There are three pertinent factors in elevating the importance of what the veil conceals:
- The renaissance of Assyrian culture, and a neglected new Assyrian golden age between Trajan's invasion and the Sassanid conquests. Responsible for a large portion of Neoplatonic thought and intellectual advancements that were absorbed into the later Greek-Roman Empire.
- The fact that, according to Armenian history, the kings of Assyria paid their tax on the entire Mesopotamian silk road to Rome, with Herod assigned as tax collector. This significantly raises the importance of this neglected region, and elevates the stakes of various Jewish uprisings. It also elevates the position of Herod and his lineage within Roman politics.
- One of the only nations and cultures which genuinely bridged the urban, intellectual and religious centers across the entire crescent were the Hebrews. Where Roman and Parthian culture would slowly communicate through Syria and Armenia, Jews were frequently bringing elements of one to the other.
- The House of Annas, which was already engaging in the secularization of Judaism long before Paul. Converting Gentiles. Not needed to follow the Law of Moses. No circumcision. Philosophical orientation. Perhaps this represents the state of the Sadducees, and their partners in the diaspora. The wealthy.
- The House of James. Intimately connected with the "Lands Around Damascus". Almost certainly Bathyra, the colony of Babylonian Jews in Batanea. Presumably also popular among the poor priests of Jerusalem. Strict about the law. Eschatological. Esoteric.
From the Talmud, Parable of the Twins
I don't have access to Eisenmann's article on this, but he was interviewed by ABC and the transcript conveys the information:Rabbi Eliezer and Jacob “the Min,” two texts which have already been extensively commented. By contrast, the following passage of the Tosefta has rarely been noted in connection with Jesus and the relation between Jews and Christians in the Tannaitic period. As a matter of fact, Jesus is not explicitly mentioned in this text:
https://www.academia.edu/38003582/_The_ ... card=title
Rabbi Meir used to say: — What is the meaning of the saying (Deut21:23): For he that is hanged is a curse of God?
[It is like the case of]two brothers, twins, resembling each other. One ruled (or was king) over the whole world —
— and the other went for robbery. After a while, this one who went for robbery was caught and they crucified him on a cross —
—. And every passerby said: “It seems that the king is hanged on a cross—
—.” Therefore, it is said: For he that is hanged—
— is a curse of God.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/ar ... ls/3363146
When Eisenmann's view of the community referred to in this document is brought into the context of the Babylonian Jews in Bathyra ("Lands around Damascus"), the rebellion of Anileus and Asineus, and Izates's war, there is a completely coherent picture and context. Especially considering Izates's rejection of Ananias and his Pauline-like Judaism.'MMT' is an actual personal letter from someone to someone, like Paul would write his communities. It's a letter we think perhaps from someone like The Righteous Teacher to a king of some kind. It seems to be a royal personage telling him how to practice Judaism. And it's in about eight copies which shows that it was an important letter for these people. I call it a Jamesian Letter to the Great King of the Peoples Beyond the Euphrates. That's my title for it ultimately after I finally found out what was in it.
...
I felt that what we had before us, I felt this before we opened it up, was the literature of the Messianic movement in Palestine, and not Essenes, not Christians as such, not Zealots as such, although all these groups could be considered under that rubric, because it was so Messianic. And that's what had been missed previously. And we showed some new Messianic fragments that were utterly Messianic.
...
Well these Scrolls are militant, uncompromising, apocalyptic, and they believe in righteousness but they don't believe in loving their enemies. They hate their enemies. It says 'Hate the sons of the pit'. So in a lot they were the reverse of almost everything, or vice versa, what we know of Christianity reverses almost everything, the whole ethos of the Scrolls. The Scrolls are purity minded, and what they're doing is, they're in the desert camps, they have the texts from early Christianity, like 'Make a straight way in the wilderness'. This is what they claim they are doing in the wilderness in their desert camps. But what are the desert wilderness camps? They're preparing the way for the final apocalyptic war against all evil on the earth which is to be led by the Messiah and the heavenly host. Well all these are what we know in Christianity as we know it, but our Christianity is more Paulinised. It's gone overseas, it's been Hellenised.
I say this is the ur Christianity, the native Palestinian Christianity, not yet Christianity, before it went overseas, and to my view this is led by James the brother of Jesus.
With this context, the parable of the twins becomes interesting.
Izates, according to Josephus,
I'm not sure I trust Josephus's explanations for things, especially relating to this royal family, but for a son to be considered so blessed, one explanation is that he was born an unexpected twin. Itself, having a certain meaning in ancient and esoteric philosophies.About this time it was that Helena, queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates, changed their course of life, and embraced the Jewish customs, and this on the occasion following: Monobazus, the king of Adiabene, who had also the name of Bazeus, fell in love with his sister Helena, and took her to be his wife, and begat her with child. But as he was in bed with her one night, he laid his hand upon his wife's belly, and fell asleep, and seemed to hear a voice, which bid him take his hand off his wife's belly, and not hurt the infant that was therein, which, by God's providence, would be safely born, and have a happy end. This voice put him into disorder; so he awaked immediately, and told the story to his wife; and when his son was born, he called him Izates. He had indeed Monobazus, his elder brother, by Helena also, as he had other sons by other wives besides. Yet did he openly place all his affections on this his only begotten son [monogene] Izates, which was the origin of that envy which his other brethren, by the same father, bore to him;
(I'm of the opinion that Monobazus's name comes from Manu and Sabazios, and he was very much an aspiring messianic god-king in search of some legend his subjects and his neighbors' subjects would appreciate. Sabazios itself I see in overlap with Zebedaois, with James and John Boanerges invoking the 'tumult' of Anileus. Mary Salome (Herod II Boethus x Herodias) is a good candidate for Helena/Mary. Anileus and Asineus were said to be of the profession of weavers, along with their mother.)
If Monobazus and Izates are twins, then Monobazus can become Thomas Didymus, and this Parthian king would very probably have visited India certainly did visit Armenia. Here, as "Jude" that is Thaddeus, which is the famous "Addai".
Furthermore, you have Jacimus of Bathyra, father of Philippus. The later was Herod Agrippa II's commander of troops, particularly the Northern, Bathyran/Gamalan group. He ran foul of the Jerusalem mutineers, and is forced to deal with the confusion and tragedies surrounding Gamala. The Jews expected the King of Adiabene to send support, but the Gamalans were keen to surrender until an overzealous Roman general murdered them.
The father of Jacimus is Zamaris, the Babylonian Jewish prince, and founder of Bathyra. He is summoned by Herod to use what amounts to a Parthian royal guard of horseman to protect the trade from Damascus. Armenian history records a son of the Assyrian king helping organize repair is Antioch in conjunction with Herod's men. This is consistent with Rome's treaty to have Assyria pay Rome tax through Herod. We see the Tiberian period features historically neglected nephews of Herod appointed over Roman provinces at the borders of Armenia. Armenian history records that "Abgar" breaks with Rome over the matter of insults related to military and administrative actions in Armenia, and taxes.
Bathyra was initially a tax-haven as Zamaris's compensation.
There's no proof, but it's entirely reasonable to hypothesis that this Zamaris was Monobazus. That Jacimus is a brother to Izates. That the second Judas, of Gamala, was a tax protest by Zamaris. Meaning James and Simon the sons of Judas are this same Jacimus, and there we have the family of the lord. Izates, Monobazus, James, Simon and Joses as the children of Helena and Bazeus. While Izates and Monobazus inherit the crown, James retains lordship over Bathyra, and that entitlement remains within his family.
The full picture is a very consistent locus for this Great King Beyond the Euphrates. Monobazus II, and the Jews of Nisibis and Babylon. King of Assyria, with seeming claim to its ancient rights (Hebrews and Arab being loyal to that empire as the rightful world order which had fallen).
Likely, after 50AD, Theudas/Izates is recognized as a possible heavenly messiah. James is punished for the zealotry of his people. James becomes the next object of expectation, fueling the followers of Simon - the religious zealots - in the Jewish War.
This brand of Jewish belief is anticipating the immanent messiah, and the great conquest of the world. It is a belief which we should recognize behind the later rise of Islam. In 115, after Trajan's armies defeat a major uprising of Babylonian Jews, it appears this brand of belief began to evolve.
The Jews of Babylon produce the Book of Elchasai, which is a prophecy of an eschatological age, but perhaps placed at more of a distance.
And so, the two brothers Anileus and Asineus, Izates and Monobazus are remembered by the Jews. One, cursed and hung from a tree like Jesus, the other a Great King of all the world.
By 140, the Judaism of the House of Annas, and of the followers of James, would have evolved substantially but in two different direction. Beyond the Ebionites, we see plenty of evidence of this Eastern Jewish Christianity, we simply lack major details about it.
The Roman Christianity, after Bar Kokhba, has the following features which distinguish it from other Jewish or Jewish Christian strains, while being generally Pauline (Ananian):
- The adoption of the synoptic gospels
- An anti-Jewish sentiment
- The further embrace of mystical philosophy such as in the Basilidean school
- The Diatessaron transmits the harmony of these texts into Syriac, and it reaches as far as Arbella. Tatian's worldview derived from developments in philosophy within the Syrian world that challenged traditional Greek points of view. One element was the use of historical criticism to come to accurate conclusions about the world and about history. The Diatessaron would be an instance of that philosophy applied to enriching the religious experience of Eastern Jewish Christians.
- Next, the Diatessaron's emergence in the East coincides with the arrival of Roman Christianity. We shall call it "Marcionite". Jewish Christians have their Prophets and Writings, their Book of Enoch, their Book of Elchasai. They do not need Tatian's Roman books, and the anti-Jewish missionaries who also use them. There are two responses. One identifies the Diatessaron as Marcionite. The other thinks it is "nice to have".
- The Eastern faction which likes Tatian's approach creates a response to Roman Christianity. The Johannine literature. Book of Elchasai is recast as the Book of Revelations to John. The Miaphysite-like doctrine of the Eastern Jewish Christians is embedded into John, and remains the bedrock of even the Nestorian church for centuries. This view of Jesus is sourced in both the esoteric views of Babylonian Jews, but also in the emerging Neoplatonic ideas of Syria. This doctrine possibly is a sore point in the lead up to the Arab conquests and Islam. Chalcedonian Christianity pushed too far against what few were able to recognize as an independent theological branch grafted into the Roman church.
- The Johannine literature and "Romanized" Eastern Jewish Christianity comes back over the Veil of Arabia into the West and is very popular. More and more "Syrian" style Christians are active in Antioch, Judea and Egypt. They clash more vigorously with the "Marcionites" now that they are in Roman territory. No one seems very aware that the Johannine literature is a product of a favorable reaction to "Marcionite" texts.
- The "Tatianites" begin to apply a methodology of textual supremacy, especially in the appeal to the authority of history, textual and later a concept of the apostolic. They use this methodology to argue against "Marcionite" doctrine, that is to say, speculative, mystical, philosophically decadent and Greco-Roman, as well as anti-Jewish. This is the beginning of catholicization, and it easily wins over the Jewish Christians.
- The catholicization process accomplishes two changes. First, the early Tatianite feeling that the gospels were "nice to have" is replaced by an absolute reliance on them to defend canonical belief. Next, the Roman/Marcionite Christians start seeing the need to create new gospel texts beyond the ones they originally created, that more openly convey previously esoteric training for initiates. The inner teachings have to come to light now, so that they can be defended through the authority of alleged apostolic authors. The Veil of Arabia strikes again. The Roman world is only seeing an argument from textual authority, failing to recognize that the root of the problem is the emergence from Babylon of a 100 year divergent tradition, where the point of divergence itself was a major schism. This alien tradition is colonizing Roman Christianity. It isn't about historicity, that is only the weapon.
- Again, the catholicization process crosses back over the veil. We see signs of it passing over Edessa. As I have noted previously, the Severan Emperors were the family of Sampsiceramus, and likely bitter enemies of Adiabene's house. We do see Caracalla impetuously and obsessively overturn the tombs in Arbella, and act which the Roman historian can barely explain. Abgar the Great, ca. 200AD, of Edessa, is from a branch house, cousins of Arbella. In all likelihood, he embraced catholic Christianity to appear more "Roman" and less "Assyrian" and created the Addai tradition in the process, greatly confusing the history of 1st century Assyria. Again, this fraud protected by the Veil of Arabia.
- Arriving in Assyria, the catholic faith begins to discourage the Diatessaron, eventually banning it entirely. The four gospels are the basis for catholic and apostolic authority. A completely new perspective that is not recognized for what it is because the East was not sufficiently conscious of the struggle between early Tatianites and Roman Gnostics in the West. They do not see catholic orthodoxy as a Tatianite attack on Gnosticism, but accept it as is. That is, as apostolic and always true. As something that always existed in the West and has finally made it over.
- Next, the catholic attacks on "Marcionites" in the East pushes them back West to Rome where their Christianity came from. The veil of Arabia conceals the factional struggles in the East. The fact that the synoptic gospels, as proto-Marcionite texts, created these eastern Marcionites, is lost on them. They have their Syriac Diatessaron, the vessel by which Roman Christianity first came to them. Their Gospel of the Lord as Marcionites. It has antiquity. It is translated into Greek. Along with Syriac letters by Paul. Greek to Syriac to Greek. This "Marcionite canon" having proven antiquity.
- The veil of Arabia conceals the fact that this Marcionite gospel was comprised of early synoptics, harmonize and translated to Syriac by Tatian, then translated back into Greek. To the people at the end of the second century, this was an ancient gospel of Marcion which was translated into Syrian, and then brought back. These Marcionites would argue convincingly that they possessed the oldest and first gospel and canon. They would argue this to defeat the catholic argument. Perhaps it would have been easy to check their Syriac Gospel of the Lord and see it's a Diatessaron, but perhaps, due to the veil of Arabia, no one was doing that. That is, it didn't occur to anyone that the early Marcionite gospel that was the original source was simply the same set of synoptics the catholics were using. Their factional differences made them assume that they had been following totally different branches the entire time. This isn't hard to accept, as the catholics argued for an apostolic origin of the gospels, written shortly after the death of Jesus. Marcion's gospel origin might have had a more accurate memory of the history of when and where these texts were made (for instance, Rome, 135).
- Probably, the earliest catholics wrote Luke-Acts in Egypt as their opening salvo, and so the version of Luke in that set displaced the one which had been used in the Diatessaron
The problem with historicists is that they recognize elements in the New Testament which are hard to derive from any source. They assume therefore, the necessity for complete novelty, and that requires some moment of invention. A historical basis that explains the novelty. I think my presentation of the Babylonian affairs, and the concept of the Veil of Arabia can completely cover these concerns. It's all there in the historical frame I presented. Izates as Theudas, and his the family of the Lord. Lazarus and Martha Boethus of Batanea are the eponymous pair from Bethany. The historical moment, and religious and cultural context, which evade the historicists are all there.
You just have to explain why early Christians thought certain things about history and the history of their church using the Babylonian context. The Veil of Arabia shows how failing to understand the evolution of ideas on one side of the border causes repeat misrepresentation on the other side. You can see why this would elude history.
Marcionism encounters eastern Jewish Christianity (about which we know little but see how parts of it are able to become Islam, and those parts are on display in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Somehow, this Jewish Christianity which is very overlooked, becomes Marcionite-lite. Somehow, this causes Marcionism to fall in on itself and become catholic, and this branches off little spores of Gnosticism, until finally catholicism spreads far enough, that Marcionites can come forward and present a Marcionism which seems almost totally distinct from the very seed which made it. This would be much easier to so if we had better Parthian and Syriac records from before the Sassanian empire.
