Agabus And Kandake (From Acts) As Adiabene Royalty Per Eisenmann

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Agabus And Kandake (From Acts) As Adiabene Royalty Per Eisenmann

Post by yakovzutolmai »

In Eisenmann's view, Agabus symbolizes the royal house of Adiabene. The discussion of a discourse between church brethren in Antioch and Jerusalem in this context he sees as stemming from a historical discourse between the early Christian/Qumranite community and Adiabene (in his view, Edessa, though I would substitute Nisibis).

These parts of Acts pertain to the famine of 48 in which Helena played such a prominent role.

The controversy which begins in Antioch was the same discussed by Josephus when Ananias and Eleazar debate the need for Izates to be circumcised. This is totally appropriate in context. Historically, this was the beginning of a broader debate about circumcision within Judaism. Since that debate was represented in the Pauline literature, later Acts paints a Christian veneer over the debate and reframes the history as a church affair.

Additionally, in the story of Queen Kandake's Ethiopian eunuch, Eisenmann believes the author of Acts is actually speaking about Helena of Adibene. Kandake is a euphemism, and there is the invocation of the Sabean/Sabean word play (baptizers vs. Yemenites, roughly). She is "Ethiopian" because she is "Arab" generally, but also a daily washer. The historical Kandake died before the common era.

The eunuch then is Izates. He followed Ananias's advice and did not circumcise, but then he is later convinced to do so (i.e.: he cut his skin but shouldn't have, hence the derogatory).

The Talmudic discussion of this uses similar language to Philip's "Do you understand what you are reading?" invoking Genesis (incidentally, this same topic calls Izates a son of Ptolemy).

The meaning of this, in Eisenmann's view, is that Philip is the one who converts Izates to the strict sect of Judaism which becomes proto-Christianity. Of course, Helena joins him. In this sense, Philip is the famous "Evangelist" for accomplishing a major conversion. Moreover, Izates is the actual "Agbar", not the third century Edessan caricature of Doctrine of Addai.

My own view of this is as follows:
  • The removal of the Boethusians to Bashan occurred no later than 6 AD, and Philip the Tetrach who rules that domain has some family connection to them.
  • The Boethusians, as Beit Honiyyo, introduce proto-Gnostic elements from Leontopolis to the Essene and Samaritan sects of the Transjordan, creating the Nazarene sect.
  • Philip is converted to the Nazarene sect.
  • "John The Baptist" is no real person, but is the allegorical teacher associated with a set of sects in Transjordan who experience a regional great awakening due to displeasure with Rome and Herod. Including the arrival of both Egyptian and Babylonian Jews in Bashan with their on unique traditions of Judaism.
  • Izates and Helena are converted - by Philip the Tetrarch - to the Nazarene persuasion.
  • The dirty secret of Josephus and the AD 30s is that Antipas and Herodias had Philip killed for political reasons, but were supported by Jews unhappy with his sectarian leanings.
  • This, plus Antipas's troubles with Nabatea, can be described as a general usurpation consistent with his ambition to rule all Judea.
  • There was no John the Baptist to kill. Antipas killed Philip, and persecuted the Nazarenes, Essenes, etc. generally
I do identify Izates as Theudas. Herod Agrippa is insulted by Rome and re-installs a Boethusian High Priest, and begins making stronger ties with Eastern kings. Sampsiceramus II conflicts with Izates, and Izates defeats him near Lebanon. The Boethusians are persecuted by the Ananians, Agrippa is poisoned. Izates as Theudas takes some sort of action or ministry leading to his death.

Then, Helena chooses to infuse the Nazarene sect with wealth, in addition to sponsoring other sects. The House of Hillel keeps baiting her, but she can't help but keep supporting these sects.

Helena's sponsorship funds the proto-Christian community, which takes off in the 50s with a messianic expectation for James and Simon, recognizing Theudas and Helena as the Holy Mother and Child. With James's, later Simon's deaths, the movement reorients and splits. Versions of it are immensely popular after the Temple's destruction, which validated the sect in spite of its failed messianic implications.

Pauline literature is written later, as heads cool, to deradicalize former cult adherents (i.e.: it's okay to start living the gentile lifestyle now).

Three stages to Christianity:
1) Nazorean sect = Leontopolis proto-Gnosticism to Bashan where it mingles with Essene and Samaritan sects
2) Christian sect = The influence stemming from the conversion of the Adiabene royals to the Nazarene sect
3) Pauline corpus = Deradicalizing Christians, steering towards Philo's template, after the trauma of the temple's destruction fades into memory.

This is why Josephus even mentions Helena and Izates. You'd never know why anyone should care based on the current version of Antiquities. However, by seeing these narratives represented in Acts, we can understand that they're essential to Christian origins and probably at one point there was a copy of Josephus which place the role of the Christian cult in leading to the Jewish revolt into context.

"We can thank the Christians for this disaster" is something I imagine which could never survive the redactions of orthodoxy. However, this may very well have been the context for Josephus mentioning the story of Izates's conversion to Judaism.
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: Agabus And Kandake (From Acts) As Adiabene Royalty Per Eisenmann

Post by yakovzutolmai »

The eunuch "Simeon Bachos" compare "Simon Boethus". Also, the same is "Simeon the Black" compare Abgar "Ukkama" (the black).
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: Agabus And Kandake (From Acts) As Adiabene Royalty Per Eisenmann

Post by yakovzutolmai »

If Simeon Niger is "Ukkama" aka Izates, then the "brethren at Antioch" (Nisibis? Edessa?) as: "Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul" can overlap with the family of Jesus.

"James, Joseph (Joses), Judas (Jude), and Simon"

James and Simon are in Judea. Barnabas is Joses, and appears as the ecclesiastical authority in Nisibis. Judas is Thomas.

I identify Izates as "Jesus", so Thomas is Monobazus. In the Syriac chronicle, the Abgarid kings after 31 AD reign for 14 and 20 years respectively. That means a death of 45-46 for Izates, which corresponds to the death of Theudas. Giving Monobazus a death in 65-66.

Through James and Simon, we identify the patriarch of this family as Judas of Gamala. In Jewish Wars, Manahem ben Judah is also a son of Judas.

In this vein, Manahem = Monobazus. Manahem died at the appropriate 65-66. Simon bar Giora is present at Masada, and his forces feature the Adiabenian kinsmen Monobazus (the "third") and Kenedeus. We also see that Monobazus (the "second") was prominent enough to have his own palace in Jerusalem in addition to the palace which had belonged to his mother Helena.

Manaen may probably be Manahem, i.e.: Monobazus. I suspect this is also the "Menander" who succeeded "Simon Magus".

Lucius of Cyrene appears to invoke Lukuas of Cyrene, if only to distinguish him from some other Lucius. Lukuas during the Kitos War, which did appear to involve the Babylonian Jews, presumed to be king of the Jews during his revolt in Judea. Lukuas is also called Andreas, though I don't know what to make of it.

Saul is Saulos the Costabaran, and the Herod of Manaen is certainly Agrippa II, not Antipas. Agrippa I appeared to desire to create a confederation of Eastern kings. Agrippa II is fully Roman, and in league with the Costabarans.

Jesus = Theudas = Izates (Abgar Ukkama, Simeon Niger); James = Jacimus son of Zamaris, Simon = Simon bar Giora, Judas Thomas = Monobazus = Manaen/Manahem/Menander, Joses = Barnabas

As the sons of "Judas":
Izates ruled Adiabene first, and Monobazus was his heir as king of Osrhoene/Adiabene. James was governor of Batanea, and was the object of messianic expectations inherited from Izates. Simon appears to have succeeded in James's messianic role. Joses appears to have inherited the right to lead the church in the East at "Antioch" (Nisibis).

Josephus tells us that Bazeus's sons competed with Izates for the throne. Presumably from his other wives, with the sticking point of Izate's Judaism. In this vein, other than Izates and Monobazus (who very well could be twins), I wouldn't expect the sons of Bazeus and Helena to be competitive for the throne of Adiabene.

As the brethren of "Antioch":
Joses Barnabas is the pillar of Antioch, Simeon Niger is Izates, Lucius is unknown, Manaen is Monobazus/Menahem, Saul is Saulos.

The occasion is unclear, but Izates's life holds the following sequence:
1) Conversion by Philip (Tetrarch?) to Nazorean sect.
2) Monobazus converts.
3) Adiabene revolts via Sampsiceramus II in reaction Monobazus's conversion, whom Izates defeats (42)
4) Herod Agrippa dies (44), Theudas arises
5) Theudas dies (45-46)
6) James and Simon are persecuted

The conversion of Izates and Helena would occur ca. 31 AD (+/- 5 years). This would likely involve Ananus the elder and Simon Cantheras + Eleazar Boethus + Joazer (Andrew) Boethus. Here is the "incident at Antioch" with a disagreement about circumcision. Per the Ethiopian Eunuch, Philip resolves the debate to Izates's satisfaction.

Since the Acts 13:1 narrative doesn't correspond to "Paul's" incident, and since Manaen is part of the sect, it must occur from 42-44.

Finally, there is a schism in this group by the time of the Jewish revolt. We see that Agrippa II supports Rome. Philippus the son of Jacimus supports Rome and Agrippa II. Yet, "Menahem" and Simon, with Monobazus and Kenedeus, are fighting as the zealots (note Simon's coins "redemption of zion" while John of Ghiscala prefers "freedom of zion", a religious vs. a nationalistic imperative).

Simon bar Giora suspects Matthias Boethus (a candidate for Matthias, another Basilidian precursor) after first accepting him as High Priest.

We see after the death of James, Martha Boethus marries Jesus of Gamala, who is aligned with James's killer Ananus.

We also see that the Paul of the epistles is
1) Opposed to James
2) Identifies as the counterparty to Peter in the incident in Antioch

This marks Paul's author as representing himself in the place of Ananus and Ananus ben Ananus. Rather than as Saul, the companion of Barnabas who is the Paul of Acts. The importance of this lies with the association of Martha Boethus with Ananus's "side", the idea of Paul as counter-"Jamesian", the betrayal of Philippus and Agrippa against the Babylonian zealots, and Simon's mistrust of Matthias Boethus.

In other words, hypothesis: the house of Boethus splits from the house of "Judas" after the death of James, joining with Ananus and Rome.

This is in line with my identification of Tiberius Claudius Balbilus as the Basilides of Vespasian's ascension (Suetonius), whom I believe may have been the original author of the Pauline corpus: a ca. 65 AD effort to subvert Christian zealotry while also promoting Vespasian in the context of Eastern prophetic traditions.

Paul is originally an apologetic text, defending Ananus ben Ananus as theological correct in the Jewish-Christian milieu, while also laying the groundwork for Jewish support of Roman authority as an eschatological consequence (Pax Romana and Pan-Hellenic modernity as the endgame of Jewish political messianism, and derived from God's will for the world and the Jews).

If you have followed this far, there is only one remaining question: who is Lucius of Cyrene? I assume this Lukuas escaped to Cyrene after 70 AD, only to be present around 115 to claim the leadership of the Kitos revolt as the last living successor to the "brethren of Antioch" and "sons of Judas". The Acts narrative must therefore be post-115, the "of Cyrene" a post-70 moniker.

He is not included in the brothers of Jesus. What is interesting is that Lukuas was also called Andreas. Andreas being pseudonymic for a physician. Which Luke is remembered as having been. Although a 20-year old Lucius at 43 AD could have "led" a revolt in 115, the advanced age makes it unlikely.

We also have the Gnostic concession of Simon of Cyrene being crucified by mistake in Jesus's place. It is very possible this is a memory of Simon bar Giora. Why he received "Cyrene" is unclear.

We see that the Basilideans begin their school's activity in the immediate aftermath of the Kitos revolt, which had devastated Alexandria.

We also know of extreme, gruesome acts of depraved violence attributed to Lukuas's band. It's very possible that the Kitos War was the last gasp of violent, Christian messianism (I hold that Osroes, the counterparty in Babylon, was even possibly the son of Izates). Bar Kokhba being a more Pharisaical, purely nationalistic revolt (the Jewish Revolt as nationalistic and Christian, Kitos as Christian, Bar Kokhba as nationalistic).

If Kitos is interpreted as the nail in the coffin of violent Christianity, then we see in the rise of Basilidean and Valentinian (Simonian, etc.) schools a much cleaner break away from the "Christian" school of theology.

Balbilus - my candidate for Basilides and the Pauline author - retired and died at Ephesus, but his granddaughter lived prominently at Alexandria during the founding period of the Basilidean school. It's possible she sponsored it, using the legacy of her father to proliferate a Gnostic alternative to the Chrestus cult.

For this reason, Acts is later written to include and absorb Lukuas. The figurehead of the Kitos revolt is brought into the circle with the zealots of the first revolt.

Basilides then is claiming his knowledge from Matthias (last High Priest, a Boethusian), Menander (Manaen/Monobazus/Menahem) and Glaucias. Again, pseudonymic for a physician, perhaps invoking Lukuas. A clean sweep of proto-Christian notables.

So the Basilidean school is setting up as the post-Kitos successor cult, and its patrons are likely well aware of their subversion. They may favor the Gnostic elements of the Chrestus sect (derived from proto-Sethian forms), but abhor its violent messianism.

We also see, in short order, the emergence of Valentinism and Marcionism. In this era we have plentiful Gnostics. Marcellina, Cerdo, etc. Not so many orthodox Christians other than dumb made up bottle characters like Polycarp.

Simon and Lucius of "Cyrene" implying a post-115 authorship for Acts, and derivation from the influence of Egyptian Gnostics post-Kitos.

The Petrine and Markian literature seems to hail from the Pontic remnant of the Flavian group.

Perhaps this identifies Alexandria as the source of Luke-Acts, which would then make Asia the home of the Johannite school.

Either way, it's breathtaking to imagine that Menahem might be King Munbaz, and that this is the same "Menander" the Basilideans claim as their connective ligament to "Simon Magus". Perfectly consistent with my overarching hypothesis that Simon Magus was Simon Boethus, bringing the proto-Gnosticism of Leontopolis to Batanea where it merged with the Essene school.
robert j
Posts: 861
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Agabus And Kandake (From Acts) As Adiabene Royalty Per Eisenmann

Post by robert j »

yakovzutolmai wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:36 am In Eisenmann's view, Agabus symbolizes the royal house of ...
I had to chuckle a bit when I read your opening line here. Just a few days earlier I was tempted to respond to one of your previous posts with something along the lines of --- 'like Eisenman on acid'
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: Agabus And Kandake (From Acts) As Adiabene Royalty Per Eisenmann

Post by yakovzutolmai »

robert j wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:28 pm
yakovzutolmai wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:36 am In Eisenmann's view, Agabus symbolizes the royal house of ...
I had to chuckle a bit when I read your opening line here. Just a few days earlier I was tempted to respond to one of your previous posts with something along the lines of --- 'like Eisenman on acid'
Eisenmann's principal flaw is his Zionist fervor. He wants to read a heroic tale of national devotion into the evidence.

His other main failing is having to go it alone, given the regrettable state of scholarship. He's unable to have simple mistakes corrected, or an environment in which to refine hunches into a hypothesis with good concordance.

I'm not a scholar. I'm a clue and hunch pursuer. I'm not selling books, either.

I guess many people here like getting into the nitty gritty of Greek language "did they mean shepherd of men or a man who is a shepherd". I don't see how 19th century critics, spitballing theories no better than Eisenmann's and with less evidence, remain more authoritative.

I don't see the problem with saying that Simon Magus is a second century allegory used to combat Simonian evangelizers, but that Simon Boethus was the historical inspiration for the character.

I don't understand why assuming that Acts is history, and presuming a bunch of apostolic church brethren running around appointing Deacons and curing leprosy, when a magician flies over and tries to curse them into selling their secrets, is a good context for history. Why would there be any reason to assume a "Peter" ever met a "Simon Magus"?

So all of the grounded scholarship, the hundreds of scholarly articles unpacking what Simon's motivations might have been vis-a-vis the church, all that is far more imaginative than what I've come up with.

I have to make up little narratives to give expository context. I don't know if Judas the Galilean's family was literally his family. But I'd say the faction was real, and not some Josephan abstraction. At least, it's a good basis for a hypothesis. In which case I call them a family to keep it simpler in order to exposit on the wider implications.

In this case, with the Adiabene connection, we are saying there is a Sicarii religious foundation, and the East evolves that cult in a completely different direction from the West. The parallel evolution and erstwhile interaction explains a lot that would be hard to explain unless you posited a distinct Eastern faction to complement Western groups.

Eisenmann was the first to do this since, I believe, one or two weak efforts in the 19th century.
Post Reply