islamia, you have never lived there. Islam is not the same as a CofE vicar striking leather with willow on the village green.
So it is ok for an academic to slander an independent researcher, but it is not ok for the independent researcher to point out that the academic is wrong. Why is that?
>>To get a degree in plain-jane Classics you need many years in Greek and Latin.
But there is no requirement to demonstrate logic, critical analysis and independent thought. Quite the reverse, there is a strong requirement to stay within the consensus. This is what we also see in climate science, where climate rationalists are denigrated as 'deniers' (linked to the holocaust), and dismissed from their jobs (David Bellamy), or threatened with jail (the RICHO laws in the US). How can critical analysis of ancient texts develop within that environment?
>>the name is Flavius Josephus, that is, in the Roman naming system.
I don't write for scholars, I write for the public. And in the western and modern world we place the acquired title at the end. Like Geoffrey of Monmouth, Walter of Oxford, or Count Baldwin of Bologne. And even like Abgarus au Kama. I am not going to spend half my time trying to explain why I have written Josephus' name 'backwards'.
>>Moses of Chorene and Drasxanakertc'i did not write in Syriac, but in Armenian.
Yes, I know. But Edessa is Mesopotamian Syriac, and yet the Armenians claimed the Edessan monarchy as their own. So Edessa sort of becomes Armenian when it wasn't. I should have been more clear.
>>Ralph Ellis, I would like to know better your theory that identifies Jesus and the
>>Syrian King, but in which of your books may I read all your arguments?
The full arguments are in 'The King Jesus Trilogy'. But you can read 'Jesus of Edessa' as a stand-alone book if you wish, as it does have an introduction. Please make sure you get 2015 editions or later. A lot of extra information has been added, since the original USA edition.
Cleopatra to Christ
Jesus, King of Edessa
Where exactly is "there"? Are you suggesting that Islam is a single monolith? I did live for 28 years under an extremist Islamist regime, where I am not aware of a single beheading. Does that count?
A number of prominent Catholic scholars have indeed been dismissed from their jobs. Has that silenced them? Hans Kung is probably the most well-known. He is still a highly-respected theologian whose work is still very influential. Likewise Charles Curran, Mathew Fox, John Wijngaards, a number of well-known female theologians, and many others. The 21st century Church can decide who teaches in its institutions, but cannot suppress academic thought.
David Bellamy taught at my university, so I have a soft spot for him. While his views may not be popular with the mainstream any more, he has hardly been "suppressed". He is still a well-known figure and his writings are available to anyone who wants to read them.
Welcome to LibraryThing. I see you haven't got round to cataloguing any of your books yet, but I'm pleased that you managed to stumble across this particular thread on the very same day that you joined, and that >61 ralphellis: has been able to answer your query about his books.
So my questions will be at a higher level.
Have you written anything concerning the reaction of the Edessan monarchy to Josephus' propaganda? Were there any counter arguments that survived history?
Someone who read the book!
That said, if I'm wrong and you're book lovers who have just joined, I apologize to wallyz21 and Hans_van_Kasteel.
There are two ways I can think of to establish your presence on LT: Cataloging your library, and participating in Talk. People get to know you over time and will listen, even if they don't agree.
Ehrman recounts becoming a born-again, fundamentalist Christian as a teenager... He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering...
Sorry, no Catholicism nor Vatican denunciation.
While Ehrman's work has not always received a good reception in certain Christian circles, It can hardly be said to have been suppressed. It is widely known and has been a significant influence on many (in fact we studied Ehrman in a Catholic seminary in the 1970s).
Incidentally, I think you'll find it's Ehrman, not Erhman.
The actual author is Mauro Biglino and the book : The book that will forever change our ideas about the bible.
Caused a bit of a stir!
I'm neither a supporter of Ralph Ellis, nor an opponent to his theory, and that's simply because I never read any of his books. I admit that what I allready found about his ideas (in other threads and discussions on the net) sounds often strange, not to say at moments highly suspicious. For instance, being a classical philologist, I can hardly imagine Flavius Josephus and Saul or Paul being one and the same author – if I understood well what Ralph Ellis is saying on them – but I need to read him to see if his arguments are valuable or not, on this point as well as on all the others. I can't do more and I can't do less.
Nevertheless, the several discussions I found are not sufficiently explicit, and I haven't been able to get a clear idea of the arguments of Ralph Ellis. I'm glad he gave me a clear answer, that's all for the moment. In a few day's, I will be able to start reading his “Jesus, King of Edessa” – and maybe to argue, here or elsewhere, about his theory.
If I did wrong in some way, I apologize. But I really am a book lover, even if my love goes sometimes to maybe awkward or at least original books.
Send a private message to Tim or one of the other LT staff if you have suspicions.
My apologies. I cannot resist a pun.
Since I don't you what does either your antagonism or apology mean to me.
I have asked an legitimate question and I await a response. If I am lucky I will get one.
- Jesus, a garbled version of Joshua, was not in any way an unusual name. A few generations earlier, under Hellenistic rule, he would have been called Jason
- A "small bronze coin"? How can you be certain it's a crown of thorns instead of a poorly rendered laurel wreath, if the detailing is so poor?
- The Romans crucified lots of people during the 1st century. They weren't squeamish about doing that.
A handful? Where are the mass demonstrations by Muslims, especially in the West, against the thousands atrocities carried out by Muslims? Why is all terrorism Muslim? The answer is simple - god has commanded that Kuffer unbelievers should be converted, taxed or killed. And that is what the majority wish. As Muhummad said - solders of Islam include those who give material support, as well as those who fight.
>>may not be popular with the mainstream any more, he has hardly been "suppressed".
Without his BBC platform, Bellamy is only 1% as influential as he was previously.
His dismissal was a deliberate ploy by the BBC, to silence him and his climate-realist views.
>>propaganda? Were there any counter arguments that survived history?
I think elements did survive. And before I mention this - please don't criticize Arthurian legend if you have not read the Vulgate Cycle. Read "History of the Holy Grail" for an example.
Anyway, Arthurian legend says that Joseph of Arimathaea was sent by 'god' to proselytize in Sarras, in exactly the same way that Josephus Flavius was sent beyond the Euprates (to Edessa) to proselytize for Emperor Vespasian. And since Arthurian history continually implies that Joseph of Arimathaea and Josephus Flavius were the same person, I think the story is the same. Replace 'god' with 'Vespasian' and they are the same.
And so the answer to your question is that the Edessan monarchy were deeply unimpressed with the new bollo being spouted by Josep-Josephus - including the claim that god impregnated Mary through her ears....!! But those who objected were killed.
Incidentally, the king of Edessa-Palmyra was King Evalach Mordrane, who is covertly described as being the son of (the biblical) King Jesus-Izas in a wonderful piece of wordplay. It is clear from this wordplay that the authors of the Vulgate understood all of the covert history that I have explored and explained.
I think that 'Joshua' is a complete diversion, for Catholic propaganda purposes. This new history demonstrates that Jesus-Izas came from Parthia, because his grandmother was the queen of Parthia. Which is why the Parthian Magi came to his birth. Why else would the Magi magicians, priests and king-makers be interested in a "Jewish Carpenter"?
In which case, the name Jesus was probably derived from Izas, which the the short form of the Edessan Izates. Which is why Jesus' name in Arabic is Issa. It is said that Izas means 'angel'. But it is possible that if the name had an Aramaic source (the lingua franca of Parthia), it might mean 'Strong' or 'Strong Horse'. The latter is a possibility, because Arthurian legend deliberately confuses Jesus (and the Abgarus letters legend) with Hippocrates of Kos (both being healers).
>>- A "small bronze coin"? How can you be certain it's a crown of thorns instead
>>of a poorly rendered laurel wreath, if the detailing is so poor?
Because the better quality coins of later eras show 'thorns'. Now what those 'thorns' exactly represent, we do no know - because they are shaped more like leaves or feathers.
>>- The Romans crucified lots of people during the 1st century.
>>They weren't squeamish about doing that.
But they would have only crucified one person while wearing a purple cloak and a crown of thorns - and that was King Izas Manu of Edessa. The crown of thorns was used, because that is the traditional Edessan crown. The purple cloak was used as mockery - because Izas Manu had made a bid for the Throne of Rome and lost (to Vespasian). So they crucified him as a pretender to the Throne of Rome.
In addition, Josephus says that King Izas Manu was crucified alongside two others, but was taken down early (by Josephus) and survived. Which is not only a familiar story, but suggests that Josephus was Josephus of Arimathaea. And that is exactly what Arthurian history strongly alludes to - that Josephus was Josephus of Arimathaea.
It isn't. I vividly remember the campaigns by the IRA, the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigade, Bader-Meinhof, ETA and others in Europe. The Continuity IRA and the Real/New IRA are still active, and ETA has only just disarmed this week. Various groups which have been labelled "terrorist" include the Japanese Red Army, Tamil Tigers, Lord's Resistance Army, African National Congress, the Stern Gang, and many anti-colonial liberation movements. There have been recent right wing terrorist attacks in the USA and Norway. Terrorism has been identified with several religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and, of course, Islam, which dominates the news at the moment.
I hope the facts in your book were checked more carefully than your facts about terrorism (and about Stella Maris).
>81 ralphellis: Without his BBC platform, Bellamy is only 1% as influential as he was previously.
Where do you get the figure of 1%? A poll, a survey, a questionnaire, research? Of course the BBC is an influential platform, but it's not the be all and end all. Many of the greatest academics in their fields have never been on BBC and none of us has ever heard of them. Their books, like Bellamy's, are there to be read. Not being on BBC is hardly "suppression", and I note in the linked article the headline telling us he is still "Outspoken as ever". I also note that the Daily Mail is giving him a platform.
>>book discussion group, it is customary to enter the books in your library.
I have added "The King Jesus Trilogy" to my library, and I can confirm that I am the author.
>>the Red Brigade, Bader-Meinhof, ETA and others in Europe.
Modern terrorism. I don't think we are fighting the Bader-Meinhof any more - something was done about that. The trouble with your deflections away from Islam, is that if we do not recognise the root cause of the problem we will never devise a cure.
Take the recent 'drive-through' atrocities. Every effort has been made by the media and politicians to distance these people from Islam, and from mosque attendance. But if the root problem lies in certain mosques, and we do nothing to neuter those certain mosques (and their imams), the problem will continue unabated. Our present strategy is like combating IRA terrorism without the Military Reconnaissance Force running undercover operations, like Captain Robert Nairac.
And you might say this is incidental to the story of Edessa, but Christian Edessa succumbed to Muslim control in the 8th century and so they knew the problem well. Strangely, Edessa was the first city to be liberated during the First Crusade, but remained free for only four or so decades. Today, there are no Christians left in Sanlurfa. BTW: I am an Atheist, so I am just giving you the facts here. You can make your own judgements.
>>Many Muslims participate in demonstrations against terror
Do you not know of taqiyya? After every atrocity a dozen people (normally women) will be organised to make a token protest. That is not a spontaneous and widespread revultion against a heinous act perpetrated in the name of Islam - that is dissembling.
This is the real Islam of the land, if you look beyond the BBC:
What do you mean?
Books I have written, or my personal reading??
I read a book a week, so adding my entire collection would take weeks.
Safe to say, I have read 95% of original manuscripts pertaining to 1st century Judaea and Judaism.
I primarily go on original manuscripts, not on what others have written.
From my >86 John5918: "The Continuity IRA and the Real/New IRA are still active, and ETA has only just disarmed this week... There have been recent right wing terrorist attacks in the USA and Norway... Terrorism has been identified with several religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and, of course, Islam..." Some would add Buddhism. "Modern terrorism" includes the likes of Anders Breivik in Norway, Alexandre Bissonnette who carried out a terrorist attack on Muslims in Quebec, Dylann Roof who carried out a massacre in a church in Charleston; the Lord's Resistance Army, still active in parts of Africa albeit much reduced; Israelis who have attacked Palestinian and Arab-Israeli individuals; and arguably actions against Myanmar's Rohingya people.
Look, nobody denies that there is a great deal of activity these days which is classified as "terrorist" carried out by Muslims, but if you are genuine in your statement "that if we do not recognise the root cause of the problem we will never devise a cure", then I'm surprised that you are not prepared to look for, er, the "root cause(s)" rather than focusing superficially on a diverse religious grouping of more than 1.6 billion people of whom a relatively small number (percentage-wise) has been actively involved in "terrorism".
Every effort has been made by the media and politicians to distance these people from Islam
Not something I've noticed. I think much of the media and plenty of politicians appear quite content when they can link it to Islam - much like yourself, apparently.
But if the root problem lies in certain mosques, and we do nothing to neuter those certain mosques (and their imams), the problem will continue unabated
Blaming and punishing whole groups of people? Sounds a bit like collective punishment to me, which is illegal under the Geneva Conventions and doesn't work anyway, as has been learned in many conflicts.
combating IRA terrorism without the Military Reconnaissance Force running undercover operations, like Captain Robert Nairac
The crimes committed by British undercover forces during the Troubles in Northern Ireland are gradually being uncovered, including their collaboration with Unionist terrorist groups.
>>I think elements did survive. And before I mention this - please don't criticize Arthurian legend if you have >>not read the Vulgate Cycle. Read "History of the Holy Grail" for an example.
You know that is problematic because:
1. That represents a very large gap in history!!!
2. If any arguments (against Josephus' works) had survived history I would expect them to be derogatory against Josephus. Arthurian law is pro Joseph & Josephè (Am I not correct?)
So in conclusion it appears that nothing derogatory against JF survived history!
Yet it appears that much has survived history against Yeshua (a character significant in all this) from that same period. The existence of material against Y infers that given enough recorded material regarding JF it too should have survived. The absence of material infers it never existed.
I don't like where this leaves us!
As to your Grail lore reading recommendation, of the two books which one, or both, are you recommending?
Recent killing of Christians in Sudan by agents of the Islamist regime have been roundly condemned by indigenous groups such as the Sudan Democracy First Group (which campaigns for human rights for all citizens, whether Muslim or Christian or anything else), and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement - North (which is fighting an armed struggle against the regime). Both groups are predominantly Muslim and both act at considerable risk to their own safety. Mass demonstrations in a police state are a tactic that has to be thought through very carefully - on the one hand, they can be a viable method of nonviolent struggle, on the other hand they can result in horrendous violence and lead to increased repression.
>89 ralphellis: After every atrocity a dozen people (normally women) will be organised to make a token protest
Where exactly does this take place? Any examples for us? I can't say I've ever seen this in the Islamist state in which I was based for nearly thirty years.
Wally, I notice that you have copied Ralph's idiosyncratic way of referring to previous posts, with lots of > and >>.
I wonder if you are aware that you can refer to a previous post by using > and the post number (with no space after the >)? It would make it easier for us to follow the conversation if you refer in this manner to the post number to which you are replying.
Pmackey, thanks to the message (97) of Johnthefireman, I just discovered how drawing your attention on my previous message (73) that was adressed to you. I'm not sure you've read it.
With a little luck, I hope I can start tomorrow reading Ralph Ellis' “Jesus, King of Edessa” and soon join the discussion more efficiently.
Well, I didn't want you to read Ellis' book, but only my message...
In the UK libraries will order books, if they don't have them in stock. Try to get the Createspace 2017 edition - a PoD edition.
>>That represents a very large gap in history!!!
Not really. My research suggests that Arthurian history is 1st century Syrio-Judaean material. However, this material was hidden in the East behind the walls of the Council of Nicea, the Council of Chalcedon, and the invasion of Islam, for a thousand years. So the era of the Crusades, and thus the era of Arthurian history, was the first time anyone had seen this material.
>>derogatory against Josephus.
Some elements of Arthurian history are pro-Josephus (Joseph of Arimathaea), while some were against. High History is pro-Josephus (the Good Scribe and Good Knight); while Merlin Grail is against, saying that Joseph of Arimathaea worked for Vespasian and betrayed Jesus to the Romans. (And of course Josephus Flavius did work for Vespasian, and did betray the Nazarene Jews during the Jewish Revolt). So all views do shine through.
P.S. History of the Holy Grail is one book of the nine-volume Vulgate Cycle.
>> My research suggests that Arthurian history is 1st century Syrio-Judaean material.
Ok! Popular information I located (internet - not worth much I know) tended to indicate Arthurian history may have links as far back as 5-7 century. So yes First century links would be surprising.
Is this research published in any format that I could access. I would prefer to read somebody else's conclusions regarding this than interpret the Vulgate Cycle myself (in the same way I am reading your material rather than conducting the research myself) . So your research or any other good source you can recommend would be appreciated.
I managed to get the most recent edition of “Jesus, King of Edessa” (February 2017) and today I read the first two chapters. Until now it's rather interesting, because I'm not very familiar with the history of the East in the first century AD, even if I know well Roman history. Some remarks (I will try to remain brief and to the point):
– I now regret I didn't start with “King Jesus”, because some of your statements made there are only repeated here without the reader being able to know your arguments. E.g., as I allready wrote above, the alleged identification Saul-Flavius Josephus leaves me in big doubt... But maybe we can discuss these kind of points later (after I also read “King Jesus”?).
– As an internaut wrote elsewhere (not in this thread, I think), it seems highly improbable to explane the name “Adiabene” with the sense “Sons (bene) of Addai (Adia)” (p. 37): the name would have been something like “Bene-Adia” instead. Nor do I think Jewish disciples of Addai would have called themselves “sons” of Addai. Maybe the whole point is not essential to your theory; anyway, the etymology doesn't seem correct to me.
– The text of Mara bar Serapion (pp. 46 ss.) is an interesting argument in support of your theory, not yet determinate, but interesting.
Stakeknife: double agent in IRA 'was given alibi by senior British officials' (Guardian)
One of Britain’s most important agents inside the IRA has been linked to 18 murders and was provided with an alibi by a senior police officer...
>>Is this research published in any format that I could access.
There are not many (any) in-depth reviews of the Vulgate, as every previous historian has presumed it to be mythological. Yet its accounts of Pompey the Great, King Abgarus and the Santorini eruption, demonstrate that it contains real history. You could peruse my "The Grail Cypher", but I don't know of any other good review of the Vulgate.
>>seems highly improbable to explane the name
>>“Adiabene” with the sense “Sons (bene) of Addai"
Because I am not sure on this, I gave readers two options - Adiabene meaning "Sons of Addai" or perhaps "Toparchy of Addai". The point being, that 'Adiabene' is an artificial construct by Josephus.
It is like his name for the king, Monobazus, which is obviously a poor corruption of the Greek meaning "Only King" or perhaps "King Manu" - because Josephus calls Monobazus the Only Begotten Son. Not sure why orthodox history cannot see the obvious link here.
Some of these pesher-style names are corrupted, because they are by nature barstardised spellings. The contortions made to denegrate the Edessans as locusts are much the same - so that King Abgarus becomes Agabus in Acts of the Apostles (meaning 'locust'). An incorrect spelling, but very carping and humerous to the scribes.
The second option doesn't change anything about the incorrectness of the etymologie. You wrote in your book (p. 37):
«In which case, the fully extended name “Addia-ben-ene” would become the “Province of the Sons of Addai”.»
Artificial construct or not, an author like Josephus would never have inverted “Adia” and “bene”.
Note also that Hebrew “bene”, “the sons of”, is grammatically called a “construct” (I don't know if it's the accurate term in English), not an “absolute” (simply “sons” would be “banim”), and the construct always precedes the word depending on it.
The name invented by Josephus, if invented it was, would be as absurd as saying in English “Addai the sons of”.
>>The name invented by Josephus, if invented it was, would be as
>>absurd as saying in English “Addai the sons of"
This is not grammar, this is humorous wordplay. Like the creation of Mono Bazus as a name for the king. Gramaticzlly incorrect, but probably quite funny to someone.
Likewise, in pesher the writer is constrained by the existing text. So when making a pesher verse for King Manu, the name Em-Manuel was the closest that could be found in the OT. Same with Shalmath and almah (virgin).
It is certainly not what we would call a “wordplay”, and the humour is hard to find.
Really, I don't see any good reason for writing “Adiabene” rather than “Bene-Adia” – supposing however your etymology to be correct, and not purely hypothetical.
Anyway, I've never seen any author in Antiquity (nor in modern times) make this kind of absurd inversion.
I now finished reading chapters III and IV.
Another minor remark, concerning pp. 86-87 : the name of the daughter of Abennerig is “Samachôs” (with an omega), and not “Simachos” (with an omicron).
“Samachôs” is maybe related to the Hebrew verb “samach”, “to be joyful”, or something like that, I'm not sure at all. At least it seems clearly an oriental name.
So I don't understand why you want to make a link with the typical Greek name “Lysi-machos” (with an omicron), whose meaning is “Who ceases from fighting”.
There are many interesting things in your book, because you compare many sources. I'm still not sure the identification Jesus-Izates is right, but I'll continue to read your arguments.
The correct reference is : Antiquities 20 : 2 : 1.
But then I don't actually think you're a different person than the author, so I'm not sure I'm talking to you.
Rather amusing. You identify the same person behind different names exactly as Ralph Ellis does a bit everywhere in his book.
* a conspiracy of academics is hiding the truth about Jesus (and King Arthur, of course)
* a conspiracy of scientists is selling a fake narrative of climate change
* a conspiracy of liberal pundits is trying to conceal the awful truth about Islam
* a conspiracy of Muslim extremists is trying to take over the West (beginning with Luton, England, apparently)
The pattern is not hard to perceive. Wherever there is an authoritative consensus, Ellis defiantly holds a contrary opinion. Where there is learning, he sees timid orthodoxy. Where there is perceived danger to the public, he sees manipulation of the truth. Where there is toleration of difference, he sees obliviousness to threat.
No doubt 9-11 was an inside job. JFK was gunned down by more than one assassin. The Apollo moon landing was a hoax.
The thing that confounds me, though, is which conspiracy Mr. Ellis believes is controlling the world — the Illuminati, the Priory of Zion, or shape-shifting reptiloid aliens?
>>Talk of Monobazus being a "corrupt" versions of "Monos Baliseus,"
>>or "Baliseus Manu" is crazy-pants.
Why? The lingua franca in Mesopotamia at the time was a Persio-Aramaic, rather than Greek. Are you surprised that they spoke Greek with a heavy accent? (Or enjoyed wordplay.).
In fact, in later years the Parthian coinage demonstrates that they had forgotten Greek entirely. The coinage displays misspellings, then garbled words, and then a garbled alphabet that was no more than pretty patterns of dots.
In the circumstances, a transmutation from Monos Baslieus to Mono Bazus is more than likely. Especially as it makes sense of the text, in an Edessan context. The humorous wordplay with Only King and King Manu is obvious - especially as both Jesus and Izas-Monobazus were called the Only Begotten Son (J 3:16)
>>a conspiracy of academics.
Not necessarily conspiracies, more like bandwagons.
An institution, be that academic or religious, will form a narrative - a creed. And anyone who steps outside that narrative-creed will get knocked back into line.
A classic example is the refusal by the orthodoxy to accept that peptic ulcers were caused by bacteria. They fought a tooth-and-nail rearguard action against Warren and Marshal and their new ideas. Why? Simply because they had stepped outside the orthodoxy, and were saying that distinguished doctors had been practicing and teaching nonsense for decades. But Warren and Marshall were right.
The same happens within historical academia, who will play whack-a-mole with any new idea, to stop it gaining traction. The 'academic' commenting in the Daily Mail said I was completely wrong because 1st century high priests were clean shaven - despite the fact that the Huqoq mosaic shows them to be hirsute. Was there an apology that they were so wrong? No, because the intention is not to be correct, but to neuter any deviation from the consensus. But science and history should never be regulated by consensus - that is not the scientific method.
The high priest of Jerusalem with long white hair.
You didn't answer to my previous messages, the most important being >115 Hans_van_Kasteel: about the name “Samachôs”.
I have another question, concerning the often repeated identification Saul-Flavius Josephus: the Greek language of Flavius Josephus seeming to me a good Attic dialect, pure and classical, and that of Saul or Paul being a Koine Greek full of Hebrew elements, how could they both be the same author?
He's already avoided my question about reading any of the languages necessary to do this work, and made humorous language mistakes, like confusing Armenian and Syriac.
Thanks for the summary. I'm still laughing.
Re conspiracies, I've said it before and I'll say it again... working for the federal government cured me forever of believing in conspiracies -- it's impossible to keep a secret. Someone will talk to the Washington Post.
I'm glad at finding you now a little more confident “you're talking to me”. :)
I don't know anything about Armenian and Syriac, but ancient Greek doesn't hold any secrets for me so to speak.
Since the alleged identification Saul-Flavius Josephus plays an important part in Ellis' theorie, and although I find the parallels between similar passages in the New Testament and in Flavius Josephus interesting per se, I don't see how this rather radical “change of language” can be justified.
At thinking about this, I don't know of any author in Antiquity capable of writing two kind of languages so significantly different.
It's much easier once you realize Anna Comnena and Heracleitus are the same person. [mind blown!]
>>the Greek language of Flavius Josephus seeming to me a good Attic dialect.
But that was not Josephus' dialect. Josephus was an Aramaic-Hebrew speaking (Nazarene) Jew, and he himself says that he could not speak Greek very well.
The translator of Josephus' works into Greek was Epaphroditus. And surprisingly, the translator or publisher of Saul-Paul was also Epaphroditus. Yet again we see a link between these 'two' characters.
(Do remember that Saul-Paul was the ambassador of the Edessan monarchy, as Acts of the Apostles says.)
>> a recent survey discovered that 40% of adults in England did not
>>believe that Jesus was a real historical figure."
Are you surprised? There is so little real historical evidence for Jesus, that most rational people are forced to conclude that the story is fictional. (Disregarding the evidence from the Talmud, which I find compelling, but most historians dismiss.)
But when I declare that I have found the real history (some 40 years later in the chronology), believers are forced to deny that too - because my Jesus is not the classical Jesus. My Jesus is a warrior monarch, and that is not what they were expecting, nor what they wanted.
>>working for the federal government cured me forever of
>>believing in conspiracies
But bandwagons are easy to set up. If scientists know that contradicting the climate consensus will result in dismissal and prosecution under the RICO laws, which scientist will risk their career in challenging the consensus?? Tellingly, the only scientists who have challenged the climate consensus thus far, have been those who already had tenure.
Prosecuting Climate Realists:
It was pleasing to note that the CATO institute who wanted to prosecute realist scientists brought the spotlight on themselves, and the director was found guilty of 'double-dipping' government grants. So the tables were turned.
But I ask you - with the possibility of jail hanging over a career or a family, which scientist (or historian) will chalenge the consensus? The contempt, animosity, and threats heaped upon myself by academia have been unbelievable. This is water off a duck's back to me, as I am not in the 'system' and so they cannot achieve anything. But had I been in academia, I am sure I would have been out on my ear by now.
Likewise, when I sought a grant for Arthurian history, for a well-researched 600-page tome, the trust laughed and jeered. But when Prof Halsall applied for a small poorly researched pamphlet on Arthurian history (he never read or mentioned the Vulgate Cycle), he received £130,000. Are you really surprised that academics willingly follow the consensus? Really?
Before jumping to conclusions, what about that "a recent survey discovered"?
I don't know about the state of fact-checking in the USA, but the BBC has a weekly Radio 4 programme called "More of less", much of whose content consists of looking behind and usually debunking stories that start with "a recent survey discovered". This week's programme, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08lk542 (geographical limits may apply), includes stories / research / surveys that the average attention span has reduced from 12 seconds in 2000 to eight seconds now, less than the nine-second attention span of your average goldfish, and that extractions of children's teeth are on the rise.
A pound to a pinch of salt the 40% figure isn't as reported. Starting with what do they mean by a 'real historical figure'? A Galileean carpenter's son called Jesus, or a virgin's god-born son called Jesus? If the latter, I'd say 40% is more than a little on the low side.
Please provide a citation for the RICO thing. It sure sounds like paranoia to me, but I'm willing to examine evidence.
I found the link to Newsweek interesting but it was an opinion piece and is speculation that scientists could/might be prosecuted under RICO. There are a lot of things I worry about that might or might not come to pass.
You say bandwagons are easy to set up? Maybe... maybe not. I think that there is enough cultural diversity in the U.S. where one university would willingly take on debunking the theories of another.
Back to Jesus, though... it amazes me you can discount the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth within the time period documented by Christian, Jewish and Roman authors, and yet you blithely make other assumptions based on speculation.
Look at it this way: if I were an atheist and an historian and I had the facts to debunk the historicity of Jesus Christ, wouldn't it be logical for me to jump at the opportunity? Wouldn't I be backed up by the primarily secular universities in the U.S. and other countries? Wait, there WERE those who claimed Jesus wasn't real and yet research has shown they were wrong. As a starting point, I refer to >129 John5918:. Jesus did exist. He lived in the early first century A.D. He was crucified AND died. Those are the facts. That Jesus came back to life I take on faith based on Christian eye witnesses. Rationally I accept it because of all the believers who were martyred for their faith: Peter, Paul, James and countless others. People do not willingly die for a lie. Maybe a crazy or two, but not the vast majority of real people.
Whoever you're claiming to be Jesus of Edessa, it cannot have been Jesus, son of Mary and foster son of Joseph. It doesn't fit the facts and it isn't logical.
Thank you for answering. So you identify, I suppose, the Epaphroditus of Flavius Josephus and the one about whom Paul is speaking?
As for “Samachôs”-“Lysimachos”, I will not insist, but it doesn't sound convincing.
>>the name of the daughter of Abennerig is “Samachôs” (with an omega),
>>and not “Simachos” (with an omicron).
One thing I learned very early on in this reasearch, is there is no such thing as a standard spelling in ancient history. Whether it is a historical or a biblical text, every chronicler used their own spelling and pronunciation.
Take Hiram (Khyram) in Kings, who is also called Hurom (Khoorom) in Chronicles. Why? Well in Aramaic it is just a slightly longer letter - perhaps a spelling mistake.
And then we have the confusion over his title, where he is called 'Hurom My Father' (Hurom Abi), which makes little sense. And then you find that the Masonic equivalent is Hiram Abif, and suddenly see that the 'abi' has been mistranslated as 'my father'. (Not a complete mistranslation, as Abi is the equivalent of the Scottish Mc, the Irish O', or the Germanic (?) Fitz. What they did not want you to know, is that the Egyptian equivalent is Heru-m Atif meaning 'Horus is my Father' - a common Egyptian title.)
Anyway, you will see many consonant changes in this reasearch on identical titles. Especially between d and t, the b and v, the w and v, and the Egyptian r that became an l. You will be familiar with some of these.
But I note you only have minor questions about Jesus, King of Edessa. What about the larger claims? Did I prove to satisfaction that Adiabene is, in fact, Edessa? Did I prove that the Romans could not have penetrated down to Mosul without encountering the formidable Parthian army, as the Roman records initially appear to relate??
>>So you identify, I suppose, the Epaphroditus of Flavius Josephus
>>and the one about whom Paul is speaking?
Indeed. Just more icing on the cake. I identified Josephus and Saul as the same person, and later found that they both credit a person with the same name as being a follower in their enterprise.
Thank you again.
Just a detail : “Heru-m-atif (or rather “itef”?) doesn't mean “Horus is MY father”, as far as I know, but “Horus is HIS father”. In Egyptian, “father” is “it” (maybe “at”, depends on how one vocalizes), and the final “-f” means “his”. “My father” would be “iti”, the final “-i” meaning “my”.
Yes, my questions about “Jesus, King of Edessa” have been minor until now (except though concerning the language of Flavius Josephus compared to Paul's), because there is so a lot of information that I'm unable to check all the details. Some are really interesting, others seem not convincing at all. There are too many hypotheses, I think, that you transform too fast in, let's say, “facts”.
Your answer concerning Flavius Josephus' Greek taught me something I didn't know, but I am until now not convinced this author is the same as Paul, the first one just being a (good or bad) historian, the second a deep inspired theologian, very close to his own Jewish tradition, who doesn't seem to care at all about what “should” be historical or not. I don't imagine Paul “wasting” his time with writing two important historical works, he had completely other things on his mind.
Here is an excerpt:
I think, I can make it manifest to all impartial readers, that our language, as we now speak it, was originally the same with those of the Jews, the Greeks, and the Romans, however corrupted in succeeding times by a mixture of barbarisms.…I am not sure how the orthodox scholarly bandwagon treated this work of Mr. Swift's. The treatise is brief and worth reading in full. It helped me a great deal in understanding your methods; your linking of the curious name "Zoroastra" to the House of Orange is clearly an innovative expansion on Mr. Swift's methods, whether you were aware of the precedent or not.
…I have chosen to confine myself chiefly to the proper names of persons, because I conceive they will be of greater weight to confirm what I advance; the ground and reason of those names being certainly owing to the nature, or some distinguishing action or quality in those persons, and consequently expressed in the true ancient language of the several people.
I will begin with the Grecians, among whom the most ancient are the great leaders on both sides in the siege of Troy; for it is plain, from Homer, that the Trojans spoke Greek as well as the Grecians. Of these latter, Achilles was the most valiant. This hero was of a restless unquiet nature, never giving himself any repose either in peace or war; and therefore, as Guy of Warwick was called a kill-cow, and another terrible man a kill-devil, so this general was called A-kill-ease, or destroyer of ease; and at length, by corruption, Achilles.
Hector, on the other side, was the bravest among the Trojans. He had destroyed so many of the Greeks, by hacking and tearing them, that his soldiers, when they saw him fighting, would cry out, "Now the enemy will be hack't, now he will be tore." At last, by putting both words together, this appellation was given to their leader, under the name of Hacktore; and, for the more commodious sounding, Hector.
I hope this comparison is useful to you. Swift's treatise even cites a work of Flavius Josephus (I mean Josephus Flavius), although I am puzzled to find that the scholarly bandwagon somehow changed its collective mind about who wrote it, without all agreeing on a single conclusion. I admit I find this diversity of views hard to believe, given your trenchant observations about the bestowal of grants and threat of RICHO (I mean RICO) prosecutions. But I'm sure there is some reasonable and suitably paranoid explanation.
These methods are not exclusively Swift's. You'll find explanations of this kind with other authors in the 18th century, and in other languages (I'm thinking of French authors).
I wouldn't say Ellis' methods are exactly the same. He's right of course in saying that words and names going from one ancient language into another, change sometimes significantly. The ancient etymologists gave often different explanations to all these more or less varied names. Ralph Ellis only explains how the variations he's talking about were supposedly created in Antiquity – I insist on “supposedly”.
For how can we be sure, in each case, that this name came from that other? That's the problem. Who would believe without prove that the French name “Jean”, for instance, comes from Hebrew “Jochanan”? So, how do you prove that Hebrew “Hiram Abif” or “Hurom Abi” comes from Egyptian “Heru-m-atif” (-atef? -itef?). Or that “Lysimachos” and “Samachôs” are in fact the “same” name? Without good material proof, without at least some written indications coming from Antiquity, many of this kind of derivations, when maybe not entirely impossible, remain purely hypothetical.
And that's the case here, I think, with Ellis' explanations: there are many hypotheses, and maybe far too many, even if some of them are interesting.
>>your linking of "Zoroastra" to the House of Orange.
How do I link Zoroastra with the House of Orange?
>>So, how do you prove that Hebrew “Hiram Abif” or “Hurom Abi” comes from
>>Egyptian “Heru-m-atif” (-atef? -itef?).
You will find that most of my transliterations and comparisons of names are not made in isolation. There is invariably another form of confirmation.
In the case of Heru-m Atif, it was noticed that the United Monarchy shares innumerable similarities with the 21st dynasty in Tanis. So much so, that I declared them to be one and the same (ie: King David was King Psusennes/Pa-Seba-Khahienuit, because among other similarities, they were both known for their Star and City.).
Then, much later it was noticed that the Architect of King David (and Solomon) was Hiram Abif, while the architect of King Psusennes appears to have been named Heru-m Atif. Hence the name comparison is not being made in isolation. Which would also mean that we have just discovered the United Monarchy, which was based in Zoan rather than Zion.
>>It was noticed.....
By myself. But the similarities and connections are surprising and comprehensive. The 'two' royal families are more or less identical.
By whom, if you don't mind me asking? By researchers, historians, linguists, archaeologists, academics... or only by yourself?
I just finished reading chapter V. I have to confess I'm a bit lost in the amount of information...
Another question about a detail: on page 184 you write about “Simon Magus and his sister-wife Luna”. Where do we find that Luna (or Helena) is said to be the sister of Simon? As far as I know, she was a Tyrian prostitute who had nothing to do with Simon's family.
>>Where do we find that Luna (or Helena) is said
>>to be the sister of Simon?
From the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies. That is in my book 'King Jesus'. And here is another case of name confusion. One text says she is called Luna (Selene) and the other says Helena.
Glad you have discovered that the information and evidence provided is comprehensive. Even if you only agree with 80%, the case is proven, and King Jesus must be King Izas of Edessa and Judaea.
I read the “Clementine Recognitions“ and “Homilies” two years ago, and I now looked again with an index: I don't find that it is written anywhere that Luna/Selene/Helena is being called Simon's sister. His wive, yes of course, but not his sister. And you rather insist on that point, because you repeat it two or three times in your book “Jesus, King of Edessa” (pp. 184-185).
I wonder until what degree the link between the names Selene (i.e. Luna or Moon) and Helena has to be seen as a “confusion”. In Antiquity, one of the etymologies of the name of Trojan Helena (“Helenê”) was Selene or Selena (“Selênê”), also because an initial sigma (“s-”) becomes frequently a “rudis spiritus” (“h-) in Greek. Helen is also being compared by Homer to Artemis, the Moon goddess. So it was normal for the Ancients to link the two names.
Yes, the information you give is generally “comprehensive”, but it doesn't mean I'm able to verify all that you're saying: there are too many things I simply ignore, wether these are facts allready known for a long time, or new material provided by you. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I feel unable to make the synthesis of all this. One who knows far better than me the history of Orient in the first century AD would be a more qualified judge of your theory.
So I just talk about some details I know better – for instance, the one that concerns Simon and Helena, a story I know rather well, also what Hippolyte of Rome is telling about them. And again: I don't remember she's being called the sister of Simon the Magicien.
Apologies, that reference was from:
Simon Magus: The First Gnostic? By Stephen Haar
OK, but the point is: what source exactly does Stephen Haar use to say Helena-Luna was Simon's sister?
In reply to a challenge of "Zoroastra" as a misspelling of "Zoroaster" you wrote the following.
>10 ralphellis: "Both forms of the name are valid, as is Zarathustra if you really want.… We are not so sure what this name really means, but the most common etymology in the books I have indicates that the name means ‘Golden Star’, which happens to fit with my research very nicely. (House of Orange, and all that)."
This leap from "Golden Star" to "House of Orange" made me laugh out loud. So thanks for that.
Anyway "the books you have" are clearly all by people who know zilch about Avestan or any Iranian language. Every scholar with an informed opinion about the name (Zaraϑuštra in Avestan) agrees on one thing: that the uštra element refers to camels. They might be old, yellow, angry, or wished-for camels, or the name might refer to the management of camels, rather than the camels themselves. The idea of camels is there.
You, on the other hand, repeat the elementary error of taking the Greek transcription of this Iranian name for a translation of the name's meaning. So uštra, camel(s), becomes astron, star.
How you turned Greek zōro- (zōros: pure, undiluted, clear) into "golden" is anyone's guess.
Not that it matters. This is silly stuff.
>>This leap from "Golden Star" to "House of Orange" made me
>>laugh out loud. So thanks for that.
The flag of the 8th century William of Orange (Guillaume de Gellone) was a gold star on a blue background. And William was a Jew, which is why he was known as Cortnes, the hooked nose. He ruled the independent principality of Orange in France, and French mythology places Mary Magdalene and Martha in the same region.
Why is any of that funny?
By your own standards of evidence, Ralph, you've just proved that William of Orange was also King Leopold II of Belgium, sole owner of the Congo Free State.
Flag of the Congo Free State
>155 ralphellis: And William was a Jew, which is why he was known as Cortnes, the hooked nose.
Oh, sure, that makes sense. Hooked nose, Jew, it's obvious, innit? Never mind that the medieval Vita of William "Court-nez" says he broke his nose in a battle with a giant.
>155 ralphellis: Why is any of that funny?
How is it not funny?
You write: “William was a Jew, which is why he was known as Cortnes, the hooked nose.”
The Dutch word “cort” or “kort” (French: “court”) means “short”, and not “hooked”. He was known as “Shortnose”.
You're right, I agree with you, but what is exactly your point here? Am I wrong about the meaning of “Kortneus” and is Ralph Ellis right? Or do you mean that the English word “cortnes” may be easily (mis)understood as “hooked nose”?
Well, is there really a need for experts in languages to find out that “Cortnes” means “Shortnose”?
Anyway, I just wondered (not being an English native speaker) how Ralph Ellis could say that the word means “Hooked nose” – maybe just because “cort” reminded him of something close to that meaning, even if it really is a mistake.
This kind of confusion can happen to anyone. I remember one day translating a Latin text and taking the word “serus” (“late”) in the sense of “serious” (“serius” in Latin) – and the result was that I thought the author was saying something very different compared to what he really meant to say! I consider myself (but maybe I'm wrong) as an “expert” in Latin, but on that very moment I just didn't pay enough attention and missed one letter.
If there is absolutely no confusion possible between “cort” and “hooked”, Ellis' error seems more difficult to explain. And errors of this kind, if multiplied, easily leave readers with a growing doubt about how far the general theory can be taken serious.
As much as spectators may enjoy individual points being taken down, this is also a game you lose by playing. When Lyndon LaRouche claims the British Monarchy is behind the international drug trade, or the Bush family behind the rise and ideology of the Nazis, the theories aren't hurt by finding small errors of fact, but rather helped by the attention, and the implication that, but for a fact here or there, they might be true.
Anyway, I intended to stop “playing” with individual points. On the other hand, I have no courage anymore to try to understand the entire theory of Ralph Ellis, i.e. all the different books, being unable to make the synthesis of only 200 pages of his most recent book. But I remain very sceptical about something that seems more than an “individual point” here and that seems crucial in support of his theory about Jesus being a king of Edessa: the identification “Flavius Josephus-Paul”. If this identification is wrong – and I'm convinced it is –, what are the chances his main theory still might be true?
>>Well, is there really a need for experts in languages to find out that “Cortnes” means “Shortnose”?
The translation was done by a venerable French linguist, not myself. There was a debate as to whether short or hooked was intended, and I just reported the debate.
If Timspalding wants to shy away from research and debate, and hide behind a wall of misplaced consensus, that's fine. But he needs to come to terms with the fact that he venerates a new-age faith, rather than appreciates history.
>>the identification “Flavius Josephus-Paul”
For that you need to read "King Jesus"
There is a multitude of evidence for this claim, as I have already explained, and it had withstood the test of 20 years of debate and criticism. And of course nobody has been able to offer any evidence that Saul was born in the early part of the century, nor any evidence for him in the historical record.
Why does the Bible manage to lose every single one of its heroes? From Adam and Eve, to Abraham and Joseph, to David and Solomon, to Jesus and Saul, and even to Johannan ben Zakai, they are all missing from the historical record. Funny, that... Or perhaps I should say: convenient, that...
Why has this happened? My contention would be that the various Churches do not want to admit their Egyptian and regal past, because a sob-story of oppression by wicked Egyptians or Romans sells better than the real history would.
So the best evidence that Saul was Josephus, is that this conflation makes sense of the previously inexplicable. That is the test of a true theory - can it explain the entire biblical or gospel epic? Yes it can.
Thank you. I don't have time for the moment to continue to read your book, nor to start a new one, and like I said: there's too much information I'm not able to check or appreciate conveniently.
I regret your answers sometimes seem to me a bit vague or elusive, even if I admit my questions concern minor points. E.g. I still don't know why Stephen Haar would pretend Helena is Simon's sister; who is the “venerable French linguist” that translated “Kortneus” into “Hooked nose”, and why he did this.
“Other specialists say so” doesn't satisfy a reader: he needs to know where and what they say exactly, and on what grounds. Of course, that's not always possible in a voluminous book, but here it concerns very precise questions I asked you, and your answers don't convince me.
Maybe I'll have a look on your “King Jesus” later. I thank you again for your messages, and also the other members, and those responsible of LibraryThing, because it was generally a pleasure to discuss.
By the way, I don't think it would have been very usefull to catalogue my library, because I read mainly French books, and rarely English books.
LibraryThing is international and allows you to pull catalog records from sources all over the world. You can even access the site translated into French by using a different url, although I forget if the "fr" goes in the front or the back.
ETA: It's the front, https://fr.librarything.com/
Thank you. Your answer gives me an idea about what I could do to catalogue some of the books I read – or wrote myself (if that's allowed). But I have to postpone this for the time being. Thank you again.
I disagree. Your arguments have been unconvincing and it's only been about 21 days since this thread began. Some of those disagreeing with you have raised specific points, to which you reply with vague information. For example, who is the distinguished French scholar that translated hook/short nose. What is his or her name? When was the translation done? Details matter when one is trying to build a case for a theory.
Why does the Bible manage to lose every single one of its heroes? From Adam and Eve, to Abraham and Joseph, to David and Solomon, to Jesus and Saul, and even to Johannan ben Zakai, they are all missing from the historical record. Funny, that... Or perhaps I should say: convenient, that...
Funny that. You want a book (the Bible) to produce its sources to prove the existence of individuals such as Adam and Eve, Moses and David. I recall seeing archeological evidence providing for the actual existence of David. I believe it was an inscription or coin. I apologize for not being specific but I'm typing "off the cuff". Jesus, too, has been historically attested to, but then you do disregard all the writings about him. I fear you have blinded yourself to actual facts and history in favor of what appears to be sensationalist theories.
>>And underneath it all, antisemitism. What a surprise.
Take that back Timspalding, before I make a formal complaint against you.
Show us the antisemitism. Put up, or shut up.
Do you really think this is the only forum this has been debated on? Your being very late to the party proves nothing.
>>For example, who is the distinguished French scholar that
>>translated hook/short nose. What is his or her name?
Do you really think I am here to reprint ten books to you? If you are interested, then read the books. The latest rendition of this theory was from Frederique Barbut, who says the original name was Corb Nez (hooked nose).
But your picking on silly unimportant details is the standard technique of the blinkered historian, who has a fixed creed and does not want to see the truth. Professor Carrier did the same. He said that I was a fool to use Arthurian history, because it could not even get the names of Vespasian and Titus correct, and therefore all my books were wrong. But the professor did not realise that Arthurian history consistently uses reversed titles for these two emperors, because they have the same name and titles. But on being proved he was wrong, he deleted me from his blog (twice). And this was on the 'Free Thought' blog too. Likewise a senior Egyptologist said an aleph could never be transposed into an ayin in Aramaic, and so my entire book was wrong. But after my producing 20 examples of alephs being transposed into ayins, he again deleted me from the blog.
None of this is open-minded research. Like you, these two 'eminent' professors were determined to maintain the status quo, not to look for as yet unknown truths. It is very sad, but historical academia is more based upon faith than the Catholic Church. And you are following in their footsteps.
>>You want a book (the Bible) to produce its sources to prove the
>>existence of individuals such as Adam and Eve, Moses and David.
Of course it will not - because they do not want you to know that both Adam and David were pharaohs. And that Moses was the most senior Egyptian army commander, who married Tharbis the queen of Ethiopia (as Josephus Flavius claims). So if the Tankakh is not going to tell us who they were, then we are going to have to search for similar individuals with similar lives. And that search has been very fruitful, if you open your eyes.
>>I recall seeing archeological evidence providing for the actual
>>existence of David. I believe it was an inscription or coin.
It was a stone inscribed with 'Beth Dwd'. But that tells us nothing, other than a city or perhaps a family were called Dwd (David). It could have been another family altogether - they have no idea. And it certainly does not confirm the biblical account of a powerful dynasty.
But isn't any theory based on an examination of the evidence ("details")? So the more the details are shown to be erroneous, the more suspect the theory is.
they do not want you to know that both Adam and David were pharaohs
You seem to be taking a rather literalist view of the bible. I think the current consensus amongst serious bible scholars would be that Adam never existed.
search for similar individuals with similar lives
There must be dozens if not hundreds of people who lived broadly similar lives, even in modern times. It's the Erich von Daniken approach - if you search through enough events/people you're bound to find a few which fit almost any theory if you ignore all the counter-examples.
that tells us nothing, other than a city or perhaps a family were called Dwd (David). It could have been another family altogether - they have no idea
Indeed. And using the same criteria, neither do you.
Moderm terrorism. Borussia Dortmund bombs: 'Speculator' charged with bus attack (BBC). This one was apparently a capitalist terrorist, not an Islamic one. The trouble with your deflections away from any other form of terrorism except Islam, is that if we do not recognise the root cause of the problem we will never devise a cure.
a sob-story of oppression by wicked Egyptians or Romans sells better than the real history would
Wouldn't you know it—the Jews are "selling" a "sob-story of oppression"?
>>Oh, sure, that makes sense. Hooked nose, Jew, it's obvious, innit?
Why are you so negative??
The main author of this history is Wolfram von Eschenbach, and he says that William of Orange was Jewish. Hence the title. (Whether real or another hypocorism.) And the war against the Muslims who invaded France in the 8th century was funded by the Jews of Provence. And that William organised and led the French army, nominally under the command of Louis I (his brother-in-law), who evicted the Muslim army back into Spain.
So your certain negativity, based as it is upon ignorance, appears to be a dertermined attempt to buttress your faith. Why do you base your beliefs upon ignorance and faith, rather than knowledge and rationality?
>>Wouldn't you know it—the Jews are "selling"
>>a "sob-story of oppression"?
Oh, wouldn't you know it, the disgusting apologist for antisemitic alarmism is alluding to antisemitism again.
Q. What is a modern antisemite?
A. Anyone who disagrees with a hand wringing liberal.
If you want to know, Mr Disgusting Timspalding, I also accuse Christianity of selling a "sob story of oppression". If King Jesus was King Izas of Edessa, it is axiomatic that the Catholic Church has jumped upon the bandwagon of Jesus being a grievously and unjustly oppressed 'Christian' - rather than him actually being a Nazarene warrior monarch who led a revolt against Rome.
Unlike Timspalding, I am persuing the truth, without fear or favour. But the blind are those who will not see.
Jesus wasn't a 'Christian', he was a Jew.
I can see you are very dedicated to your theories and you appear to hold your views sincerely, so I recognize there is little we've said on this thread to change your mind. But from my point of view, you're sadly mistaken.
Got it. Satan is truly active in the world today.
>>Jesus wasn't a 'Christian', he was a Jew.
That is why 'Christian' is in inverted commas.
Can you not read?
>>This whole thing is an attempt to replace the liberal, loving Jesus with a radical warrior Jesus.
There is no 'attempt' at anything. This is a consequence of following the evidence, wherever it goes.
I did not even know of Edessa, when I started the book. It was supposed to be a book about Queen Helena.
You say... This is a consequence of following the evidence, wherever it goes.
Normally that's admirable, however I disagree with you on what you acknowledge as "evidence". The evidence for the history of Jesus is much better established by reputable -- yes, reputable -- sources. Those sources are reputable because they've been checked and rechecked by a multitude of scholars, theologians and amateurs. Christendom and Academia are not monolithic organizations controlling particular party lines. There is a multiplicity of ideas and viewpoints which lead to vigorous debate. There is plenty of disagreement, but nothing so far out in left field as you present.
I just don't see the same level of rigor in what you've called evidence.
I once wrote a book about Philadelphia. When I started it, I intended to write about New York City, and had never even heard of Philadelphia!
This discussion has reminded me too much of folks who credit dubious news sources -- no not Fox or MSNBC, though partisan, but like Breitbart... Infowars? Some of the so-called news sites are just so far from verifiable facts. Mr. Ellis will stubbornly hold onto his theories no matter what facts are brought to the discussion.
And Paul, I didn't mean to take away from your fun.
My apologies. I have made my usual mistake of trying to enter into a constructive conversation, but clearly it has got nowhere as most of my recent posts have either been ignored or answered with insults. So you're probably right.
In the chapter doctrine of Addai.
Jesus is informed his father King Abgarus dies:
This may be why Jesus said: 'The hour is come, that the Son of Man should be glorified' ...
However two paragraphs later :
Anyway, the king's envoys return to Edessa, and King Abgarus au Kama is suitably impressed...
In fact so impressed was Abgarus that he determined to go see Prince Jesus-Izas in person.
So now I'm confused as to who Jesus's father is because if his father is Abgarus then he too seems to have resurrected. One paragraph he is dead and the next he is alive???
Please assist me here.
My question to you is how does Jesus's brother James fit into this?
I think this would be key to advancing this hypothesis further. Personally I am glad to see fresh ideas of a stalled enigma for so long and appreciate your work. Hoping you will answer my question about James.
Is it possible that the Romans conflated two different families into one? In order to subdue the revolting ones to the peaceful?