More Rationale For Izates And Monobazus As Anileus and Asineus

[yakovzutolmai]

The narrative in Josephus about Anileus and Asineus suggests a bandit kingdom. A rogue state, similar to ISIS (as it were, in practically the same territory), carved out due to a lack of resources to address it from both the Eastern and Western powers.

The A&A state was along the Euphrates, from Nisibis to Naedra. Created by Jews renowned for their martial skill and zealotry.

The brothers A&A are encountered by a Parthian general who has a renowned wife, so beautiful Anileus kills the general and takes her for himself. If you were naive to the unspoken elements, you could easily identify this as Helena of Adiabene. Who, as a confused point in history, was married to both Monobazus of Adiabene, and Abgar Ukkama of Edessa.

Eisenmann has built a case in which Kandake and Simon Niger (the eunuch) in Acts are Helena and Izates. I would agree with this for so many reasons. Not the least of which is Ukkama like Niger referring to the color black. The fact that Anileus marries this person, and that so does Abgar, is further corroboration of these identifications via parallelism.

Yet, could Izates have married his own mother? On the one hand, I find this element of the story to be unnecessary. It could easily have been fabricated or invented later for idiosyncratic reasons (consider the idea of the immaculate conception as history). On the other hand, the ancients had certain strange reasons to cause brothers to marry sisters, and so forth. Perhaps, if Izates did marry his mother, it was purely a political action.

We might remember that Phraates V and his mother, Musa, were allegedly married for political reasons. According to a theory. In fact, permit me this, Phraates V was part of that famous exchange of hostages for the Roman eagles, negotiated by Marcus Agrippa in 23 BC, which was facilitated by the military actions of Tiridates II AKA Arsham. I identify Tiridates II as Ma'nu III Saflul, father of Bazeus Monobazus, husband of Helena.

Phraates IV sent his sons to Rome to avoid a succession crisis. Josephus relates the same story about Izates and his brothers. These parallels led some (Ralph Ellis) to conflate these characters.

However, let me promote a theory. First, a concession. Perhaps sending hostages to Rome of rival brothers and marrying your mother for political reasons were just "Parthian things" and both Phraates and Izates were doing it. However, if we have more to say about it...

The theory is that Josephus is using the life of Phraates IV and Phraates V to MASK the history of Izates. That, to Roman audiences, Babylon/Parthia was the "East" and details were irrelevant. Josephus has an agenda to mask Izates's true history, and so he invoked a familiar sounding history of the Phraates, and grants these elements to Izates to conceal the truth of his ascension to power and death.

In other words, Anileus and Asineus are the true history of Izates and Monobazus. Josephus knows his audience is familiar with a Jewish uprising in Babylon, so he uses these pseudonyms. He specifically mentions Helena as a captive to distance her legacy from these events.

Then, for Izates, who is know as a patron of Jerusalem, he grants generic elements from the lives of prominent Babylonian kings. Ignorant readers will take for granted the unspoken details of Izates' history.

The true history can be unpacked with the following principles:

Edessa and its historical kings - Edessa does not exist as a kingdom until Osroes sells it to a cousin around 100 AD, and Edessa's history is recorded during the reign of Abgar the Great (who is more Arab than Jewish). The Abgarid history of 200 AD becomes everything we know about Edessa and Osroene, and the rest is lost. So, the Assyrian king Abdissares from 230s BC is recorded by 200 AD Arab scholars as Abdu. Mannaen or Mannai or Manneus becomes "Ma'nu". The Abgarid kings are Arabized expressions of 400 years of history, as recorded in 200AD.

We vaguely know of the Arbelan satrapy "Adiabene", so history knows Adiabene and Osreone, with the crucial Nisibis in a grey area.

The reality is, perhaps, that Abdissares rose as the ASSYRIAN king. I would style it as the abortive fourth great Assyrian empire. Assyriologists would probably agree. Parthia recognized Abdissares, and via Philip (whom I conjecture is the half-Assyrian, half-Seleucid grandson of Abdissares), Parthia grants Syria to the king of Adiabene. Osroene is just Assyria, which is synonymous with Syria to everyone except the Romans whose Syrian province contained only a portion of Assyria. It was not the King of Parthia's to give, as Rome had something to say about it.

Meaningfully, the Arab tribes had been quietly oath-bound to the Assyrian royalty since their defeat around 700 BC. The Arabs and Israelites were the last, loyal defenders of Neo-Assyria at Harran (near Edessa). I would say command of the Arab, Syrian, tribal loyalties is why both Parthia and partially even Rome acknowledged the importance of the family of Adiabene. We also observe an interesting, consistent relationship between Arabs and Jews in Egypt as well, where Alexander the Jewish Alabarch is the primary representative of Arab tribal interests in Roman Egypt.

What happens, therefore, is that Izates and Monobazus converting to sectarian Judaism enrages the Assyrians. Josephus records this, as Izates must fight an Arab king to keep his dominion. I have shown how this is likely Sampsiceramus II.

With this in mind, Izates and Monobazus joining a radical, pro-circumcision, pious and xenophobic sect of Jews is the moment in which the Assyrian royal line receives its "divorce" of nearly 1000 years from the Arabs. I believe, if Philip the Seleucid is the grandson of Abdissares (among the Abgarids, Ma'nu II), then his son is Philip II AKA Tiridates II of Parthia AKA Ma'nu III Saflul. Arsham to Armenian history. By context, Philip is probably Ptolemy Menneus of Lebanon, so Philip II is Philippion, who married Alexandra the daughter of Hyrcanus II. A Hasmonean.

By this logic, Monobazus I is half Macedonian-Assyrian, half Hasmonean. If Helena is Mariamne Boethus, then Izates and Monobazus are Hamonean-Boethusian Jews of the highest priestly pedigree AND the inheritors of Seleucia and Neo-Assyria. That's a big deal.

If they formally convert to radical Judaism, where they'd be welcomed due to matrilineal descent, then this could trigger the end of the Assyrian relationship with the Arabs (though it appears to be very much restored in Hatra, by the Sanatrucian descendants of Izates). For what it's worth, multiple sources discuss the possession of certain idols by the Hatran/Adiabene royalty. These are gravely important. I could believe that Neo-Assyria stole crucial idols from Arab tribes in 700BC, and essentially physically control them through the Arbelan and Hatran periods. This could easily explain the loyalty of Arab tribes and the importance of Hatra. I would go so far as to say that the Emesenes adopted to the Helios cult to build a counter-sect, which syncretized at Manbij. And, I'd not doubt if these same idols which Neo-Assyria might have physically captured around 700 BC are present in 600 AD in Mecca and subject to the discussion in Islamic history.

It is in Armenian history, contrary to other records, where Sanatruk is called the son of Izates. By historical context, we can identify this actual son as Osroes of Parthia. The target of Trajan's invasion. Izates, before converting to radical Judaism, was married to the princess of Characene, and Osroes would have been the Hamonean-Boethusian-Seleucid-Assyrian-Characene heir, giving no wonder as to his claims over Babylon.

Nevertheless, we see in Izates's war against the Arabs and Assyrians, a perfect expression of Josephus's description of Anileus and Asineus and their besieged, beleaguered little Jewish kingdom on the Euphrates.

The final piece of evidence comes, again, from Armenian history. Historians for the life of them cannot reconcile Armenian and Syriac histories. The key is Anileus and Asineus as Izates and Monobazus.

Armenian history emphasizes Nisibis as the capital of Assyria. So much so that Tigranokerta lived in the shadow of Nisibis. That the throne passed from Nisibis to Edessa in the 30s. No way. They are taking the false history of 200 AD Edessa, where an Edessan Abgar receives Jesus's letter, and applying it to other histories.

Why this emphasis on Nisibis?

We would expected first century Assyria to have been ruled from Arbela. Trajan and Caracalla seemed more interested in Arbela than anywhere else.

Why Nisibis?

Ah, but then you have Anileus and Asineus. The only other record other than portions of the Mishnah to emphasize Nisibis.

There it is. Armenian history is aware of Abgar (200AD) and his Edessan (false) history from the time of Jesus. Armenian history also seems to acknowledge that Assyrian power during the actual (alleged) time of Jesus was held at Nisibis (Anileus and Asineus kingdom). The story of Abgar Ukkama is merely reconciling these histories.

The narrative of Izates and Monobazus is the only matching or fitting piece that explains what the A&A kingdom was. And anyway, the Amutani of Armenia are known to have come from Adiabene (not Edessa). Their citadel at Maku is the home of the hagiographical visit of Thaddeus to Sanatruk. This is the home of the princess Sanduhkt, Jewish of Hamadan. It's a locus.

The abortive fourth Assyrian empire becomes the even more abortive Jewish messianic state of the Euphrates. Izates dies in 45 AD.

It's a tale for another day, but the short story is that the slaughter at Gamala was a mistake. The effort of a zealous general before Herod Agrippa II could arrive to pardon the Bathyran Jews. If you view it this way, and take their own admission that Monobazus is their king, then one can easily see Menahem the zealot as Monobazus. He seized the armory at Masada in DEFIANCE of Herod Agrippa, out of RAGE, from the death of his compatriots at Gamala.

If we view Monobazus II, Munbaz the patron of Jerusalem who with Helen his mother ameliorated its famine in 48, as Asineus, master of a small and weak, beleaguered Jewish kingdom of the Euphrates. Scorned by the Assyrian nobility and enemy of Arabs. King of Nisibis and just a little more. Nisibis - Antioch Mygdonia - the Antioch of Acts 13 where the famine relief is organized. The Babylonian Jews of Bathyra - the James community. James as Jacimus, the commander of Bahtyra. Father of Phillippus who failed to protect Gamala from Rome. Bathyra the branch of Nisibis. In Hebrew, Nasara. Nasara of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Transposed into Nazareth.

If Monobazus II is Asineus, he doesn't really have much of an army to bring into Judea. Here's your answer, Dr. Eisenmann. The Euphrates Jews were too beleaguered by Parthia to send any support against Rome.

So Monobazus (Manaen in Acts, Menahem in Josephus) takes what men he can gather, and goes to where he knows weapons may be found. Masada.

Zamaris the founder of Bathyra, if he is Monobazus I, is father of Izates and Monobazus II. Zamaris, per Josephus is the father Jacimus of Bathyra, grandfather of Phillippus who is Agrippa II's general. James and Simon, sons of Judas of Gamala.

Izates and Monobazus, twins. James and Simon and Joses their brothers. Izates as Simon Niger and Monobazus as Manaean or Thomas Didymus or Addai (Jude or Thaddeus). Simon as Simon bar Giora.

Simon bar Giora as King of Babylonian Jews after the death of Menahem. Simon bar Giora found in his purple cloak, crucified and taken from the cross by Josephus. Sent to Rome to be thrown from the Rock. Peter.

The narrative is totally complete. Every element explained and in context.

Nisibis. Essential to Anileus and Asineus, but also Abgar and Arsham. Only to them. Nisibis.

And now we could explain why the King of the Babylonian Jews - allegedly, ostensibly heir to Adiabene - lacked the ability or will to support the zealots during the Jewish War.

[DCHindley]

That is a quite detailed history you propose!

This is an area where my knowledge is well below the level that I have of Roman rule over the Judean heartland. I have been thinking about expanding my exposure to the Parthian sphere as well. I also agree that the rulers of Adiabene are important influences on Babylonian Jewry but our knowledge of them is rather murky. I have to admit, though, that I find many of your equations to be especially speculative and based on vague parallels.

Again, I have to ask, what *specific* sources are you drawing from?

Primary: I am hoping for specific citations of editions/translations of primary sources. Since I only speak English I would personally be interested in English translations of the relevant sections. I can hunt them down if necessary, with academic style citations.

Secondary: Some of what you say resonated with Neusner's books on Babylonian Jews (I have the volume on the period of Pathian rule), so I think you have at least looked this volume over, but what other scholars (and their works) are you drawing from?

Thanks!

DCH

[yakovzutolmai]

That is a quite detailed history you propose!

This is an area where my knowledge is well below the level that I have of Roman rule over the Judean heartland. I have been thinking about expanding my exposure to the Parthian sphere as well. I also agree that the rulers of Adiabene are important influences on Babylonian Jewry but our knowledge of them is rather murky. I have to admit, though, that I find many of your equations to be especially speculative and based on vague parallels.

Again, I have to ask, what *specific* sources are you drawing from?

Primary: I am hoping for specific citations of editions/translations of primary sources. Since I only speak English I would personally be interested in English translations of the relevant sections. I can hunt them down if necessary, with academic style citations.

Secondary: Some of what you say resonated with Neusner's books on Babylonian Jews (I have the volume on the period of Pathian rule), so I think you have at least looked this volume over, but what other scholars (and their works) are you drawing from?

Thanks!

DCH

The primary sources are few. I spent some time for a few months in Jstor trying to understand the Parthian side and the paucity of evidence is suffocating. Most of our understanding of what's happening in Mesopotamia come from sources which start to emerge and discuss the situation of the third century onward, which submits this history to the same problems faced in studying Christian history.

History is willing to discuss Hatra, Emesa and Adiabene, and it is away of links and relationships between them, but there is almost no exploration of those links. In addition to the paucity of evidence (compounded by a serious lack of Parthian records), the region also suffers from being a border area. The sources in Roman or Persian history would treat it peripherally, so there is understandable scholarly disinterest.

The primary sources are as follows:

• Moses of Chorene's Armenian History
• Chronicle of Zuqnin (Syriac)
• Ephrem of Nisibis
• Numismatic and Archeological

You can add Josephus as well as your pick of Roman epitomes which occasionally reference something from the region. The Parthian hostages and the Eagles of Carrhae are a notable example.

Finally, Seleucid sources. These are surprisingly insufficient. Numismatic hole patching seems to inform a large part of the history of the final years of the dynasty. My personal methodology is to start with Wikipedia, Britannica, Livius, check their source lists, then move on to Jstor searches for a deeper discussion.

I have found, for instance, scholarly interpretations of the Abgarid dynasty of Edessa to be plainly wrong. A clear example is a "king" of Edessa is "Pacor". For many reasons, including some accepted in scholarship, this is obviously the Parthian Pacorus. The scholarly consensus on the dating of Edessan kings has Pacor reigning almost a decade later than he should be. I went to the primary source (Zuqnin), where two distinct events are mentioned (Herod rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem is one of them). I used that date as an anchor. Lo and behold, Pacorus ends up reigning in the correct time period.

It seems the Syriac scholars (who really are studying Edessa from the third century to the eight or ninth) backdated from around 200 AD in reconstructing the kings list. In my opinion, the kings list is halfway fraudulent, in that it was contrived around 200 AD due to the reign of Abgar the Great, and that his kingdom of Osroene-Edessa didn't exist until 100 AD. Prior to that, the kings list is expression "Which king or emperor, or tribal chief had dominion over the Assyrian territory". Again, the only scholars of this are Syriac scholars, whose primary interest is much later in history.

A problem common to Christian scholarship emerges. I personally believe, and I'm not alone, that the Doctrine of Addai where the King of Edessa in 30AD corresponds with Jesus, is a fabrication of 200 AD and the reign of Abgar the Great. I believe the need to insert this event into Edessa's history caused the Syriac scribes to project Edessa back into history where the polity didn't exist. Since there are Christianity scholars who accept that Addai might be a fabrication, then surely there could be Syriac scholars who question the early history of Edessa? Reasonable, isn't it? The problem is, the scholarship is just not that active. And, until recently, the standard biblical narrative has dominated history scholarship. Christian and Muslim scholars from Mediterranean and Near East countries are accepting the reality of the 30AD Abgar in their historiographical consciousness. Since their interest is later in history, no serious Syriac scholar has loudly investigated the time period. As far as I can tell with Jstor.

I don't know Neusner. I will investigate.

I have found an independent researcher who has now moved on, who published a document about 15 years ago investigating the Babylonian Jew/Samaritan environment and he drew many of the same conclusions I have. I believe there is a nexus of evidence suggesting something here.

A final note on Anileus and Asineus:

My methodology is to take a same time, same place approach and then do some historiographical thinking on why certain sources would discuss an event a certain way. If you encounter the same time, same place, same people, then it is likely that any events occurring in that locus would be interconnected. Therefore, if the sources do not go into detail on the interconnection and dynamic of back and forth, cause and effect of these same time, same place events, then there is a problem with the sources. Maybe not a problem, but a historiographical artifact, a reason for the source to exclude or include details to shape the history.

One conclusion I have come to frequently, is that Josephus (not the writer, but the source, which is not earlier than 1000AD though of course we know of earlier versions which may have been very similar) repeats stories, uses synonyms, and obscures events sometimes.

I have recently concluded, more or less in this topic or one earlier, that there are many parallels between the Jewish, beleaguered bandit state of the Euphrates, controlled by Anileus and Asineus, and the Jewish, beleaguered, Assyrian state controlled by Izates and Monobazus. There's a same time, same place problem. While an establishment historian (people who don't like historiographical analysis or revision) might try to argue we simply have a coincidental parallel and two states that don't fully overlap, when you react to an argument like that, you start to see how complex that argument becomes. The relationship between a Jewish bandit state, that, according to Josephus, forever changes the status of Jews in Babylon, and then a contemporaneous Jewish state in Babylon appearing just afterward requires a lot of concessions and complex dynamics and becomes almost more difficult to prove. It's possible, of course. However, if Josephus is concealing history with the use of pseudonyms, then he would deliberately separate his pseudonymic "bad sheep" state from the better known official state whose history he is trying to keep pristine. With any historical skill, he could easily placate future historians with his narrative.

However, if I purely speculate (with evidence and identified parallels even in the language used in the sources) that Anileus's state was Izates's, suddenly (via an integration of narrative) I have a powerful locus of history which influences other same place, same time events in an explanatory way. Overintegration can be historically problematic, but one major integration at a time when working with limited evidence is a good way to test narratives and connects disparate evidence.

[yakovzutolmai]

That is a quite detailed history you propose!

This is an area where my knowledge is well below the level that I have of Roman rule over the Judean heartland. I have been thinking about expanding my exposure to the Parthian sphere as well. I also agree that the rulers of Adiabene are important influences on Babylonian Jewry but our knowledge of them is rather murky. I have to admit, though, that I find many of your equations to be especially speculative and based on vague parallels.

Again, I have to ask, what *specific* sources are you drawing from?

Primary: I am hoping for specific citations of editions/translations of primary sources. Since I only speak English I would personally be interested in English translations of the relevant sections. I can hunt them down if necessary, with academic style citations.

Secondary: Some of what you say resonated with Neusner's books on Babylonian Jews (I have the volume on the period of Pathian rule), so I think you have at least looked this volume over, but what other scholars (and their works) are you drawing from?

Thanks!

DCH

Here's an interesting article if you'd like a more scholarly discussion of the perspective I'm describing:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/45019268

Again, Parthian history is mostly lost. The Sassanids destroyed it, however it seems the Jews and Byzantines also had no interest in it.

This article discusses the "Parthica" a lost Roman epitome on Parthian history. It proposes that excerpts of it are fabrications of the Byzantine era and discusses what might have happened.

Note the premise. The Byzantines seem unhappy with both late Seleucid and Parthian history, for some reason.

Consider, as an example, the alliance between John Hyrcanus and Antiochus Sidetes. Sidetes's ill-fated campaign to retake Persia from Parthia had some victories. It is speculated that the Hasmonean king joined him in his campaign as an ally. Moreover, it is speculated that the epithet "Sidetes" might have come from Antiochus showing piety to the Jewish God in order to win the support of Hyrcanus. There is all kind of speculation, and no evidence, on John's name Hyrcanus. The best theory being that he won a battle in Hyrcania, and like Africanus, took the title in honor of his victory.

And yet, the entire history of that campaign or any discussion of these theories is absent from our histories. It's all speculation on the part of historians. No ancient source discusses these events in meaningful detail.