The Historical Kernal To Which Mythical Belefs Attached

[yakovzutolmai]

Jesus historicists rest their claim on a set of consistent and specific beliefs to which early Christians were particularly attached. For example, the resurrection of Jesus. Consistent obsession with these beliefs indicates some sort of historical cause. I believe that the complexity and fog of history can be boiled down to identify a single zeitgeist which serves as the historical basis for the gospel narrative. However, first some surrounding context.

First, there must have been, as we know there was, some sort of mythic or esoteric belief set that anticipated something like Jesus Christ. Second, at some point, someone wrote it all down, or otherwise promoted an initiation that disseminated the particular tradition which emerged as gospel canon.

There must have been two actual historical objects: the cult or cults which anticipated, and the cult or cults which recognized. This explains how we end up with the canon Christ, without relying on his historical reality. However, this doesn't preclude a historical anchor which tied them together. Or, a historical football. Something different cults all recognized as important, so they competed for control over the narrative surrounding it. The core historical cause.

To find that anchor, let us examine Nero Redivivus. This is a very curious popular mania which emerged at the appropriate time in history for such an anchor, however there is little from Nero's life which justifies the belief. Attached to it are motifs such as the Eastern star of prophecy. Or a belief that Nero would lead the Parthian armies to bring justice to Greece and Rome. We also find evidence of the presence of similar Eastern motifs in Egyptian and Syrian cults. However, many scholars find some of these motifs to be particularly Jewish.

This seems to utterly reveal the historical anchor for Christianity. As I have explained before, it should be Izates of Adiabene. I belief that it's quite probable that the tale of Anileus and Asineus by Josephus is something of a retelling of Izates' history as Josephus described in terms of Izate's conversion to some radical Jewish sect and an uprising of his non-Jewish subjects against him. In the former tale, Anileus is a rebel against Parthia. In Izates' tale, the Syrians and Assyrians rebel against Izates. Functionally, it's the same story with the difference lying with whether the audience is pro or anti-Jewish. It also corroborates the context that the Adiabene kingdom was much larger than the Hadyab province lying between the two Zab Rivers, and instead corresponded - appropriately - to the old Achaemenid "Assyria" province. Josephus gives Kurdistan to Izates, and Armenian history grants Osroene. The Arab "Abia" of "Arsamus" seems to be Sampsiceramus II of "Ash-Shmamish". The suzerainty of Izates over Western Syria may not be recognized by Roman historians, but there's plenty of reason to think that Arabs and Hebrews would have recognized the inherent unity of Assyria as a political concept.

Imperial borders aside, the main Assyrian political competition for the Adiabene would have come from the Emesene Arabs. We see this manifest as unmistakable enmity when Caracalla of that Arab family goes to Adiabene with noteworthy malice. This is consistent with the idea of Assyria as an important political unit which slowly shattered even up through Roman times. For the purpose of cultural zeitgeist, the concept of Assyria and its kings would have been relevant.

Izates joining something like a Nazorean cult and then initiating a war for all Assyria on behalf of Jews, being killed, and then there being a widespread, multicultural anticipation of his return in later years (as political winds shift), becomes a very likely anchor for the zeitgeist which is responsible for things like the Nero Redivivus belief.

The importance of Izates is that his activities were political (therefore cross-culturally relevant) and involved a major war for control of a large and important region with significance to Babylon and Syria at least. The political nature of Izates means that any minor cult integrating him into an existing prophetic or messianic belief could create a zeitgeist that becomes cross-cultural. This is how you end up with Nero Redivivus. The zeitgeist is preserved, but the local tragic hero king is inserted in the place of the foreign one.

For 1000 years, Assyrian Mesopotamia was always the heart of political stability. When it was stable, there was peace. When there was war, Assyria was splintered. In the East, the zeitgeist of political stability in Assyria is synonymous with world peace and indeed it is possibly through Jewish beliefs, filtered through Philo, that the concept of the Pax Romana emerged. Vespasian's interpretation of the Eastern zeitgeist. Which in turn leads to ideas which cause Aurelian to be considered Restitutor Orbis. This would explain the cross-cultural attractiveness of this zeitgeist.

What this means is that the general zeitgeist that arose throughout the East, started with the application of Jewish messianic beliefs to Izates, but then probably outgrew him.

It is not the man, nor the historical events which anchor Christian beliefs to history, but rather this zeitgeist. The zeitgeist creates a race for narrative control over it. Out of what I think is a neglected contest between East (Assyria) and West (Asia) over the Christian flavor of this narrative, comes Christianity as we know it.

We can see that perhaps John is written with the history of the Jewish war in mind. Nicodemus from ben Gurion. Jesus as ben Gamla. Martha Boethus.

Meanwhile in Mark, you have Simon of Cyrene, Simon (Cantheras Boethus) and Andrew (Joazer Boethus). In Luke, Lazarus and the Rich man. Lazarus, Mary and Martha become one family in John. Martha is inserted into Luke. Lazarus (Eleazar) Boethus and Martha being from history.

We see that some of these figures are pulled out of history, but from inappropriate and inconsistent eras.

The mania leading to the Samaritan messianic upheaval as the Pharisees under Antipas asserted control over Judea. The wild card being the Boethusian family which I attribute to proto-Simonian beliefs (Judeo-Egyptian beliefs of the Onias house + Samaritanism = Simonianism, Simon Boethus is Simon Magus, who purchased his priesthood from Herod using the money of the Leontopolis temple).

The war between Izates as Sampsiceramus, which happens to come on the heels of Herod Agrippa's assassination, just as Agrippa was aligning with Izates against Rome. Followed by a dynastic battle of the second generation Boethusians (Lazarus) against the Ananians for control of the priesthood. The result of this conflict by AD 50 is the rise of the Jamesian cult.

The Jewish war of 65 AD, and prophetic consequences of the loss of the Temple.

Three distinct historical periods, but interrelated. Christianity is trying to claim them all, and define the zeitgeist, many decades later.

Therefore, there isn't a particular historical figure who anchors the gospel narrative. Rather, it was a zeitgeist, created by real historical events, which compels different people with different beliefs to compete for control over some loosely common narrative. This is how history influenced the creation of Christianity.

Now, whatever gnostic, proto-gnostic, Hebrew, Greek, Babylonian beliefs etc. are behind the messianic traditions and myths that are incorporated into the final product is a much more difficult discussion. However, other than the quest to identify particular gospel sources and real authors, the historical impetus for the religion's emergence seems completely settled.