Ages in Chaos Conclusion's summary

[Richard Stanley]

Below is Velikovsky's concluding summary of parallels that a skeptic must discount in order to dismiss his chronological alignment of Ahmose I (the founder of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty) with Saul, the first of the Hebrew 'kings'. Among the many consequences of this realignment is that the Biblical Queen of Sheba can clearly be identified as Hatshepsut and Akhenaton can be seen as living in the time of kings Jehoshaphat (of Judea) and Ahab (of Samaria / Israel). The latter alignment, of course, creates problems for any that want to associate Moses with Akhenaton. ... Or does it really?

In any case, the following summary of Velikovsky's only covers the aspecst covered by the parallels between the Amarna Letters and the OT books of Kings and Chronicles, not the material related to the temple wall murals of Hatshepsut and Tuthmose I, and such as the Ipuwer Papyrus regarding Ahmose I's alignment to Saul.

From Ages in Chaos pp. 332-4:

If one is determined to keep to the traditional construction of history and insist that the letters of el-Amarna were written to and from archaic Canaanite princes, he is also bound to maintain that in Canaan events occurred which recurred half a millennium later in the time of Jehoshaphat and Ahab. This makes it necessary to hold that there already was a city of Sumur [as spelled from the Amarna letters - not a reference to Sumeria - rs], of which not a relic remained; that this city, with a royal palace and fortified walls, was repeatedly beseiged by a king of Damascus, who had a prolonged dispute and recurrent wars with the king of Sumur over a number of cities, in a conflict that endured for a number of decades; that on one occasion the king of Sumur captured the king of Damascus but released him; that on the occasion of a siege of Sumur by the king of Damascus the guard attached to the governors succeeded in driving away the Syrian host from the walls of Sumur; that on the occasion of another siege of Sumur the Syrian host, hearing rumors of the arrival of the Egyptian archers, left their camp and fled--every detail an exact image of what happened again half a millenium later at the walls of Samaria.

The traditional construction of history implies also that the king of Damascus, who was at the head of a coalition of many Arabian chieftains, succeeded in fomenting a revolt by a Trans-Jordan king named Mesh against the king of Sumur, whose vassal he was, and this rebellious vassal king captured cities of the king of Sumur and humiliated his people, as in the days of Mesha's rebellion against the king of Samaria. That Rimuta was the place in dispute between the king of Damascus and the king of Sumur, as Ramoth was in the second epoch; that the king of Sumur had a second residence where a deity was worshiped whose name, Baalith, was the same as that of the deity introduced by Jezebel, and the king of Sumur planted groves in his second residence, like Ahab in the field of Naboth; that the king of Damascus organized a number of ambuscades against the king of Sumur, and the king of Sumur each time managed to escape death, like the king of Samaria of the second period; that the king of Damascus became gravely ill, yet did not die from the illness but was put to a violent death on his sickbed, like the king of Damascus of the second period.

This hypothetical scholar would also be bound to admit that all these coincidences happened at a time when the land of Sumur was visited by a drought, and the springs dried up and a severe famine followed; and the drought lasted several years and caused starvation of the people and epidemics among the domestic animals; and that the inhabitants departed from the realm of the two residences--everything just as it happened in the second period.

He would have to maintain that the two periods do not differ in any respect whatsoever, and that each event of one period has its twin in the other. The land of Edom was ruled by a deputy of the king of Jerusalem--in both cases. Tribes from as far away as Mount Seir invaded Trans-Jordan--in both cases. In the first period as in the second, the invaders threatened Jerusalem and caused the population of the kingdom to flee from their homes. The king of Jerusalem, like Jehoshaphat centuries later, was afraid of being driven with his people from their inheritance [via the eternal covenant with Abraham - rs] and expressed his fear in similar terms [as was expressed to Akhenaton - rs] , but everything turned out well when the tribes of Mount Seir and Trans-Jordan rose up against each other, as they did five to six hundred years later.

This scholar would also have to admit that the military chiefs of the Canaanite king of Jerusalem signed their letters with the same names as the military chiefs of Jehoshaphat, king of Jerusalem, and that the names were as peculiar and unusual as, for example, Iahzibada (Jehozabad) and "son of Zuchru" ("son of Zichri"), or Addaia (Adaia), or Adadanu (Adadani, Adna), who was again the first among the chiefs; that the [Egyptian - rs] governor of Sumur had the same name as the [Egyptian - rs] governor of Samaria of the later period (Amon), and that the keeper of the palace in Sumur was named Arzaia like the chief steward, Arza, of the king of Israel.

Again, in the city of Shunem (Shunama) lived a "great lady," and already in the first period some miracle had happened to her so that she was called Baalat-Nese. [Velikovsky failed to provide the parallel account here. rs]

And again, the king of Damascus had a [Egyptian -rs] military governor (Naa-man, Ianhama), by whose hand "deliverance was given to Syria," and who at first was feared by the king of Sumur but later on became the latter's friend, like his reincarnation six hundred years later.

Further, the successor of the murdered king of Damascus, by the name of Azuru or Azaru, acted like Hazael of the second period: he oppressed the land of Sumur; he conquered almost all the land of the realm; he burned with fire the strongholds and villages of the king of Sumur; he even spoke with the same peculiar expressions as Hazael did later on.

This scholar would also by faced with the fact that in the second period the city of Irqata again lost her king, and that King Matinu-Bali and King Adunu-Bali, under the leadership of Biridri, defied the mighty invader from the north, just as happened in the first period when a Biridia (Biridi) assumed the task of leading the kingless city of Irqata and King Mut-Balu and King Aduna against the invader from the north. In both cases this invader was the king of Assyria and the lord of Hatti. In both cases he was victorious over the coalition of Syrian and Palestinian princes helped by Egyptian battalions. In both cases he received placating presents from Musri (Egypt) in the form of rare animals or figures of such animals. Again, the king of Damascus, Hazael, battled with him between Lebanon and Hermon as did Azaru of the first period. Again, the kings of Tyre and Sido, harassed by this invader, left their cities and departed in ships, as they did six hundred years earlier.

In both periods the art of ivory work flourished, and identical patterns were produced: designs and execution, characteristic of the earlier period, were repeated in the same period, and have been found to be so similar that they have been taken for copies of the art objects of the first period.

In both periods the same architecture and stone workmanship (Megiddo, Samaria) found expression.

In both periods the same idiomatic Hebrew was spoken.

Can one accept such a series of coincidences? ....​

One then needs to ponder how the Egyptian king lists, as presented by Josephus Flavius, supposedly via Manetho, got out of sync by up to 500 or 600 years. Josephus Flavius? Where have we heard that name before? As Velikovsky states, one either has to move the biblical kings back or move the 18th Dynasty forward to regain alignment. The problem with moving the biblical kings back is they are also tied to external inscriptions from Assyria and Moab (the Mesha Stele). While the Amarna Letters are authentic, their dating is tied to the king list chronology, and thus our friend Josephus.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Josephus isn't the only surviving source of Manetho's king list. Wiki says the material is also presented in Africanus, Eusebius, Jerome, Syncellus and Malalas, though I suppose it's possible all of them got the information from Josephus or other corrupt sources. Also, Wiki gives a list of Egyptian king-lists from archaeological finds, including the Turin papyrus, Old Kingdom Annals, a list at Karnak, two lists at Abydos, and the Saqqara list. In order to compress all these Egyptian pharaohs into a short chronology, Velikovskyans generally suggest that some of the dynasties occurred in parallel, or are doppelgängers.

But it's not like we don't have any data other than Josephus. Conventional Egyptologists, rightly or wrongly, are pretty convinced that there's nothing basically wrong with their timeline.

The same situation pertains in Assyria. Multiple, redundant copies of king lists have survived, with very detailed chronological information. In order to make this information fit with a revised chronology, again it's necessary to assume parallel dynasties. Bernard Newgrosh is one advocate for this perspective, calling for a 140 year compression, but I think other solutions are possible. Newgrosh ran a series of papers about this, and then published a book that became very rare and expensive. So now it's been reprinted, I'm thinking of ordering a copy here:

http://mjhbrown.wix.com/aklist

 

[Richard Stanley]

As I typed that I was wondering if I might get caught out.

I wonder if Dualing Ashur-uballits might provide the solution, or some of it? Interesting how inverted the two characters were from each other. The common denominator seems to be the Mittani, who were heavily intermarried into the 18th Dynasty. And they were Indo-European, and apparently the source of the 'marriannu' charioteers to the region including to the same Egyptians. And if Sweeney is correct that the Mittani were the Medes then this is a major puzzle piece.

Of course, another possibility is that the Biblical narrative was indeed 'fabricated' from the known prior sources, as we and others have suspected. If one needs to bridge a chronological gap between two points in time that have problematic external references, then you need to fabricate a text to accommodate the gap. The place to do so would be within the framework we have laid out, where the 'weeds' have been cleared and new roots planted.

 

[Jerry Russell]

The new page above by mjhbrown does a pretty good job of summarizing Newgrosh. His original papers are available here --

http://www.newchronology.org/cgi-bin/somsid.cgi?session=1451871768&page=html/authors/auth-n

Once the conventional view that Ashur-Uballit of the Amarna letters is Ashur-Uballit I is rejected, a whole new vista of chronological possibilities opens up. Newgrosh has a suggestion for where to find the Amarna A-U, but no doubt there are other possibilities. It could develop into a similar situation to the controversy over the identity of biblical Shishak: most scholars say Sheshonq, but Velikovsky and Sweeney say Thutmose III, Rohl says Rameses II and James says Rameses III.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Emmet Sweeney's objections to Velikovsky's analysis of the chronology of the Amarna letters is found here:

http://www.hyksos.org/index.php?title=Who_Wrote_the_Amarna_Letters?

Sweeney identifies two potential objections to Velikovsky's proposal:

1) According to Assyrian inscriptions, the great king Shalmaneser III invaded Syria and fought a battle at Qarqar, where he opposed an army led by Hadadezer. The Israelite king Ahab is named as a participant. Twelve years later, Jehu pays tribute to this same ruler. Velikovsky suggests that in the Amarna letters, Shalmaneser III is mostly referred to as the "King of Hatti" and that the invasions attributed to the "King of Hatti" actually were conquests of Shalmaneser. Furthermore, Velikovski suggests that Shalmaneser III himself wrote some of the Amarna letters under the alias of Burna - Buriash II. Sweeney thinks that all of this is unlikely: the King of Hatti was Suppiluliuma I who was indeed conducting raids in Syria during this period. Burna-Buriash II might have written pompous letters, but he never claimed to be invading Syria either.

Sweeney accepts the synchronization of Shalmaneser III with Ahab and Jehu, and that none of these three rulers belong in the Amarna time frame. Another possible solution to this problem is that the Assyrian inscriptions of Shalmaneser might be referring to some other rulers, not Ahab and Jehu. Floyd Nolen Jones argues for this solution on different grounds here -- see pp. 160-168:

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Jones - Chronology of the OT.pdf

2) Velikovsky identifies Sumer (SMR) of the Amarna letters, as Samaria, Omri and Ahab's capital city. However, the Amarna letters describe the construction of a city named SMR which is being built from scratch in the middle of Akhenaten's reign by Azira, king of Syria/Damascus. The New Testament confirms that Omri was assisted by Syria in the construction of his Samaria. Accordingly, Sweeney argues, the references to SMR in earlier times must have been to the Phoenician port of Simyra, which he says makes more sense in context anyhow.

Sweeney suggests that the solution of these problems is to match the Amarna period to the time of Asa and Baasha, rather than the time of Ahab and Jehosophat. However, this has the disadvantage of throwing out many of the correspondences established by Velikovsky.

Furthermore: Sweeney claims to accept Velikovsky's identification of Amenhotep II with Zerah, the pharaoh who was defeated by Asa in the battle of Mareshah. But this battle took place early in Amenhotep II's reign, which would be 24 years before the beginning of Amenhotep III's time in power, and leaving only about 5 years of overlap between the reigns of Asa and Amenhotep III. Thus, Asa's reign was almost over before the earliest possible beginning of the Amarna age, and most of the letters from Jerusalem must have come from someone else, namely Jehosophat.

Both Velikovsky and Sweeney claim to see the character Abdastartus (from Josephus' quote of Menander) reflected in Abd'astarte of the Amarna letters, but the character in Josephus/Menander ruled during a time overlapping and just a few years after Solomon, so is not a match for either Amarna chronology.

Although it's possible that the true chronology overlaps with one or another of the revisionist proposals, it also seems conceivable that the Biblical text might contain typological literary elements that create a mapping to the Amarna period? As usual, it's hard to draw definitive conclusions.

 

[Richard Stanley]

As you and I discussed separately, without studying this more, I think this may point to a different conclusion than Velikovsky was positing, i.e that the Egyptian and Judaic narratives were contemporaneous and essentially equivalent accounts of the same period told from different perspectives. But rather that the Judaic one was a reworked, indeed redacted, version, with such as the names of the involved pharaohs veiled - and other politically expedient distortions. And thus our Intro post's treatment of David and Solomon was rather prescient viz-a-viz Velokovsky's parallels seeming to require a chronology shift. As such, maybe no shift is required here?

 

[Ruby Gray]

I have done some amateur study of astronomy for chronological purposes. Particularly re the Babylonian Exile relative to OT passages and prophecy. Of course we have the significant bank of records kept by the ancient Babylonian astronomers to help us here, and can correlate certain events to biblical equivalents by means of computed astronomy programs, to interesting effect.

The study of the cyclical Hebrew calendar is fascinating, particularly the comparison of the lunar and solar versions, used by the Pharisees and the Qumran community. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide much evidence that helps to establish the biblical chronology.

While there are many copying errors in Josephus where numerical figures are concerned, I find that his narrative can be verified by astronomy allied to the Shemittah cycle of the Hebrew calendar, lunar cycles, and earthquake records etc.

For instance, I find that the nativity occurred in 5 BC by study of Josephus' reference to the year of Herod's death, identified as that in which Herod killed dissenters on a day after which a total eclipse of the moon occurred.

Other commenters wrongly identify this total eclipse as having been some other insignificant eclipse which occurred in later year/s, but they reckon without the qualifying information given by Josephus, that this occurred within days of Yom Kippur. That feast is absolutely fixed in their lunar calendar, and can be determined to have occurred on September 13th/14th 5 BC, with the lunar eclipse occurring 2 nights later before midnight on September 15th 5 BC.

Josephus gets a bad rap at times for errors introduced by copyists, but here he is confirmed to be correct, and countless later scholars to be mistaken.

Following on the same line of enquiry then, and investigating many other chronological clues and established Hebrew calendation, I find that the crucifixion occurred in the unpopular year 29 AD. This however does tie up many loose ends glossed over by alternative suggestions, and neatly includes every scriptural allusion to the date.

So I suggest that Josephus not be too harshly criticised, rather, that his work be more closely studied in light of verifiable astronomical phenomena, lunar cycles and historical events.

And Velikovsky's summary of the correlations between Egyptian and Samaritan historical records, does sound too convincing to be easily dismissed. I may disagree about his hypothesis of the manna which fed the Israelites in the desert for 40 years being hydrocarbons falling from space, but he certainly makes some compelling arguments.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Josephus gets a bad rap at times for errors introduced by copyists, but here he is confirmed to be correct, and countless later scholars to be mistaken.

Following on the same line of enquiry then, and investigating many other chronological clues and established Hebrew calendation, I find that the crucifixion occurred in the unpopular year 29 AD. This however does tie up many loose ends glossed over by alternative suggestions, and neatly includes every scriptural allusion to the date.

So I suggest that Josephus not be too harshly criticised, rather, that his work be more closely studied in light of verifiable astronomical phenomena, lunar cycles and historical events.

Indeed, Josephus is key to understanding the entire NT, because he and his literary team wrote practically the entire thing, with the imprimatur of Imperial Rome. In doing so he did get rather creative at times. He told us most all the story, he just tweaked the most important names and borrowed some details from here and there. There is likely good reason that such as the Mandaeans and the Knights Temlpar venerated John the Baptist rather than Jesus (of Gamala / Edessa).

 

[Ruby Gray]

Indeed, Josephus is key to understanding the entire NT, because he and his literary team wrote practically the entire thing, with the imprimatur of Imperial Rome. In doing so he did get rather creative at times. He told us most all the story, he just tweaked the most important names and borrowed some details from here and there. There is likely good reason that such as the Mandaeans and the Knights Temlpar venerated John the Baptist rather than Jesus (of Gamala / Edessa).

Phew! Am I glad I'm not a Postflavian! My head is spinning after that whirlwind introduction.
Is there a whirlwind conclusion to go with all this? What is the payoff for Postflavians?

Somehow this post appended itself to the wrong thread! But I think it is still pertinent here.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Is there a whirlwind conclusion to go with all this? What is the payoff for Postflavians?

I'm not sure what you're looking for, as in what you would consider to be a whirlwind conclusion. If you are satisfied with accepting surface narratives then you have no need to waste your time here. As Jesus (the whomever) said, that the Truth will set you Free, however one first has to decide what Truth is and what being Free is. But yes, the Truth is stranger than fiction, perhaps a whirlwind - like the winds of Moriah.

What is the payoff? That at least when I die that my mind will be free, and not from merely drinking human blood and flesh, symbolic or literal. If you think that drinking human blood and flesh is enough then such as cows and goats should suffice thee, and thus no need to worry about such as an odd taxi cab here or there. For on that one cosmically unique day, (Zeus) Jupiter was between his divine sons when their sacrifice was memorialized. Upon their sacrifice, back in the day, they became the twin saviors of the Greco-Roman world, the Homeric brothers of Helen (of Troy), all three born from eggs.

When Paul (Josephus) made his trip to Rome, bringing his version of Christianity there, he rode upon a ship named Castor and Pollux. Now you must decide whether that was a(nother) divine message (announcing that a not so humble carpenter's son is supplanting the prior Age's beloved saviors) or some Elect human pulling your leg (yet again).

edits made 7/14/2019

 

[Ruby Gray]

This is all new to me, so please bear with my ignorance.

Is Postflavianism, then, a religion? In the sense that it is a belief system in spiritual matters recorded at least partly in sacred texts, it seems to qualify as such. Is this an ancient belief being recently revived? Have secret societies such as the Knights Templar been its custodians in earlier times? I don't know how to process this information alongside the theology I already know, or the chronology I have ascertained from various sources, including astronomy.

Basically, I wonder why Postflavianism seems to reinvent the wheel. The Bible is a stand-alone text, self-explanatory and authoritative, ancient and relevant futuristically, consistent in its message from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22, needing no interpretation by Muslim latecomers for instance. Although Islam does at least acknowledge and worship God (who is, I contend, not the Yahweh of the Bible), whereas Postflavianism apparently postulates that man created god in his own image.

This to me, seems akin to a house claiming to have created the carpenter who built it.

The connection of Saul / Paul and Josephus to me is mystifying. I see nothing that connects them. Josephus' writings are altogether different in character from the Pauline epistles. Historically, Paul was honoured by his successors as the man he claimed to be, preacher of the gospel, apostle and evangelist, who was imprisoned for years and beheaded by the Romans, long before the destruction of Jerusalem.

The conflation of the date of the Cross with destruction of the temple in 70 AD, also seems anachronistic to say the least. Jesus was born before the death of Herod, which was in December 5 BC. That would make him 74 at crucifixion!

And Paul could then not have been an apostle until several years after 70 AD, yet he wrote several times of attending the temple during his ministry.

The Talmud records that, after a lintel stone inside the temple fell and tore the veil concealing the Holy of Holies, there were 40 consecutive years of divine disfavour before the temple was destroyed. The gates swung open every day; the temple lights went out every night; the priest drew the unfavorable "Lot for Azazel" each Yom Kippur; and the annual miracle of the scarlet cloth turning white, signifying forgiveness of the nation's sins, failed to occur for 40 years. This equates to the 40 years between the historically-attested earthquake which occurred during the crucifixion, and the accepted date of the temple burning.

So I just wonder at the evidence for the crucifixion being in 70 AD, and I am certain I would not be the only one!

Clarification would be appreciated thanks.

 

[Richard Stanley]

This below is not the reply to your just prior post.

One of Velikovsky's lesser known works, Oedipus and Akhnaton, supports the notion that the Egyptians, at some point post-Akhnaton, end up running the show in Greece. The 'myth' of Egyptus and Danuus states the same thing via a different narrative, but Ralph Ellis has traced the latter approach down to the pharaoh Ay, who was previously Akhnaton's vizier. Besides that archaeology supports that Amenhotep III, Akhy's father, made a unique state visit to Mycenae and back, we also know that the so-called Hebrew tribe of Dan were one and the same as the Mycenaean Greek Danoi. Yes, the tribe of that screaming ahole, Samson, the spitting typological image of Donald Trump.

Like Jesus of Gamala's mother, Queen Helena of Adiabene (thx Josephus), Samson was a Nazarite, and the chaos that Samson induced eventually brought about the claimed kingships of the legendary David and Samson.

Long story short, Egypt alone survived the collapse of the Late Bronze Age, because they induced it, and then their agent of chaos, Samson, planted the seed to launch the next age, at least in what became Palestine. On the other side of the Jewish Gentile False Dialectic, not too much later 'tzabians' would flee there from the Assyrians, and found Rome, becoming known to history as the Sabines, first republican consuls, then imperial caesars, then popes. These colonizing immigrants would then seize power from the Etruscan Tarquin kings via the cuckolding ruse of the Rape of the Sabine Women.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Is Postflavianism, then, a religion?

No, but if you would like to be our first regularly paying acolyte we will not resist. It would be best to act soon so as to beat aveni to the punch.

In the sense that it is a belief system in spiritual matters recorded at least partly in sacred texts, it seems to qualify as such. Is this an ancient belief being recently revived? Have secret societies such as the Knights Templar been its custodians in earlier times? I don't know how to process this information alongside the theology I already know, or the chronology I have ascertained from various sources, including astronomy.

Are you equating searching for the Truth with being a religion?

I can see if you might conclude that Truth seeking has a spiritual nature to it, but I consider that Truth seeking to be a pursuit worthy of its own merits, without justice cannot be arrived at.

I can only guess that most likely some prior humans have indeed been interested in Truth.

Postflavianism is merely an intellectual pursuit, unlike such as the Knights Templar, the Freemasons, the Jesuits, the Knights of Malta, and their Islamic brethren. I am sure that at the highest levels they understand as much and more than we do. But likely we understand, from external analyses, more than their average adherents (unless they read Postflaviana that is).

Maybe you need to consider better chronologies before settling, and making yourself part of someone else's agenda(s)? Spread throughout Postflaviana Jerry and I, and others, have provided considerable resource links besides our own interpretations.

Basically, I wonder why Postflavianism seems to reinvent the wheel. The Bible is a stand-alone text, self-explanatory and authoritative, ancient and relevant futuristically, consistent in its message from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22, needing no interpretation by Muslim latecomers for instance. Although Islam does at least acknowledge and worship God (who is, I contend, not the Yahweh of the Bible), whereas Postflavianism apparently postulates that man created god in his own image.

This to me, seems akin to a house claiming to have created the carpenter who built it.

Before the carpenter came the tentmakers, who fabricated the tabernacle. But, we know (no Faith required) that the tabernacle was the typical military campaign tent of the pharaohs.

The carpenter, is called a tekton, a clear allusion to the speculative 'masonry' of the day, just as Paul's parental units were 'tentmakers', doing the covert bidding of their Elect families. Tentmakers from Tarsus no less, the cult center for Mithra. See my works on Mithra and Christianity.

The connection of Saul / Paul and Josephus to me is mystifying. I see nothing that connects them. Josephus' writings are altogether different in character from the Pauline epistles. Historically, Paul was honoured by his successors as the man he claimed to be, preacher of the gospel, apostle and evangelist, who was imprisoned for years and beheaded by the Romans, long before the destruction of Jerusalem.

That's the narrative you choose to accept.

I recommend the Ralph Ellis book, King Jesus, to demolish this false impression about Paul and Josephus being two separate people. Paul was "all things to all people", so you will doubt him here?

In orchestrated 'collusion' Josephus and the Flavians (where we get Postflavian), and yes, even Jesus (of Gamala) created the chaos that brought about the New Order, did they not? Is, or is not, the Flavian imperial symbol the Fish and Anchor? Is it another banal coincidence that this was the symbol of Christianity (or Chrestianity) for centuries before Constantine gave us the Cross?

The conflation of the date of the Cross with destruction of the temple in 70 AD, also seems anachronistic to say the least. Jesus was born before the death of Herod, which was in December 5 BC. That would make him 74 at crucifixion!

Bad chronology!!

The conflation of the date of the Cross with destruction of the temple in 70 AD, also seems anachronistic to say the least. Jesus was born before the death of Herod, which was in December 5 BC. That would make him 74 at crucifixion!

And Paul could then not have been an apostle until several years after 70 AD, yet he wrote several times of attending the temple during his ministry.

Jesus was born when? Says who?

As Ellis demonstrates, the narratives of Paul and Josephus 'dovetail', that is, where there are not over 20 typological parallels. For instance, their close connection to the imperial and royal court(s), and the publishing 'slave' dude Epiphroditus (who supposedly finished off Nero).

The Talmud records that, after a lintel stone inside the temple fell and tore the veil concealing the Holy of Holies, there were 40 consecutive years of divine disfavour before the temple was destroyed. The gates swung open every day; the temple lights went out every night; the priest drew the unfavorable "Lot for Azazel" each Yom Kippur; and the annual miracle of the scarlet cloth turning white, signifying forgiveness of the nation's sins, failed to occur for 40 years. This equates to the 40 years between the historically-attested earthquake which occurred during the crucifixion, and the accepted date of the temple burning.

Once the Romans took over, they owned Judaism (what was left of it - the Hellenized part), and they owned what developed into Christianity. So if you have the quill and parchment you can make up whatever you want. Writing from the now past, one can place events wherever need be.

So I just wonder at the evidence for the crucifixion being in 70 AD, and I am certain I would not be the only one!

Josephus stated that upon returning to Jerusalem from Tekoa (Herodium) with his Roman troops, that he spotted three men hung upon crosses (among many others) in the Kidron Valley. He knew these men and asked Titus (your Son of God ... Vespasian) if he could rescue them. As Ellis demonstrates, that probably with the intercession of new girlfriend Berenice (aka Mary Boethus, aka Mary Magdalene) Titus consented to them being taken down from their crosses, but only one survived, after being tended to in an adjacent tomb.

Did a unique Vesica Piscis shaped building (or temple) get built during the reign of Vespasian at the Dewa Victrix fortress in what is now Chester England or not? Why would they build a unique structure in the middle of a Roman fortress, when they newer build such as temples inside of such fortresses? Ignoring any other concerns, would the unique shape of a Vesica Piscis (and the said structure having 12 interior alcoves) be another odd coincidence, such as being with the dawning of the age of Pisces? Do the canonic gospels contain 'pagan' Pythagorean mathematics or not, such that is consistent with esoteric knowledge of Plato and Pythagorean-ism? Besides Philo of Alexandria deciding to Hellenize the Old Testament, is it another coincidence that one of his nephews led a Roman legion against the Jews for Vespasian and Titus?

I used to think it crazy that the Catholic Church had a relic in the cathedral of Trier that is purported to be the seamless robe, or ephod, of Jesus. Ellis shows just how Jesus (of Gamala) was indeed made a high priest just before the outbreak of the Jewish War, under a unique selection process, no doubt helped along because Queen Helena (aka your Virgin Mary) had saved Jerusalem from famine by buying grain from Egypt, according to Josephus.

So yes, Josephus tells us almost everything, one way or another.

You have been confused, like most, because you do not look at who won the war and who won Christianity. It was/is called the Roman Church for a reason.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I see that Richard has been first to reply to the above, but I do have some information to add.

Is Postflavianism, then, a religion?

In terms of our religion, we are Pastafarians. I also attend Unitarian Universalist church services occasionally, but I mainly go for the music and snacks.

The connection of Saul / Paul and Josephus to me is mystifying.

As Richard mentioned above, Ralph Ellis in "Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs" identified a long list of parallels between the characters of Paul and Josephus. While Ellis argues that this means they are one and the same individual, I feel it's also possible that Josephus created a fictional autobiography for himself, or that biblical Paul is a fictional character, or both.

For what it's worth, Roman Piso thinks that Josephus was actually a royal Roman by the name of Arrius Piso, while the epistles of Paul were written by Pliny the Elder Younger. All of which seems quite plausible to me. See my article 'Mateo Piso Christ, Sun of Jane the Virgin'.

I've taken screenshots of Ellis's list of parallels.

Paul in the left hand column, Josephus on the right.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Those are just the 'static' parallels that Ellis covered in that earlier book, but in King Jesus Ellis goes into considerably greater textual comparison as I have discussed on the Cleopatra to Christ thread. As Ellis shows there, the narrative account of the one picks up exactly where the other, the alter ego, leaves off. After my second reading, it all is an even greater Josephus based comparison than the Caesar's Messiah comparison, the beauty of which is that the CM complements Ellis' analysis, their respectively focusing on different major aspects of the NT.

How can one correctly buy the CM approach and deny Ellis approach with regard to the Pauline corpus?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Bad chronology!!

Ruby, since you are familiar with the Velikovskian concept of a chronological shift, you might be able to appreciate this paper by Lena Einhorn. She shows that many events in Josephus are reflected in the New Testament narrative, but with a 20 year chronological shift. Ellis noticed much the same thing, and so did Robert Eisenman. But, the chronological shift doesn't apply to the materials connecting Paul and Josephus.

http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf

 

[Ruby Gray]

Thanks for your replies guys. I shall ponder them in my heart.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Head first, heart second.

And, no humans do not create The Big Dude and/or Dudess, whatever them is (likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster ... we think ). But humans did create Yahweh ... and Krishna ... and ...

 

[Ruby Gray]

Head first, heart second.

I was expecting you to have picked up on my allusion to Luke 2:19, Richard!

 

[Richard Stanley]

Thou expectation crediteth me-eth twoo richly. That phrase appears too generic for my once adolescent yet skeptic brain whose wick now burns short and dim. You must thank (or curse) Jerry for forcing me to read the Bible, as if a child (because he didn't want to do it any more than I did ).

In any case, dost thee penchant to sumballóstry within thy heart indicate a bias to yet caste thy ballot towards faith before else? Or perchance wast this all rhetorical flourish to test this one?