Historicity Of Jesus Born From Syrian Politics With Rome In 200 AD

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Historicity Of Jesus Born From Syrian Politics With Rome In 200 AD

Post by yakovzutolmai »

In Josephus, as I have often argued, the story of Izates of Adiabene fighting a "Abia" of the Arabs is the story of the death of Sampsiceramus II of the Emesene dynasty of Arabs. This is because Izates is a descendent of Philip I Philadephus of Seleucia, who was a cousin, not a brother of the Seleucid claimants, being half-Assyrian himself probably. Philip II Philoromaios is both Tiridates II (Arsaces Philoromaios) of the Parthians, and Manu III Saflul of Osroene (Assyria). Monobazus, father of Izates, would be son of Philip II.

We know that Caracalla, in his defeat of Babylon and pillaging of Arbela - citadel of Adiabene - overturned the graves of kings. Caracalla and the Severan dynasty being staunch Emesenes.

What if Izates and Adiabene play a critical role in the historicity of the "historical Jesus"? What if Caracalla of Rome came from a family with a distinct grudge against them?

After 100 AD, the sovereign of Osroene sold the later County of Edessa - then a client kingdom of Rome on its side of the Euphrates - to a cousin. This cousin's descendent, by 200 AD, was King Abgar VIII "The Great" of Edessa. A Roman client king.

Since Abgar ruled during the Severan reign, we might speculate at the latter's opinion of kin of the rival family in Syria which at one time had their ancestor killed.

If, then, Izates is a central feature of proto-Christianity in the East, we could assume that a pro-Western polity would want to distance itself from that legacy.

Thus we see Abgar embrace the false history of Jesus's letter to Abgar Ukkama during the reign of Tiberius.

The goal is to convince the Severan dynasty that Edessa's Christianity is entire Roman and not at all related to those awful Adiabene kings who killed the ancestors of the Severans.

The "Doctrine of Addai" is one of the earliest Christian histories. What if it's totally fake and a redaction mean to retain Rome's favor? Related to the politics of the Severan dynasty, and the legacy of the Emesene rulers in Syria?

I would suggest that Doctrine of Addai cements the Tiberian dating of the narrative of Jesus of Nazareth, and confuses a more accurate review of the historicity of Jesus.

But I haven't heard anyone propose that the historiography is explained by Roman imperial politics.
Post Reply