Identifying The Historical Basis Of Apostolic Figures Assuming Assyrian-Jewish Origin Of Christian Doctrine

Discuss the world of the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and Egyptians.
Post Reply
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Identifying The Historical Basis Of Apostolic Figures Assuming Assyrian-Jewish Origin Of Christian Doctrine

Post by yakovzutolmai »

This is a follow up to my post identifying Ptolemy Menneus as Ma'nu II of Oshroene/Adiabene and also Philip I Epiphanes Philadelphus of Seleucia. It will identify known historical persons as the basis for biblical characters. I had a very detailed version of this and didn't copy the text before being forced to re-login and I lost it. So, forgive me for the short version (perhaps it's better this way).


Philippion, son of Ptolemy Menneus, and Ptolemy as well were both married to Alexandra the Hasmonean princess. Philippion is Philip II of Seleucia, and consistent with Josephus's claim that Ptolemy had him killed, we see Sampsiceramus (who I believe is Ptolemy's Arab ethnarch, and over whom Ptolemy is suzerain) attempt to execute Philippion. Thus, I hold that Philippion lives and flees to Babylon. After Mark Antony's decline, long after Ptolemy's death, Philip rises in Babylon as Tiridates II (Arsaces Philoromaios). He is also known as Ma'nu III Saflul of Osrhoene, and may be Izates.

I hold, for reasons of association through a dozen indirect links, that Simon Boethus the High Priest was a son of either Ptolemy or Philippion. Bazeus, as possibly "Abgar Ukkama" (this figure, though, may be a mythologized composite of Bazeus with his son), is obviously the son of Ma'nu III. Izates II and Monobazus II are mentioned in the Talmud as "Sons of Ptolemy". I would say the connection of the Adiabenians to Ptolemy Menneus is clear, and if they are of Alexandra's line, then their Jewish pedigree is clearly established (of the High Priest lineage no less).

I hold that Simon Boethus received his High Priest office (in 23BC) because of Tiridates II negotiating a peace between Parthia and Rome. That is, Herod was forced to enter into this pseudo-alliance with Tiridates so that Judea-Assyria could serve as a shadow buffer power between the empires. Making Boethus the High Priest and marrying his daughter was how this was accomplished.

I hold that "Cleopatra of Jerusalem" may be a pseudonym for Mariamne, and that Cleopatra's sons Herod and Philip are Philip the Tetrarch and Herod II (attributed as the son of Mariamne Boethus). Because of their lineage related to Ptolemy Menneus, Herod is compelled to offer the region of Chalcis to Herod II during his own lifetime. Thus, Chalcis is not mentioned in Herod's will, though for all intents it should be.

Herod II was supposedly a private citizen in Rome, but Philo of Alexandria has commentary on four prominent sons of Herod which discredits that. Herod likely ruled from Chalcis. Not as a Herodian (he was disinherited), but as a descendent of Ptolemy. Thus, he would be Herod bar Ptolemy.

Philip, his brother, builds his capital Caesaria Philippi at Paneas, at the border with Chalcis. Thus, these are Philip and Bartholomew, the "apostles" who are said to have been very close.

Herod II's daughter with Herodias is Salome. The Greek historian of the Herodians, Nikos Kokkinos, has the following opinion on these people. He thinks Salome was too old to be the "dancing girl" of Antipas's courts, and so this girl must have been the Herodias Salome who later married Aristobulus of Chalcis and was likely the daughter of Antipas's Nabatean wife. The Salome of Herod II must be the hagiographical mother of James and John the "sons of Zebedee". Making her one of the "three Marys" as Mary Salome.

Herod of Chalcis, the brother of Herod Agrippa, is conspicuously given rule over Chalcis (even though Josephus hadn't mentioned the region for over sixty years). His wife is Mariamne. I would suggest that this is Mary Salome. Their son Aristobulus marries the "dancing girl".

Back to Kokkinos. He thinks that the Bible's "mistake" of making Herodias Philip's rather than Herod's wife is not a mistake. That Herod had long ago divorced her (it's perfectly morally acceptable if the man agrees) to marry Philip. She was notoriously ambitious, yet Philip never had children. He died in 33 AD, and so Herodias marries Antipas legitimately. The only controversy at all is that Antipas sent away his Nabatean wife, provoking a major war with Aretas IV.

I believe that the John the Baptist story is fabricated. I believe it is the story of Theudas, whose persecutors were the Alexandrian Tiberius Alexander and Herod Agrippa. This is embarrassing for the Herodians and Philonics of Alexandria, who I suspect were the Flavian allies which converted some of that household to a Philonic Christianity (thus "Pope" Titus Flavius Clemens). I believe Mark began as a stage play for Julia Domnia and the Flavian Christians, and was meant as half-instructive, half-entertainment. More than anything, it recast the entire history of Christ as a literary parable, invoking Greek tropes and making a composite, literary Christ from a fictional "Nazareth" (although Bathyra of Batanea may have been the "Nasara" of the Dead Sea Scrolls). It's narrative had to conform to Flavian propagandistic requirements.

Thus, Antipas is a much more palatable villain, and Theudas is transposed to his era, leaving the equally despised Pilate as the villain of Christ's tale.

I believe that "Mary Salome" was the Salome of Herod II and Herodias, and the Mariamne of Herod of Chalcis. Herod of Chalcis (brother of Agrippa, brother of Herodias) marries her to inherit Herod II's domain, establishing a new dynasty of Chalcis.


Famously, Helena the Queen Mother of Adiabene, and her son Izates II convert to Judaism. Izates was converted by one "Ananias" whom many believe must be the famous Ananus, who is the father of so many High Priests of the first century. Ananias argues that circumcision is not needed for conversion, and an Eleazar argues the opposite (I believe this is Eleazar Boethus, son of Simon Boethus).

Some have argued that Ananias's story simply has too many parallels to the doctrines of Paul, implying a connection.

I would argue it's deeper than that. In 31AD, Jewish rebels of Nisibis rise up and found a small kingdom. They kill a prominent "Parthian General" and steal his wife (who is implicitly compared to Helen of Troy). The rebels are defeated by an Armenian king. Eventually Nisibis is "gifted" back to Izates II.

I would argue that this woman was Helena of Adiabene, and her late "prominent general" husband was Bazeus/Zamaris. Helena's time at Nisibis led to her conversion to Judaism. I would argue that she was born Jewish (I'll explain later), and Bazeus's Assyrian beliefs led her "astray".

Nisibis is also "Antioch of Mygdonia" and I would argue that the Syrian Antioch is mistakenly identified in the hagiography as the important Christian center when in fact it was always Nisibis, for very obvious reasons (the city as a center of Jewish and Babylonian religious thought).

When "Simon Cephas" and "Paul" are arguing at Antioch, I think this is recording Simon Cantheras (Josephus records his brother Eleazar) and Ananias arguing at Nisibis, following Helena's conversion, about whether Izates should circumcise. I don't identify Simon Cantheras as Cephas "Peter", rather the debate between Cephas and Paul in Antioch is a reflection of this event. Much of the hagiography involves disparate, but similar and connected events over a couple generations and trying to make a composite story. Here, Cantheras and Anianas are not Peter and Paul, but their names and identities are connected in a way to sufficiently confuse people who might have a vague oral memory of the real events.

What happens in Adiabene, I believe, is that Ananias wins the argument (though Izates circumcises anyway) by writing a letter to the court of Arbela. I think Ananias - who should be identified as a Philonic Jew - is trying to take Philo's all-important Logos concept and apply to to the Assyrian/Jewish Gnostic beliefs.

Ananias identifies the recently deceased Bazeus as an incarnation of Logos, invoking the Assyrian concept of the God-king as an avatar of the hero-spirit (Indra/Ashur/Osiris/Hadad), as well as the Gnostic concept of Adam Kadmon.

In other words, Ananias goal is to spread his philosophical, universalistic Judaism by applying its philosophical conclusions to local beliefs. Meanwhile, we MUST identify the Jews of Nisibis as the exiles of the Northern Kingdom, and if we assume a late Jewish Bible (I do), we would see that these Ephraimite Jews would have beliefs that are much more Syrian than they are Mosaic. I believe Joshua is the Northern Kingdom's hero, and Moses is Jerusalem's answer to Joshua. Joshua, in turn, is the Israelite attempt at an Ashur or Hadad. While the mythic hero does not have the explicit role of Adam Kadmon (Axis Mundi, World Tree), in almost every culture with this kind of myth, the hero has an interrelationship with the "bearer of the comos". We see this with Atlas and Hercules (the serpent Lodan reminds me of Lotan of Yam). Yam and Hadad have this role. The cosmic mountain and seven-headed serpent are even seen in far of India. Of course, in Babylon, Tammuz and Innana express on version of this myth.

I'll make a third, maybe final, post about this. But, it's the "bearer of the cosmos" who is "crucified in heaven" to allow for the creation of the world. Whatever the astronomical inspiration for this meta-myth, it's obviously the origin of Christian doctrine.

What the Jewish Gnostics add is the idea of the bearer of the cosmos as a mantle. Where the ascension of the heavenly messiah, or Joshua, to take on that mantle represents the realization of a new creation. Tikkun Olam is when the world is remade, because a new, heroic and righteous world-bearer overthrows the old one. This expands on the way the serpent and the hero fight in a cycle that is interpreted to explain the seasons. Thus, the messiah will assume the role of the the bearer of the cosmos, a heavenly crucifixion, becoming the new Adam Kadmon, and remaking the world into a paradise.

I would suspect these ideas were part of the fabric of "Jewish" belief of Osrhoene and Nisibis, and their evolution begins in a time that predates the Hebrew Bible. That many of these ideas were present in "Arab" or "Syrian" belief as well.

Ananias was trying to frame these beliefs as "It's just all Logos", and paint Bazeus and an incarnation of Logos. This digs deeper into what Philonic belief was and how it differed from Gnosticism, which I believe explains the emergence of Christianity.

Early Gnostics thought of Christ as remaking the world. Philo took the personal, introspective position of Greek philosophy, and realized Logos as a power to remake the world of the soul.

So, Ananias would have gone over to the deep end of the pool and acknowledged Bazeus as an incarnation of Logos, seeing a vision of him ascendant as the new Adam, but then tried to corral this back into a personal theology about the relevance of the doctrine to the soul.

I believe this would have produced a series of letters, meant for Arbela, that became the original Pauline corpus. I also believe that these letters had a profound effect, and the memory of them was reframed by Abgar the Great (200AD) of Edessa. That is, by 200AD the literary Christ of the Flavian stage play is treated as a historical figure. Edessa tries to claim the legacy of Nisibis and Arbela (now sacked, its branch of the family moved to Hatra) as its own. So Ananias's letters about Bazeus-as-Logos becomes the letters of Christ to Abgar Ukkama later formalized into the story represented in the Doctrine of Addai.

What results from this "meeting in Antioch" are three consequences:
1) The creation of the basis for the Pauline corpus
2) The beginning of worship of Bazeus as the "new Adam", as Jews and Adiabenians find common ground.
3) The conversion of the royals of Adiabene to Judaism


We know of a family, living in "Bethany", consisting of Lazarus, Martha and Mary.

These names correspond eerily well with the children of Simon Cantheras (son of Simon Boethus, and our "Simon Cephas" of the meeting in Antioch): Elioneaus (Lazarus), Martha, and presumably a Mary named for her aunt (Herod's wife).

They live in "Bethany", which is more likely to be Bathyra or Batanea, given Jesus's presence up North much longer than his time down South.

This identification centers the biblical characters' historical equivalents in the Boethusians who oddly enough are living in Bathyra. There is some reason this makes sense. First of all, there was a brief return of Boethusians to the High Priesthood after Herod's death, but then they were replaced by the Ananians. It isn't until much later that they return.

Simon Boethus ran foul of Herod, so it would be good to flee to a place where military rule was being provided by the Babylonian Zamaris. Finally the B'nei Bathyra of rabbinical tradition are from Nisibis, and they with the Boethusians stand out as partial outsiders.

As such, I would propose four actual factions of Judaism, usurping the traditional structure of Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes. Josephus's invention of the "Sicarii" as a fourth faction, I believe is an obfuscation of the political reality that preceded the destruction of Jerusalem.

First, the Pharisees who strove for Biblical orthodoxy (at a time when orthodoxy wasn't necessarily important to Judaism). Second, the Ananian faction which represented the beliefs of Philo and sought a Hellenic Judaism that could convert the Roman gentiles. Third, nationalists who were less interested in religious outcomes, and who were centered in Galilee (descended from military colonists?). Finally, fourth, the bastard child of Jewish esoterica: the Samaritan Doistheans, the Essenes, the Assyrian gnostics.

The identity of the "Itureans" of the region in which Bathyra is found is unclear. One analysis says they are simply Assyrians. The end of the Neo-Assyrian empire occurred when the Chaldean Empire of Babylon drove Assyria's ruling families to Harran in Osrhoene, following the destruction of Ninevah. The area adjacent: Nisibis, was home of the Northern Kingdom of Israel exiles. It would seem that the Jews and Assyrians were happy to cooperate against Babylon while they could. The creation of Iturea as a terarchy, by Antiochus IX, occurred in conjunction with the rise of Adiabene and the rebirth of Assyrian culture in the Tigris River valley. Thus, the people of Iturea could very well be a population of self-identified Assyrians, or Jewish Assyrians. Iturea may derive from Asturia, a name for Assyria.

Alexander Janneus came and conquered Iturea, and like with the Idumeans, forced them to circumcise and convert to Judaism.

So the region of Bathyra, ruled by an Assyrian Jewish prince, full of Assyrian converts to Judaism, inspired by a form of Judaism harkening back to the days of the Northern Kingdom, may have had a different take on the religion than the masters of Jerusalem.

We see in the "Dead Sea Scrolls communities" a few features to confirm these suspicions. References to the "lands near Damascus" and the Damascus covenant. The identification of "Nasara" perhaps identifying Nazarene Judaism as a phenomenon of Jewish-Assyrian Iturea. Use of Enochian texts, which incorporates Phoenician and Assyrian folk beliefs into a Jewish context (as per the connection to Genesis and its Giants, implying this is the original context for Judaism anyway, pre-exilic). Finally, we see a major emphasis on calendar and the dating of holy days. This is profoundly important, because it actually reflects the ancient conflict between Hadad and Yam in their cyclical fight to be ruler of the cosmos. Bad ruler = wrong dates = fallen world. Correct ruler = correct dates = Tikkun Olam. This provides tremendous context for "Nazorean" messianism.

The Jewish messiah, prefigured in Daniel and perhaps as almost a founding myth for post-exilic Jerusalem, is a nationalist conqueror. A return to glory for the Jewish race.

The messiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a King of Heaven, a Gnostic figure who restores the order of the world, and is a metaphysical conqueror.

Thus I would argue that the "Samaritan Prophet" of Josephus was the birth of the John the Baptist movement. I would argue that it did NOT have a founding leader, but rather was the coalescence of the Samaritan Dosithean cult, the remnant Essenes in the Herodian era, and the Gnostic Jewish Assyrians of Iturea.

The death of Bazeus and his identification as a new Adam would have been the catalyst for this movement, and based on the different directions Jewish Gnosticism went out of the "baptizer cult" (elcesites, dositheans, simonians, christians, etc), I would categorize it as a Great Awakening rather than a single movement led by a single leader.

The essence of the cult awakening was two-fold. Finally, a Jewish movement that rejected or transcended the authority of the Jerusalem scribes. Second, a pan-Judaic movement that promised not only an international pan-semitic uprising, but also a coming millennial paradise.

If you know history, Neo-Assyria was like an early prototype for Pax Romana or Pax Americana. A cosmopolitan empire with military and commercial might ending in a horrific collapse. One can imagine the esoteric concept of Tikkun Olam absorbing the energy of the Assyrian and Israelite populations remembering a better time and hoping for a better world.

This movement culminated in Theudas, later the Egyptian false prophet. Finally, coalescing around James the Just. This "Christians" were not Christian, but rather Enochian/Assyrian Jews, waiting for a time when the heavens would open and a celestial army would bring peace back to the Earth. Their messiah, Bazeus the new Adam, was preparing the way. James would be his earthly counterpart.


Consider the family of Simon Cantheras (the Simon Cephas of Paul's argument in Antioch). His brother Joazer and Eleazar, and sister Mary. Joazer appears to be related to the Syriac word gzr, which is the Syriac version of the Greek Andrew (same as Indra, meaning manly). Thus we can identify Simon and Andrew.

The Sons of Zebedee are already identified through Salome, as is the family of Lazarus of Bethany.

The remaining essential figures of Christianity are the "Family of the Lord" and Paul.

The patriarch of the "family of the Lord" is one Cleopas, or perhaps going a generation back, a Jacob Panther. Panther and Cantheras could related. As you can see in my username, I have conceived of a situation where Ptolemy Menneus has an insincere conversion to Judaism to marry Alexandra, taking on the name Jacob as a Hebrew name. Thus, he would be "Jacob AKA Ptolemy" to skeptical Jews. In Hebrew, "Yakov Zu Tolmai", which is YZT or Izates in Greek. Liguistically, "Boethus" do proceed from "Bar YZT" or "Bayztus", though this is proof of nothing.

More important is Cleopas, which must correspond to Cleopatros, and this may be the origin of Cantheras. Unfortunately, none of Simon Cantheras's brothers are Joseph.

Now to the family of the Lord, "James, Simon, Jude, Joses" and Jesus of course. James and Simon are the sons of Judas of Gamala. This identification of James corresponds to James the Just who was killed in 62AD. This same James is almost certainly the James the Less of Acts. Thus, we can safely connect "The family of the Lord" to Judas of Gamala.

The difficulty with this identification is that Judas of Gamala is not necessarily connected to the Boethusians. Gamala was the fortress oft associated with the people of Bathrya, as they fled there during the Jewish Revolt. However, the identity of Judas is unclear. Moreover, history allows for James and Simon to exist, but if their brother was Jesus the Son of Mary and Joseph, we're left with a black hole in trying to explain it.

Then there is the matter of the "other Judas". Judas of Gamala is called "Judas the Galilean", but this title also belongs to Judas of Sepphoris. This latter Judas revolted in 4BC, due to Herod's death. He was the son of Hezekiah, a Galilean robber. He is considered the father of certain zealots. I believe Menahem. The former Judas revolted in 6AD, due to the census of Quirinus (as it happens, the subject of Matthew's treatment).

I will make a radical identification now, and I have a single source which doesn't prove it, but demonstrates how in the hell it could be possible.


This is a text allegedly attributed to Jews in the early Christian era, but which has so many explicit Christian motifs, it is theorized these Jews were secret Christians. Some go so far as to say these were the "original Christians" hiding behind Jewish motifs. A ridiculous conspiracy theory suggests that this pertains to grail mythology in that Joseph is presented as Christ figure, and Asenath as Magdelene, and the subject is their marriage. However, the context for the text is easily understood if Babylonian Jewish Christian norms are applied, such as the beliefs of the Elcesites.

I would argue that this is actually the tale of Joseph and Mary, the parents of Jesus, and that Joseph here was the original Christ - the new Adam. He is the incarnation of Logos, and his wife is the incarnation of Sophia. Together, as a dyad, they are the cosmic Christ. Thus, this Mary is literally the Queen of Heaven, and Logos together with Sophia produce a child (figured off of the Syrian Ichthys, the child of Dea Syria) who is the earthly messiah.

In the story, based on the biblical tale, Joseph comes to Egypt and fights with Pharoah's son for the hand of Asenath, the daughter of Pharoah's high-priest. In the end, Joseph wins in spite of his sometimes unhelpful brothers (Judah), and then Joseph and Asenath's wedding becomes an esoteric affair. Joseph is presented as Christ.

One VERY important theme is that Asenath is locked away in a tower, and has doubts in her love because she claims to be burdened by sin. Joseph as Christ offers the remission of sins, so that Asenath can be reborn in their union as a perpetual VIRGIN. The tower motif along the with the carnal sin identify this figure as a precursor or parallel to Mary Magdalene. However, through the remission of sins, she becomes the Queen of Heaven, a celestial virgin. The consort of Joseph. This identifies her as Mary the Virgin Mother.

Thus, Mary Magdalene and Mary the Virgin are the same person. It is Mary of Bethany, who marries John the beloved disciple, who unfairly receives the "whore" label, as obviously later Christian writers would not want the holy virgin associated with carnal sin. Here, in Joseph and Asenath, we see that Mary Magdalene is Mary the Virgin. She is also the consort of Christ, but not Jesus Christ, rather "Joseph Christ". Which is another reason why the son of Mary had to find his consort in the next generation, from the point of view of later writers, as the Christ role was transposed onto the son, when the two messiah roles were merged into one composite character (heavenly and earthly messiahs).

However, in spite of the profound implications, I think there's also a historical event here.

I think Judas of Gamala was Zamaris/Bazeus, that Asenath of the story was Mariamne Boethus, and that the 6AD war was to liberate Mariamne as a "Helen" from Herod Archeleus. Thus Helena of Adiabene is Mariamne Boethus, and she and Bazeus serve as the original androgyne "new Adam" which catalyzed the Christian movement.

First, Zamaris is identified as a Jew, but Bazeus was worshipping the Syrian idols of his kingdom. If his mother was Alexandra, then he was a Jew, lapsed in the faith or not. However, given that the Nisibis Jews were the exiles of the Northern Kingdom, the esoteric Babylonian beliefs of Bazeus can be described as "Josephite". We also know that according to the documentary hypothesis, the Elohist texts of the Aaronite priests paint a more polytheistic view of the cosmos, and the Aaronite worship at Bethel was likely the explicit recognition of Hadad. The Elephantine Isle temples of the Jews were to Yahweh as well as "Asham Bethel" who may have been Hadad of the Golden Calf. In that Yahweh (Ieuo, Yam of Phoenicia) and Hadad taken turns as "bearers of the cosmos". As far as I can tell, the only reason why people refuse to recognize Yahweh as a form of Ieoud (the "only begotten" and Isaac sacrifice of Phoenicia's Cronus), is because of the attributes of Dagon/Martu "El Shaddai" attributed to Yahweh. And yet, we know that attributes of Hadad are attributed to Yahweh as well. The composite nature of monotheized Yahweh does not mean his origin wasn't as something else.

Taking this a step further. Ieuo's servant is Lotan the serpent, and the connection with the Levites as priests of Leviathan (the menorah as a seven-headed serpent motif) is clear. Some argue that Yahweh crushed Leviathan, but again, this is an attribute of Hadad with the name switched.

We only have to go back to Atlas and Hercules, with that tree and the serpect Lodan, to find the same story. And Atlas is associated with Atlantis as its mythic king. This correlates with Phoenician myth which treat Yam as a chief god.

For what it's worth, I don't think the ancients tried very hard with their syncretism, in terms of harmonizing. Atlas seems to derive from the Greek Atlantos, where essential etymology is "tl", and the implication that it's foreign. "Tl" is very obviously linked to "tell" and has the same meaning as "Shaddu" in "El Shaddai". The connection is that of the cosmic mountain, which is correlated to the world tree or axis mundi. Atlas is paired, among the Titans, with Coeus, which I can't help but compare to the later Logos and Sophia. Coeus is also literally the axis mundi.

So, I would conclude that proto-Semitic myth is that Cronus as chief of the gods, the planet Saturn who usurped the power of Sky Father, crucifies his son Ieoud (meaning "only begotten" or in other words, "Son of God") to the world tree, so that he can become the foundation of the cosmic mountain which holds the firmament apart from the Earth. And that the world serpent is some kind of servant of this being.

In the Semitic myths, this being as Yam or as the River, is master of waters and there is some seasonal association with the summer being the god stealing away the waters, and the death of this god at the hands of the hero representing the return of the waters (the blood?).

So, I would say that Ieoud - which becomes Ieuo, which becomes Yaw, Yahu, Yahweh and Yam - is primarily a sea and water god, the Atlas of proto-semitic cosmology, as well as the inspiration for the God and King of Atlantis (with whom the Phoenicians are associated).

The Israelite confederation, attributing Yahu and the Sea Peoples for the destruction of Ugarit and Hamor, and the collapse of Egyptian power in Canaan, adopted Yahu as the national god. However, this religious system incorporated Hadad, and confused Yahu with a syncretized El Shaddai which allowed Yahweh to be represented as, for example, Koze of the Edomites and so forth.

Thus, Yahweh is the original Christ, and can be associated with Adam Kadmon, as well as an Isaac to Cronus's Abraham. This is especially true if Yahweh is associated not with the original foundation of the cosmos, but rather the Osiris or Hadad like hero who replaces him. This could be how "Israel" was originally conceived. As a Hadad-like demi-god who defeated the serpent and took up the role as the new bearer of the cosmos.

I mention all this here to show that the religion of the Pharisees was far departed from all this, but the Northern Kingdom exiles in the region of Nisibis may have retained much more of it. So, Bazeus, even as a "pagan" maybe is being very "Jewish" with his many idols (Elohim) and cosmic religious motifs. The second reason, to come later, is to explain the Marcionite rift in which Yahweh is rejected as the Christian God. This is not novel to Marcion, and very consistent with the Eastern position. I want merely to point out that the concept of Israel's God usurping Ieuo, and the Gnostic rejection of Yahweh, could be in fact a very ancient concept, and even essential to Israelite theology.

Asenath in the story is described with imagery similar to Dea Syria (Queen of Heaven) and she maintains the same idols that Helen the captive of the Nisibin Jews (Asineus and Anileus) maintains. In fact, Asineus and Anileus portrays Helen as this captive in a tower, and I can't help but wonder if the original story didn't feature Helen at all, but rather this "Mary Magdalene" history in Josephus was transposed by some author who thought it would fit better at Nisibis rather than Jerusalem. Or, maybe Helen is an unlucky woman.

Here is how the story fits with history.

Joseph is Bazeus, King of the Ephraimite exiles in Assyria. Pharoah is Herod. Pharoah's son is Archeleus. Pharoah's high priest is Simon Boethus. Asenath is Mariamne Boethus.

The historical analogue comes from the story of Judas of Gamala. First, a note. Archeleus briefly had a wife named Mariamne, though which Mariamne is not explicitly stated. He is said to have set her aside for love of another. Acheleus's reign comes to an end due to Rome finding him incompetent, however, we can't help but notice that this is related to the revolt of Judas of Gamala. We should also notice that this marks an end to Boethusians in the High Priesthood, and their replacement by Ananus.

Helena of Adiabene spent the last years of her life living a pious Nazarite existence in Jerusalem. She was a famous patron of the city's welfare. Her sarcophagus bears the inscription "Queen Sarah"

Helena was said to be the sister-wife of Bazeus.

I will now put these pieces together in a coherent story, which I admit I've made up, but is at least very compelling to me.

Bazeus as Zamaris founds Bathyra. Cleopatra of Jerusalem, who let's say is the sister of Simon Boethus and half-sister of Bazeus, bears Herod and Philip. Mariamne Boethus never marries Herod the Great, rather it is all Cleopatra (whom Herod divorces). Mariamne is much younger. Around Herod the Great's death, she is perhaps 13 or 14. She is extremely beautiful, and is known for this. Herod had promised her to a reluctant Archeleus, since the Boethusian falling out did not imply that Herod wanted to end the family connect.

Simon and Cleopatra flee to Bathyra for Zamaris's protection. He is now 30-40 years old. They are worried about Mariamne, so Zamaris goes down to Jerusalem pretending to be her brother to avoid suspicion. They fall in love, as Archeleus is cruel and doesn't want to be with Mariamne. Mariamne compares her situation to Sarah's, and tells Bazeus he is her Abraham, just as the two pretended to be siblings in Egypt (creating a parallel that could invoke the tale of Joseph and Asenath). She is dismayed because her virginity has been lost to Archeleus, and she feels unworthy of him. He proclaims that once they marry she will be born again as a virgin. This romantic notion later incorporates esoteric meaning as Bazeus is deified.

Bathrya was a tax haven under Herod, so as Rome and Archeleus threaten to tax it, Bazeus uses the circumstances to launch a revolt. His true purpose is to rescue Mariamne from Archeleus. Thus, in this brief war, Mariamne becomes Helen of Jerusalem.

They escape to Arbela, marry, and she becomes Helena of Adiabene. Presumably leaving her Jewish religion behind.


Let us now call Bazeus (pseudonym Judas of Gamala) our "Joseph" as the "King of the Josephites" in Assyria. The Joseph and Asenath tale given credence to this identification in the religious context. Mariamne is our "Mary" and her tower was perhaps a literal tower of Archeleus's palace.

The family of the Lord is: Jesus, James, Simon, Jude, Joses.

Helena and Bazeus had two sons: Izates II and Monobazus II. Monobazus was born first, but when Izates was born, Bazeus found cause to name him "only begotten" and declare that he would inherit the throne before Monobazus. There's a probable reason for this.

What if Izates and Monobazus were twins? Bazeus had fought a war, let's say, to win Mariamne. And God chose to give him not the one son, but another. Making Izates heir was Bazeus's concession as thanks for the gift.

This also allows us to identify one of the pair as Thomas Didymas, which both mean twin.

I'll spoil the ending and say that I identify Izates as Theudas. That Theudas is the missing member of the "family of the Lord" who would be in Jesus's place. Although, I do not identify Theudas as the historical Christ. This will be explained shortly.

Monobazus, as Thomas, fills the role well. He is called "Jude" but he might more appropriately be named "Thaddeus" and the Syriac "Addai" may be the more appropriate source of the name. Monobazus ruled in Adiabene for 20 years after Izates death, which I place at 45 AD. He was there to fight Rome in the Armenian war, and was the peace broker that sent Tiridates to Nero. As a Babylonian King and King in Parthia (few satraps were ever permitted to be called king), it's reasonable to think he could have conducted a mission to India, which is one of Parthia's other borders. Thaddeus is also thought to have died in 65 BC, and is prominently associated with Edessa and Armenia.

Monobazus also converted to Judaism with Izates, and could have lived in the Holy Land while Izates ruled prior to 45. In fact, Monobazus was forced to hold the throne for a few days before he could concede it to Izates in line with his father's wishes. Not everyone was happy about that, so it's plausible that Monobazus would have left the kingdom during Izates' reign.

The son of Zamaris was Jacimus, and his son Philippus was the military commander of Trachonitis, serving on the Roman side during the Jewish revolt. This is key to the story. First, note "Philippus", who would be in this identification the great-grandson of Philip II (Philippion). Also, Philip the Arab, the Roman general turned emperor was from Trachonitis and claimed descent from prominent citizens some called robbers. Could this be Zenodorus and Lysanias?

As for Philippus, he was a military leader and descendent of the "Babylonian Jew" who founded Bathrya. The Jews of Bathyra fled to Gamala and were slaughtered (perhaps by mistake). While under siege, they maintained a belief that the Jewish lords of Adiabene would come save them. So why was Philippus, who was very present, not helping them?

If we identify Jacimus as James the Just, who was killed by Ananus ben Ananus, who was a leader of government in the Jewish Provisional council, then perhaps Philippus held a grudge against his father's killer?

Jesus of Gamala, married to Martha Boethus, was the second of the Jewish provisional triumverate with Ananus as well as ben Gurion. Perhaps the Gamalans and Bathyrans were hoping to be part of the revolt, but as for Philippus his grudge put him on the other side.

Why would Jacimus be James the Just?

If Izates is our "Lord" and Monobazus our "Thomas Judas", then the third son of Bazeus and Helena would have been James, the fourth Simon, then Joses (Barsabbas?).

Since both Izates and Monobazus were promised the throne, the James would be next in line for the rights to Bathyra (Monobazus would inherit the throne before Izates' children, and the Armenian history does confirm contention between their sons over who held the inheritance next, this story being validated in the dating of the Edessan kings list).

Simon would be left to pursue some other path.

This is why Jacimus becomes lord of Batanea, as if it were an associate dukedom Bazeus could give to him.


The order of disturbances in Judea is as follows: Theudas, the Egyptian, James the Just, the Revolt.

Izates is fighting "Abia" of "Arsamus" in 42 AD. This is, probably, Sampsiceramus II at the Emesene fortress Ash-Shmamish. Or, Ar-Shamash. Given their sun worship. Again, history seems to have forgotten that Osrhoene was likely suzerain over Emesa. "Abia" was sent against Izates because of his conversion to Judaism, in particular for his zealotry.

It is around this time that Izates could have been present in Chalcis, at the house of Herod of Chalcis and his wife Mariamne Salome (a relation). James the great and John are the sons of Salome. So, perhaps this is the wedding at Cana. John marrying Mary of Bethany.

Both John, as well as Mary of Bethany (as the Magdalene) are identified as the "beloved disciple". To the point of them being conflated. My explanation for this is simply that the wedding at Cana is the "starting point" of Izates' "ministry". So, the historical basis, for what it is, begins here. John and Mary are not uniquely beloved. Rather, as the "stars of the show", Izates pays them special honor. Later attempts to derive meaning from these events over-emphasizes this. Perhaps these events were written down, and Izates offering a blessing is later interpreted as meaning more than what it was.

I mean to say that here we find the sequence of events which serve as the core historical basis for the gospel narrative, which originally lacked any of the theological meaning.

The capital of Chalcis was probably Anjar, which may or may not correspond to Cana.

Here, Izates, James, Simon, Jude and the "Sons of Zebedee" climb the nearby Mt. Hermon seeking a religious experience. They are all more or less converts to the Nazarene sect which spun off of the Great Awakening of the 30s, and Izates - as the heir of Bazeus, his declared "Only Begotten" - receives special treatment. He had just pulled off a major victory just North at Emesa, by which he defended his Jewish and perhaps Nazarene faith, essentially cementing it as the national cult of Assyria.

Here, thanks to probably Acacia-based DMT, many people have many visions. Presumably Izates as well, to explain why a major king would commit to a path of zealotry.

Thus, a three-year ministry begins from 42-45 in which Izates attempts to spread the Nazarene cult of Bazeus-Christ, his "Father in Heaven" around the area of Trachonitis, Lebanon, Galilee and Perea. This culminates in a major event in which Izates will - as a new Joshua - part the Jordan so that the believers can leave Judea for the new Holy Land in Assyria. There is no Herod ruling in Judea at the moment.

Izates has given up his arms, and believes his "Father in Heaven" will protect them. Thus, it is easy for Rome to deal with this event.

Consider the position of the Ananians and Alexandrian Jews who would promote Philonic Judaism. The Adiabenians have joined with "magician" cults to pervert their Logos concept, this cult is taking over Judaism, even among the lesser priesthood in Jerusalem, and they are threatening to move the center of Judaism away from the Mediterranean world. Here the Ananians and Pharisees would be in total agreement, and Tiberius Alexander the nephew of Philo himself commands the Roman legions to kill Theudas and break up the movement.

Of course, Izates is Theudas, the baptizer by the river. His head is delivered to Jerusalem. The Jerusalem elements of the gospel narrative are post-70 AD insertions, all derived from literary tropes (such as the accusation of Hector outside the walls of Troy, and so forth).


Izates' manic ministry represents a follow-up to the early great awakening. The only thing he did wrong was fail to be the actual messiah. However, that messiah would surely come, hopefully by 71 AD (40 years after Bazeus's death).

So, Theudas was recast as the harbinger. The one who was merely announcing the nature of the coming messiah's mission. Monobazus II, now king in Adiabene, was not present to receive the mantle, so Jacimus of Trachonitis was chosen as the likely great leader. He would have been the military commander of the Babylonian Jews, so this fits.

What's interesting is that, although James was executed by Ananus ben Ananus, there's not too much of an indication that he was a radical religious leader. In fact, hagiography emphasizes James's innocence. It could very well be that James was the object of messianic attention, and as a military leader, the Ananians perhaps felt strategic in taking him out.

It's noteworthy that Roman authority had to be absent for Ananus to pull this off. If James was a zealot leader, wouldn't Rome have their own problem with him? My explanation is that he absolutely was not personally advocating rebellion, not publicly. Ananus was not persecuting a heretic, he was wiping out a potential rival. Removing a piece from the board.

Thus, Ananus ben Ananus is the "Paul" character who conflicts with James in the Jerusalem church. If his father is identified as the originator of the Pauline corpus in his letters to Adiabene, and his doctrine of Bazeus-Christ as an incarnation of Logos, attempting to shift that doctrine into the more personal and introspective realm of Greek philosophy, then Ananus "Junior" is a good candidate to be the locus of Paul's identity (Paulos = junior). In that, here is a murder that results from the theological rivalry between the Assyrian Judaism and the Alexandrian philosophy. James and Paul being the representatives of the two sides, maybe in James's case less wittingly.

This leaves us to identify an actual problem-maker: the Egyptian False Prophet. This figure raises a mob on the Mount of Olives and is chased off. He is identified as a "magician". I believe this is Simon Magus.

There is a complicated identification for Simon Magus. I believe he began as "Dositheus" the "Samaritan Prophet" who kick started the "Baptizer" awakening of the late 30s. This was absorbed into Theudas's Bazeus-Christ cult.

Later, Simon Magus is equated with Adam Kadmon, having married the "Phoenician whore" Helen who becomes Sophia to his Logos. Clearly, this is hijacking exactly what I described earlier about Joseph and Asenath. In fact, I feel it almost confirms that I have made a partially correct identification since second century Simonians apparently felt the need to preserve these motifs.

That said, I think Simon Magus is merged with Bazeus-Christ in the Simonian cult later on.

Otherwise, Simon Magus is a good identification for the Egyptian False Prophet. However, I am saying he is not the inflated figure of the Simonians (who mythologized his life). Nor is he the "Samaritan" he is normally identified with. Rather, Simon is an offshoot of that baptizer movement that was catalyzed by our "Dositheus". Again, it's just a conflation.

Nor is he Egyptian. This Egyptian magic of healing and exorcism (scholars have guessed, through Cannabis oils), and the theology of it, are actually Babylonian in origin. This "magic" known to Judea and the Roman world through Alexandria.

I identify Simon the "Egyptian" as Simon the brother of James. Here he is a much more problematic figure than James, inspiring religious rebellion. Or, maybe the two worked together in private, which Ananus was well aware of.

Here, in this pair, is the "Jerusalem Church". The effort to keep the movement of Theudas alive. James playing innocent, Simon proclaiming him as the coming earthly messiah, Bazeus as the heavenly messiah. Theudas as the harbinger.

James is killed, perhaps causing the Chrestus riots. Among these earliest Christians, James was their original messiah. Theudas preached of James.


There is a nexus in which characters from the Pauline epistles intersect with prominent Romans. Epaphroditus in Nero's court. The Praetorians at Philippi.

I've read Dio Cassius and Tacitus on the Piso Conspiracy and I can't help but conclude that Flavius Scaevinus is Vespasian, and that historians have incompletely hidden his family links to Etruria and the cult of Nortia. Within the Etrurian myths is a story that explicitly denotes religion and priesthood as tools to power.

We have to notice that the conclusion of Vespasian's story has him anointed as every god and savior of as many Eastern religions as he could find, including recognition as a prophesized messiah of Judaism. He conducts rites in the Serapeion that are identical to those of Christ in the gospels. He collects artifacts from the religions and stores them in a new "Temple of Peace". Presumably a milquetoast universalism, the religion of a Flavian "Pax Romana".

However, Titus, much closer to the Herodians, is rumored to embrace Judaism. He too is attributed as messiah. He is having an affair with Berenice. His family members are accounted as the very first Christians of Rome. We know that Titus had a promising reign until Vesuvius erupted and Titus entered a personal downward spiral.

Drusilla died at Pompeii. Could Berenice have been with her? Could Titus have sent her there until the politics were more favorable? Did he blame himself for her death?

Domitian took over, blamed Epaphroditus for the death of Nero and exiled the Flavian "Christians" to Pontus where their cult only lasted about 20 years.

I suspect that the Ananians or Alexandrian Jews, the Philonics - however you'd hope to describe them - conspired to have Nero killed. The Jewish Revolt was provoked to give Vespasian a reason to receive an army.

There is a story of the false Neros. The peasantry of Greece, for some reason, expected that Nero would come back from the grave. Some shysters took advantage of this. Why did this expectation exist? It's oddly connected to the "Star Prophecy" which Vespasian tried to invoke to legitimize his rule, where some world emperor would come out of the East. Even bar Kokhba is an expression of this expectation.

Could it be that the Star Prophecy was planted? That Philonic Judaism in the form of Pauline "Christianity" was spread in Greece hoping to use Vespasian's reign to instituted Philonic Judaism as the official Roman religion?

I find it plausible precisely because the plan faced many points of failure, proving that it was a human contrivance and not merely a set of coincidences. First, the Piso conspiracy failed.

Second, we might assume that Ananus intended to hand over government to Vespasian after a negotiation of sorts. Ananus was killed as certain factions underestimated the ire of Idumean fighters.

Third, Jerusalem wasn't supposed to be sacked, but Titus was somehow convinced (by hotheaded commanders?) to do so anyway.

Fourth, it all might have succeeded, then Vesuvius erupted and that emotionally crippled Titus.


Saul the Costobaran Herodian was probably the Saul/Paul of Acts. He would have been part of the missionary efforts of the Ananian/Philonics, in the lead up the Jewish revolt. Therefore present with Josephus (who has carefully obscured his own identity) meeting Nero at Pompeii.

As a side note, I think the cause of the Piso rebellion was Nero's passion-murder of Poppaea the Younger. She is known for having some affinity for the Jewish nation and stands out as a "plant", and was a critical element of the famous meeting with Nero.

Why would she be affiliated with the Jews? I have no good idea, but one theory I've considered is that her grandfather, the homo novus Gaius Poppaeus Sabinus may have been the Sabinus who secrets away Herod's treasury after his death, to the chagrin of Varus. We get, in the Bible the parable of the "honest tax collector". We also have the "honest tax collector" statue in Asia. Poppaeus, in line with his granddaughter's famous red hair, was a Get from nearby Dacia. Perhaps of a noble line in the tribes. So, I have wondered if Sabinus the treasure-stealer was actually on a dutiful mission for someone and was rewarded with Roman citizenship. Thus, the honest tax collector making it into the gospel narrative as a wink.

The honest tax collector also appears in association with Titus Flavius Sabinus, but to imagine a connection between Poppaea and Vespasian is too much. Other than to say, the villain Flavius Scaevinus was particularly, personally aggrieved by Nero. If Poppaea's death was the cause, who knows, maybe there is a connection.

In any event, we can plausibly say that the Herodians and Ananians were linked.

The "Pauline" Christianity, again, attempts to take the messiah-as-comos-bearer motif and recast it its personal, introspective implications. Again, it is just an application of Western philosophical outlook to the Adam Kadmon concept. However, as simple as that is to say, it's actually the cause of a profound disagreement between the third century "orthodox" Christians and those they identify as "heretics".

So, we see Saulos as a companion to Josephus. Saulos is taking the letters of Ananias and inserting them into epistles meant for the Philonic congregations, who are likely completely unfamiliar with "Jesus of Nazareth" or any of the gospel material.

They are universalist Jews, so they are accepting gentile converts and not following Mosaic law. They are "Christian" in that Christ is a concept of Jewish philosophy, who is now being marketed as a Mithras like object of salvation. But they would not at this time be at all familiar with the gospels, and perhaps would be told to reject the James movement as heretics and magicians. They might even think of themselves mainly as Jews.

Josephus and Saulos have this teach, Banas. This is ben Ananus. Who is teaching them the Philonic principles originated by Ananias (I have wondered if Ananus is not derived from Hananiah, but rather Onias, since Ananus seems to uncontroversially qualify for the High Priest position).

There is, thus, Ananus whose letters to Adiabene expound on the doctrine of Christ, applying Philonic ideas to Babylonian/Jewish Gnostic concepts. Then there is Ananus ben Ananus, who mentors others in these teachings, opposes the Nazarene cult, and is symbolically the head of the conflict against it with James as his counterpart (whom he has murdered). Finally, Saulos, who is a student of ben Ananus and inserts his material into his own missionary epistles.

Thus, Paul.


The Jewish revolt saw many factions. Ananus for the Alexandrians. John of Ghiscala for the nationalists (Judas of Sepphoris and Menahem). Zakkai for the Pharisees. Anyone else who was made and wanted to kill. The conspicuous absence of the Adiabenians other than "kin". The conspicuous absence of anyone using the war to assert the theology we see in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If Jacimus was James, we have Philippus the son joining with the Roman side. Who knows who Josephus is really working for. It would seem, the Ananians. He was a plant among the Gamalan/Bathyrans, then with Ananus dead and unable to broker a negotiated surrender he improvised by defecting.

Then there's Simon bar Giora. He is crucified between two zealot "robbers". He wears a purple cloak and called "King of the Jews". He is taken down from the cross by Josephus bar Matityahu (Joseph of Arimathea). Of course, Josephus's real reason was to preserve Simon alive so that he could have a part in Titus's triumph.

Since we have accounted for all factions other than the mysterious absence of the James cult, perhaps we can identify bar Giora as our "Simon the Zealot" brother of James. Whom I previously identified as Simon "Magus" the "Egyptian".

Thus "Simeon" - Simon bar Giora - is the next "bishop" after James. But, with the end of the war comes the end of the "Jerusalem Church". Early apologists had to make up where the church fled. It seems we lose complete track of them, and amid all the records we do have, absolutely nothing of the "Christians" until the late second century.

Antioch seems to be a center.

First, it is said that Simon bar Giora was thrown from the Tarpaien Rock in Rome. Here is our "Simon Peter", the derogatory nickname stemming from his ignominious death somehow being turned around by clever catholicizers. The catholicizers argue they had authority not because of a vast church governance structure, a well-preserved library of texts, and good attestation. Rather, they claim Peter and Ignatius. That's it.

I would suggest the James cult fled to Nisibis - "Antioch on the Mygdonia" - with centers stretching from Samaria to Nisibis. Thus, Manjib or "Hierapolis" of Syria. Which is the much more plausible home of Papias as far as I'm concerned.

The Flavians of Titus's household attempt to revive some Roman version of the Pauline Jewish sect, and who know how that went other than that we know from Pliny that even Pontus - the center of the cult when Domitian exiled it there - has moved on after 20 years.

What we see next is the Kitos War. Here, Osroes of Parthia is a usurper who seems certainly to have come from Osrhoene. To me, this identifies him as possibly a son of Izates II. When Quietus is marching through Assyria, the Jews of Babylon harass him.

In the West, Cyrenaican and Cypriot Jews stage bloody riots, until some opportunist declares a holy war for Jerusalem that goes nowhere. However, the real story of the Kitos War is missed. It's the Jews of Babylon rising up against Rome to presumably defend Osroes' claim to the throne. That tells me that some aspect of the "Adiabene National Religion" is alive at this time. Yet another aspect of Parthian history lost to the ether.

We see a kin of the Oshroenian royals purchase the throne of Edessa at this time, the first time in this history I can reckon where Edessa/Osrhoene exists as a power distinct from Adiabene. We also see the Adiabenian royals move to Hatra, deeper in the desert. Why have they abandoned Arbela?

I think the hidden story is Rome's desire to crush the next evolution of this "Jewish Christian" movement, and prevent the rise of a new Assyrian power that would have certain appeal to Judeans. I think Rome has hidden this history, for expediency, and Parthia's own history is lost. Thus, the very obvious context is lost.

I think the end of the Kitos war sees the deflation of messianic zealotry in Eastern Jewish-Christian Gnosticism. Now, in an Eastern version of Pauline Christianity, the messiah doesn't rebuild the cosmos into a new order, rather the individual learns from the teachings of the messiah to escape the corrupt world. It is the same problem of a cosmos in disarray, but now the solution is to escape the tyranny of the cosmos-bearer's constructed truth, rather than to overthrow the tyrant.

This is reinforced after the Bar Kokhba revolt, which was the first war of rabbinical Judaism and its interpretation of the Jewish messiah. John of Ghiscala united with Zakkai, no Ananus or bar Giora - if you will.

The effect of the Bar Kokhba revolt is to define the followers of Mosaic law as a distinct, and hated identity. The "Jews" who formerly identified with this universal semitic identity, now embrace the identity of "Babylonian" or "Roman" or "Greek" or "Carthaginian". A Jew is a follower of the rabbis.

So, we actually have a broad definition of the Jewish identity before the second century, which nevertheless orients around Jerusalem, and then this identity narrows considerably after the fall of Jerusalem.

One effect is a need for some of the former Jews to assert their non-Jewishness. A second effect is to distance from Judaism. Also, consider the state of the religion. Hadn't Yahweh failed? His House in ruins?

Thus, it is after Bar Kokhba that the rise of recognizable Gnosticism begins. This is the rejection of Yahweh as some demiurge. As I explained, even the proto-Semitic religion seems to have the motif of the cosmos-bearer being overthrown by the hero. Here, the Babylonian Jewish-Christians reject the messiah of Yahweh, and embrace the messiah who is against Yahweh. Again, this typology existed even before Jewish monotheism, so it would not be very hard for the Gnostics to invent.

Here we have the rise of the Elcesites. Presumably, they believe that the Bazeus-Logos, Helena-Sophia pair (with or without the historical identities) are the new Adam. That the world is already saved. This aligns with Nestorian Christianity which sees Christ almost as a human avatar of Logos, rather than an incarnation. Even Greek Orthodoxy treats the Pontifex Maximus/Emperor as a pseudo-God-king by treating him as an avatar of Sophia, where the Holy Ghost descends upon him allowing him - as the prophets and apostles - to speak and act with God's authority.

From here, we get the branching Manicheans, the Mandeans, and so forth into the Persian era.

In the West, the Elcesite doctrine is again made more personal an introspective. Valentinius has gnosis as that same peaceful path to escape.

Finally, we have the forgotten last war of the Jews. This is the invasion by Lucius Verus of Parthia in 166. The Romans conquer, but don't absorb Babylon. However, they leave a garrison permanently at Nisibis.

I believe this may be the catalyst for the birth of orthodox Christianity. A religious leader of Nisibis is brought to Rome. He is misremembered as Ignatius, when in historical fact he was more in the role of Marcion. It is the reaction to this figure, in defense of Yahweh, that led to the Johannine literature and other fabricated texts whose purpose was to establish apostolic authority. This leads to Christianity emerging, finally, in the third century. I'm out of room, so I'll save my Ignatius theory for a later post. It's rather off topic, suffice it to say it would be the last influence of Osrhoene on the development of Western Christianity.
Post Reply