Mary Salome of Herod II Boethus As Helena Of Adiabene

[yakovzutolmai]

Because my overall hypothesis is rather outside the realm of consideration in this community, I have promised to record my investigations here only when I stumble upon a radical, new observation. I have recently thought of something new.

My overall hypothesis has been that the Theudas of Josephus is none other than Izates of Adiabene, and that the ministry of Theudas is the historical inspiration for both the idea of a single leader of the baptizing movement, and also the Galilean ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. For example, Lazarus and Martha of Bethany may be the only historically identifiable characters pertaining to the Galilean Jesus. These are Elionaeus Cantheras Boethus and Martha Boethus, whom I assume are living in 42-45 AD at Bathyra in Bathaniyeh (Bethany). Jesus of Nazareth is, of course, a literary composite of many different elements.

The premise of this hypothesis is that the Boethusians (juxtaposed against the Sadducees in the Talmud as the oldest historically remembered heirs to the high priesthood) are the House of Onias. Beit Honniyoh, where Boethus is the name of the Ptolemaic noble - a builder - who was a patron of Onias IV during his exile. Boethus is an adopted name and more or less a portmanteau, a Greek rendition of Beit Honniyoh. This word also serves as the basis for naming Batanea (Gilead), Bethoniyoh, if you will.

When the Roman legions took over certain policing duties that the Oniads had been assigned, I assume the militant Leontopolidae were assigned to Batanea (hence the name) to support Zamaris against the robbers. We also know that Herod was famously broke at this time, and it more or less lines up with his marriage to Mariamne Boethus.

A very important element of my hypothesis is that Simon Boethus used the temple treasury of Leontopolis to purchase the Jerusalem high priesthood. It's a compelling theory because it's rather fitting to the circumstances, that is it would be a natural set of events. However, it also serves as a compelling basis for the origin of the Simon Magus myth. Simon the "Egyptian" sorcerer who attempts to purchase apostleship. Also, continuity exists in the form of Marcion's legend of attempting to purchase the Holy See. This arrangement of motifs suggests something to the effect of the Alexandrian and cosmopolitan Jews viewing the Oniade mercenaries and priests as offbeat, "kooky", practicing beliefs and traditions of a disreputable Egyptian character.

I also assume that among the mercenary, militant set of the Jewish diaspora, the cult of Marduk had rubbed off hard. If we compare Marduk to Melchizedek, we immediate find great alignment. The Panthera legend about Jesus's father fits. Pathera is Marduk/Melchizedek (esoterically). Paulina, that odd little tale, fits as well. Paulina is a mundane, almost mocking parallel to the cult ritual of the maiden staying the night in Marduk's tower. What I sense is almost an ancient innuendo, someone teasing that Jesus is merely another mask of Marduk.

When we combine Marduk and Adam Kadmon together, via Egyptian-Babylonian interaction, within Jewish theological speculation about the second power in heaven, you get Jesus Christ.

I would propose that Batanea is where this happened, as the Babylonian Jews at Bathyra mingled with the Oniads in residence. That Helena of Adiabene is our Sophia/Mary Queen of Heaven, with Bazeus as our Christ (New Adam). The text Joseph and Asenath provides the template for the theological narrative. Izates - Ezad - "The Blessed One", is our Apollyonic figure. The sacred child so common among religious motifs.

I have assumed that Helena must be Mariamne Boethus. I would argue that Bazeus is of Hasmonean pedigree. Izates is the reunion of Sadducee and Boethusian, the only relevant bloodline concern at the time (before the Davidic genealogies and later navel-gazing).

The Talmud says Izates and Monobazus are "Sons of Ptolemy". Ptolemy Menneus (whom I identify, I think quite probably) as Philip I of Seleucia had a son Philippion (Philip II) who married Alexandra the Hasmonean princess. I contend Ptolemy Menneus is Ma'nu II in Arab reckoning, making Philippion Ma'nu III Saflul. I also believe this Saflul is the Arsham of Armenian history, the usurper who took the sons of Phraates to Augustus.

What historians seem to neglect is that the hostage exchange bought Arsham nominal suzerainty over Assyria, in Babylon and among the Arabs. Satisfactory to Parthia as part of a peace agreement with Rome, and satisfactory to Rome since Arsham would pay all the taxes of the Mesopotamian silk road to Rome - via Herod!!!

If Boethusian wealth saved Herod, the Silk Road tax made him a giant! Through this complex arrangement with Assyria/Adiabene and Armenia, Rome made Herod into Hegemon of the Middle East. If we then recognize that the death of Herod represents an open season between these Assyrian, Judean and Arab factions for control over the most lucrative strategic position in the world, the turmoil of the Jewish Revolt makes a lot more sense.

I think we fail to understand the history here by downplaying the importance of Judea (dirt farmers who are zealous enough to die fighting for a minor province of little import - according to scholars, at times). We also hear the story that Jesus was a literal itinerant Galilean preaching something spontaneous and novel to illiterates. If we get rid of these absurdities the stakes make more sense.

Ma'nu III's son is Bazeus. Here the geneology is confused due to the later "Doctrine of Addai" text which attempts to recast Edessa's king as having a relationship of sorts with the non-existent Nazarene and his apostles. Bazeus Monobazus is the son of a Hasmonean princess.

This Bazeus is our Zamaris who rules Bathyra, later Adiabene as Monobazus. Zamaris means Zimra, close to Mohammed "The Praiseworthy". The couplet of the "praiseworthy" and the "blessed" ones repeats loosely in Ali and Hussein - not possibly a coincidence.

In the union of Bazeus and Helena (if Mariamne Boethus), you have the two priestly lines united. However, Mariamne Boethus is too old to be Helena. I have solved this in the past by invoking the Mariamne mentioned as betrothed to Herod Archeleus, a single mention by Josephus. Suffice it to say that Archeleus loved another, and treated Mariamne poorly.

I have - admittedly - contrive a romantic tale of Zamaris in Jerusalem to support and stabilize Archeleus's reign after the revolt of the son of Hezekiah, the "Judas" of Ghiscala. He and this Mariamne fall in love, and upon Archeleus's divorcing and scorn of her, Zamaris himself revolts as the "Judas of Gamala", taking Mary AKA Helena (a woman who started a war) with him to the East.

There is one more piece of Josephus that completes the story. Anileus and Asineus. Two Jewish robbers, "curtain weavers", poor tradesmen, who build a Jewish empire along the Euphrates during a vacuum of power by Parthia. The story is another odd insertion by Josephus. Allegedly it explains why Jews left Babylon. Yet, it is a remarkable tale and overlaps politically and geographically with the rise of Jewish Adiabene.

I have noted that Rome scorned Herod Agrippa, who also blamed Sampsiceramus II of Emesa. Then Josephus says Izates' conversion to Judaism upset the grandees of his kingdom who incited an Arab "Abia" to overthrow him, but Izates overcame and defeated "Abia" at "Arsamus". Abia is the title for ethnarch of Arabs. It would apply to Sampsiceramus II since it applied to his great-grandfather Aziz. Aziz was definitely Abia for Philip I. So, if Izates is great-grandson to Philip I, and Sampsiceramus II is likewise to Aziz, then he would very probably be Abia for Izates. The Emesene castle is Ash-Shmemish or Ash-Shmamish. The meaning is the same Ar/Ash is equivalent to "tell" and the latter world derives from Shamash.

This places this event at the known death date for Sampsiceramus II: 42 AD. This is also when Herod Agrippa deposes the Ananian high priest and restores a Boethusian to the high priesthood. We see a back and forth between these factions in the High Priest's office over the next few years. It is said the parable of Lazarus and the rich man discusses Ananus persecuting Lazarus, which fits with the narrative of Elionaeus Boethus being driven out of Jerusalem by the Ananians. If he was literally wounded as a historical basis for the Lazarus stories, then we can correlate this to Herod Agrippa's death, which was quite probably a poisoning.

All of this ends, like an exclamation point, in 45 AD. The start of Theudas's ministry. This ends with his death, followed by the persecution of a James and Simon by Tiberius Alexander (of Philo's family). You can imagine the pendulum swinging in your head. Finally, the famine of 48 AD sees Munbaz (not Izates, who must now be dead, making Josephus inaccurate viz Izates' latter life) via Helena offer relief to Jerusalem. This coincides with Rome's reassignment of Prefects. I would assume, an end to the internecine war, so to speak.

Odd that Acts describes this event as important to the brethren. I assume Theudas's Galilean/Lebanese ministry was from 42-45 approximately, after 45 was his Jordanian ministry. Here our "historical Jesus" mingles with Herod Agrippa, the implication is that the two plan a co-hegemony of a pseudo-autonomous, Jewish, New Assyrian Empire. Gives a new light to Jesus's travels to Berytus. So I have to assume the "Antioch" of the famine relief in Acts is "Antioch Mygdonia" or Nisibis, essential to the Babylonian Jews. Acts 13 describes the people there. One, Manaen, reminds of Ma'nu or Menneus, or Mono-bazus.

Thus, my instinct is that whatever arrangement resulted in Tiberius Alexander's deposition after 48 was a kind of truce that I suspect was broken. We see that Manahem the zealot seizes the armory at Masada in response to the actions of Ananus ben Ananus and company. I wonder if this is actually Monobazus II, responding to what we suspect was a scheme by Ananus to hand Jerusalem over to Vespasian, per the Flavian conspiracy theory. In the scheme of Christian hagiography, this Monobazus was "Addai" or Judas Thomas Didymus. I also strongly suspect the historical reality that Monobazus and Izates were twins, Izates being the second born and therefore deserving so much praise from the father. Simon bar Giora might have been the fourth brother (after James), whose war continued after Manahem's death, independent of the other factions.

We then see that as "Osroes" - whom I suspect was a non-Jewish son of Izates, heir to Adiabene and Charax-Spasinau - the next king of "Edessa" tries to usurp Babylon. Trajan goes to war in the process, and the Jews of the Euphrates rise up in the "Kitos War" against him. I strongly suspect there is a religious motivation tied to the events of the first century and family of Adiabene.

Thus, the story of Anileus and Asineus could be drawing on a sort of epitome of these events, a misdirection by Josephus or a later redactor.

Going back to the story of Simon Boethus and how he became High Priest, Josephus's story isn't very plausible, and my hypothesis in contrast has strong explanatory power. Moreover, we have proof that Izates' history has been whitewash - his death at least. The Talmud also provides clues that important knowledge about the pedigree of Izates and Monobazus were well known, but Josephus not only fails to mention it, he implies it would be impossible (note that there was an attempt on Philip II's life by Sampsiceramus, but he escaped, whereas a similar attempt on the other remaining Seleucid succeeded, so if Josephus wants to claim Philippion's life was taken, the story is 90% accurate).

I think we can identify that the story and importance of Adiabene and Izates, the politics of the Boethusians in relation, have been redacted from Josephus's history. As a result, I'm comfortable thinking of Anileus and Asineus as more of a falsified epitome.

Note that there is the inclusion of a Helen like figure in the Anileus story. Meanwhile, as "curtain weavers", the brothers are given the same euphemized profession as Mary the Virgin. This is very similar to the symbolic meaning of Joseph's profession - the Tekton. I would propose that history is being misrepresented. That Anileus and Asineus were the sons of Helena, not her captors. The idea that their kingdom was a robber kingdom stands in contrast to Izates and Monobazus championing the Jews amid Assyrians and Arabs who expressed their discontent about it. The author of Anileus wants us to imagine that Adiabene and its legitimate ruler stood against this Jewish incursion, and will not tolerate letting the reader know that these Jewish lords are the sons of the legitimate ruler.

Finally, consider how the pair are presented. They are not the legitimate heirs to one of the greatest hegemonies in history (Assyria), they are robbers creating a commotion during a power vacuum. Through this narrative-as-epithet I derive the word "tumult".

Thus Anileus and Asineus are our "Sons of the Tumult" our, "Boanerges". Now we have identified Izates and Monobazus as the sons of Zebedee. Can this be? It certainly works.

Zebedee as Zebedaios. As a Hebrew redaction on Sabazios, which then gives us our origin for Bazeus. We have heard the Romans believed the Jews worshipped Sabazios. We are told this is a mistaken appellation for the Lord of Sabaoth. I don't think so.

Sabazios was worshipped by that vague ethnicity, post-Hurrian, Phrygian-approximate, almost Kurdish, not-Armenian that dominated the breakaway kingdoms of Asia Minor. Adiabene would certainly have contact. We can draw parallels between the evolution of the cult of Sabazios and the development of Mithraism, in addition to the geographic proximity. The premise of a Mesopotamian "Tekton" a master of the cult, invokes non-Jewish Israelites mingling with Commagene merchants, sharing their ancient folk traditions about Noah and the Watchers.

I don't think Jews worshipped Sabazios, but there may have been Mesopotamian Israelites in Rome championing his cult. My belief is that by the first century, all non-Punic, non-Judean, Amorite-descent peoples were simply called Jews or Israelites. The Arabs of the time, I believe, were Arameans.

With this last clue, I have found an answer to a long-unsolved puzzle. It involves the mother of the Boanerges.

Mary Salome

I have long been fascinated by Herod II. First of all, as the son of Mariamne Boethus, you can imagine my interest. Herod's story also falls flat, as if Josephus isn't saying something.

There are major problems with the narrative surrounding Herod's wife Herodias. The Bible has her married to Philip the Tetrarch. This has led to the incorrect invention of the name "Herod Philip", a harmonization. Their daughter Salome is said to dance for Antipas, demanding John the Baptist's head. But Herodias and Herod married decades before such a young woman could have been born.

Kokkinos argues that the dancing Salome was actually the daughter of Antipas's first wife, this woman becoming the future wife of one of the Costabaran Herods. I have another explanation. The story in the Bible of Salome being offered a blank check mirrors the story of Herod Agrippa being given a blank check at a banquet by Claudius. Agrippa overdoes his ask, but in so doing reclaims his kingdom. I believe some literary-minded fellow borrowed this motif from the history of Agrippa and applied it here.

Faithful history blames some of the tumult around Antipas's reign on the death of John the Baptist. Which Josephus mentions (which might be an interpolation). Maybe there was no John the Baptist, in the 30s, at all. The timing of Antipas's war (against Aretas) does coincide with the tumult surrounding the mysterious "Samaritan prophet", but it's hard to tell if Antipas had any stakes.

I don't always know what "Samaritan" means, as I'm not sure it necessarily is restricted to the region between Ghiscala and Jerusalem. I suspect it's a derogative for all Babylonian Israelites, as I suspect there were still extant Assyrian captivity Israelite descendants who never owed any allegiance to Jerusalem. Could the "Samaritan" prophet have been a Babylonian Jew, come down from Bathyra to march on Gerrizim? I can't really tell, but I strongly suspect something like this.

The fact that Simionians are said to worship Simon in a Christ like role rather than Jesus tells me that some proto-Christian theology began among the people of Simon Boethus before the rise of Izates or the development of early Christian theology. I might call this the "Dosithean" belief system. Here we have the High Priest of the Oniads as the Adam of the present, which makes a great deal of theological sense within the greater Joshua theology. Thus Simon really was a new Adam, and this doctrine preceded the elevation of whichever successor. That the doctrine was introduced with Simon as High Priest explains why Simon himself is remembered and his successors are not elevated to the same role.

Back to Herodias, she allegedly leaves Herod II (Josephus) or Philip (Bible). Kokkinos assumes she was granted legitimate divorce from Herod, and after Philip's death was compelled to marry Antipas. That the crime was not Herodias's divorce, but the fact Antipas cast away his other wife. I'm not sure that the Biblical narrative even applies to history, and it might not be possible to harmonize it.

Altogether, there is a historical mystery here. A tumult, intrigue, scandal, conflicting stories. I believe I know the answer.

Kokkinos points out that Philo's embassy to Caesar speaks of four king-like sons of Herod The Great present at Jerusalem as late as 33 AD. Two must be Antipas and Philip. One might be the ruler of Ashkelon. The last must be Herod II. We have to assume Josephus has simply misled about him. However, what would Herod be ruling? If he is disgraced?

We see that Ptolemy Menneus ruled Chalcis of Lebanon. It was taken by Antony, gifted to Cleopatra, falling to Octavian after his victory over the former two. He, in turn, gifted it back to Herod along with the Trachonitis and Aurantis.

We don't hear about Chalcis again until it is given to Herod Agrippa, then it falls to his cousin Herod "of Chalcis". Herod's will specifies every piece of his kingdom, but not this Chalcis. Evidence by omission.

I propose that Chalcis and Batanea (together, the former territory of Iturea), must have been granted to Simon Boethus. This is why the region is named Bathaniyeh (Beit Honniyo). Again, the explanation is that Rome is hoping that the Jewish-Egyptian mercenaries will relocate out of Egypt.

I have wondered if Mariamne Boethus and Cleopatra of Jersualem are the same person, and Cleopatra is a pseudonym used to protect Philip the Tetrarch from the poor reputation of Mariamne and Herod II.

In being disinherited, Herod II takes Chalcis with him out of Herod the Great's dominion. Whereas Philip, still legitimate under Herod, retains a promise of Gaulinitis and Batanea through Herod as an heir of Herod (and therefore with potential rights to Jerusalem).

This works well. Cleopatra's mysterious older son is mentioned only once, and named Herod. Philip builds his capital not at the strategic Gamala or Bathrya, but rather at Baneas. Just on the border with Chalcis.

Thus Herod II is an important king and Jewish Herodian at the time of Pilate.

So, I believe the stakes of 33AD was none other than Antipas hoping to reclaim all of Herod's old kingdom. The intrigue was an assassination of both Herod II and Philip in preparation. No doubt Herodias was involved in this plot.

Since Herod and Philip would have been connected to the Boethusians, this makes Antipas a villain in the eyes of the proto-Christian factions.

Now we have to assume the birth of a Salome around 2 BC. This makes her an appropriate candidate for Archeleus's Mariamne. The one in whom he had no interest (being an infant). Her redemption by Bazeus would have occured in 6 AD, so she would have been 8 years old. Helena was said to be Bazeus's sister-wife. Perhaps their relationship began non-sexually due to her age, maybe she was even adopted into his household (an aristocratic necessity given her lost status in Judea).

If we assume from age 14 she birthed Izates and Monobazus (Addai/Thaddeus), then James, Simon, Joses. They were born 12-16 AD. Making Izates 30 during his Galilean ministry and 33-35 during his tenure as Theudas.

That's my new discovery. That Mariamne, wife of Archeleus, could have been "Mary" Salome, daughter of Herod/Herodias who then becomes Helena.

Meaning that Helena is Mary Salome, who is the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdelene. That "Zebedee" is Sabazios Monobazus the Tekton. Joseph of Joseph and Asenath, symbolically. That Izates and Monobazus are the "Sons of the Tumult", the Anileus and Asineus who ruled a Jewish empire along the Euphrates.

I think the Jewish Revolt involved this zealot faction, fighting for Jewish Adiabene (a new Assyria as the Kingdom of God), however it was mainly a project of the Ananian/Alexandrian Jews in concert with the Herodians and bought-off remnant Boethusians, working with the Flavians. There were also Galilean nationalists, but these had their day during Bar Kokhba.

The real war of the Christians was the Kitos War, both in Babylon and Egypt. The genuine, full bloody terror. The anticipated second coming of Christ in bloody glory to wash away the nations and burn the world in fire before it would be born anew.

I believe the horror and failure of that war led directly into Gnosticism. That the separate Bar Kokhba revolt created an anti-Jewish sentiment which spun Gnosticism into Marcionism, which in turn provoked a reaction that led to orthodoxy. Key to orthodoxy's battles against Marcionism were claims of apostolic authority.

These claims were pathetically sparse. As far as I can tell, all they have is Papias. So the catholicizers needed to double down on the literary project called the Gospels of Jesus of Nazareth as historical fact in order to claim the authority they sought.

My now more enlightened opinion is that the emphasis on textual authority as an expression of apostolic authority suppressed the mystery teachings. Catholic doctrine is invented in the third century by Greco-Roman philosophy students in the absence of a formerly robust (and diverse) set of oral teachings. Text-only left a vacuum and they filled it, creating orthodox Christianity.