Seeker

Active Member
Concerning the premier AMORC order in the world, founded in America, the leader is known by the ancient Roman designation "Imperator"(Emperor), and on Oct. 3, 2018, (passing of St. Francis of Assisi on Oct. 3, 1226, and the eve of his Feast), Imperator "Christian" Bernard announced his resignation, and the election of Claudio (Julio-Claudian?) Mazzucco as Imperator. Like Pope Francis, he has a North Italian/South American background, moving to Brazil at 6 with his family, but later moving back to Italy. On August 18, 2019 (the eve of the passing of Emperor Augustus on Aug. 19, 14 AD), he was installed as Imperator of AMORC, at the AMORC World Convention in Rome (the secret name of ROMA [Rome], spelled backwards, is AMOR). Ironically, on this same day, Pope Francis held an Angelus/Papal Blessing in St. Peter's Square. Because of similarities in the lists of names of famous members of both groups, AMORC has been conjectured to be the "real" Priory of Sion, which was also known as the Ordre de la Rose-Croix Veritas. Also, like the Dragon Court, it has traditional origins in ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs. Saint Pope John XXIII, another North Italian, is supposed to have been initiated into the Order of Rosicrucians in 1935. When he became Pope in 1958, he chose the name John XXIII, and there was a John XXIII antipope in the 15th century, and supposedly a John XXIII Grand Master of the Priory of Sion at the time he became Pope. When he addressed the opening of Vatican II on Oct. 11, 1962, he stated that "Divine Providence is leading us to a NEW ORDER of things", almost 30 years before President George H.W. Bush made his "New World Order" speech. Therefore, are Rome/Rosicrucians/Priory of Sion all connected?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Well, I have not spent one minute verifying NdV's lineage and bona fides. What drew me to his narrative claims is how closely they comport to my separate research findings across the various periods of Western history. Such as how reading between the lines of the OT patriarch narratives reveal a rather different understanding than one gets from their Sunday School lessons. And, how prior to 'modern' democracy, Western leaders have an outsized preponderance of red hair and green eyes, and accord themselves (with some exceptions) as being genetically distinct from their common subjects.

While there is the possibility of vain cultural appropriation, it is rather interesting the focus the Rosicrucians have upon the intellectual heritage from ancient Egypt. At the end of a business trip to the Bay area, I once stopped to look around their museum in San Jose, CA. Rather impressive.
 

Seeker

Active Member
prior to 'modern' democracy, Western leaders have an outsized preponderance of red hair and green eyes
This is the only statement that you have made in the above post that I do not recall reading about in depth. Aside from NvD's elitist claims, spurious or not, is there independent verification of this, such as how prior to modern democracy, and which Western leaders had red hair and green eyes?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I have not written anything specifically about this topic, other than frequently referring to it, especially as I incidentally come across portraits and such of various royalty and nobility. And, that the classical gods, at least, in Medieval and Renaissance times are always depicted with red/auburn/orange hair. Eyes, are obviously harder to detect in such.

It was recently discovered in a tomb that Alexander the Great's mother was depicted with red hair. The Bible's divine family is almost always depicted in art with red hair, not just Esau. In my OT commentary on Jacob and Esau I noted that much was made of Esau's coloration, but no word about his twin brother's coloration. Adam (like Edom), means 'red'. Elizabeth I was noted for her hair, members of the Burgundian nobility as well, as the House of Orange (with its origins in Burgundy (ancient Sabaudia)). The Sabines have red hair noted in accounts of them.
 

Seeker

Active Member
I cannot vouch for his reliability, but Charles N. Pope, on his "Domain of Man" site, makes Elizabeth I the Great Ruler of the World in her day, being part of the Uber-Elite Family that included Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and the Egyptian Pharaohs. He does not trace this family after the demise of the Stuart dynasty, and says that he does not know if there is any "Great Ruler" behind the scenes today, just like the rest of us, I guess.
 

Seeker

Active Member
Oh, just to stay on the topic of this thread, Charles N. "Pope" (how apropos to Postflaviana postulations!) also definitely includes Cleopatra and Christ in this Uber-Elite Family, with Jesus having a brother Vespasian and a son Josephus!!! Don't ask me how he does it, I haven't figured it all out yet, but he outdoes Ralph Ellis, Nicholas de Vere, and Roman Piso combined! Ah yes, Mary Magdalene of this family also had red hair, didn't she?
 
Ellis suggests that Izates/Jesus was attempting to take over Rome, owing to his imperial bloodline, and thereby came into conflict with Vespasian and other suitors. But his army couldn't even hold fortified Jerusalem -- how could he march on Rome? Wouldn't he need backing from the only other major military power in the area, Parthia? And if Parthia is behind him, then what do we make of Helena's expulsion? It's looking more like colonization than exile.

And what about Helena's conversion? If she came from Egyptian royalty, she would have been immersed in the Helenized Judaism of Philo. In Babylon, she would have encountered the Parthian strain of Judaism. But the story is she heard about it from a merchant and eventually converted to the Nazarene doctrine, taking years to qualify. Then she moves to Jerusalem and starts taking over. She builds a palace, spreads around a lot of money, forges connections to the Alexandrians, and eventually gets Izates the high priesthood. We know about her tomb, but I've never seen anything about the circumstances of her passing. If Helena is the power behind Izates/Jesus, then is this a solo operation or is there a power behind her?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Good questions Charles.

Ellis is proposing that he and his family essentially take over the entire Levant, with he and his mother taking on the identity of exotic 'Jews' under the Nazarite vows. At least to me, the Nazarite vows appear exotic, as practically nobody else is recorded as adhering to them but the likes of Samson. And ... exotic from the perspective of being 'Old School' Egypto-Jews, in the context of the 18th and 19th Dynasty dramas (being the source of the so-called Exile(s)). It is my theory, expressed on other threads, that the Nazarite vows are meant as extreme purification rites for those seeking to attain to the kingship, the annointed messiahship, and likely any close family and followers. From the ancient Egyptian, NZR means 'of the prince'. It also relates to the Hebrew 'netzer' for 'branch'. The (royal) branch from the (royal) "Root of Jesse" for instance and that 'gentile' (Caesarian) branch which was grafted onto it.

As for gaining sufficient support for accomplishing the desired outcome, the general process, as we're witnessing today in the radicalization and moral inversion of the Christian Right, is really amazingly simple to accomplish with religious fundamentalist people. In a seeming instant these moralizing zombies have convinced themselves that Trump was sent to them by God, just as the serial foreign womanizing Samson was for Israel.

And thus, if Izates/Jesus had been successful, it seems quite plausible that he could further motivate the zealous Jews of Palestine and the diaspora Hellenized Jews to support him militarily in his genetic [sic] bid to the imperial crown.

But, perhaps this was merely his assigned role, to legitimately (via his bloodlines) appear to fulfill the role of the centuries of Judaic expectation for an earthly messiah? To do so made it easier for the Romans to cull the herd of those liable to tilt the wrong way. And, .... in the end, God votes for the winner right? This is similar to my suspicion that the Romans, from Augustus on were intimately aware of everything that happened in the establishment of the 'tax-free' enterprise zone of Edessa and related Palmyra.

It seems certain that the elite Helena was fully Hellenized, as her name implies, and certainly so if Ellis has decrypted Josephus properly. So, her performance of the Narazite rites and the purchase of grain from Egypt was to ingratiate the family into the proper position, that ultimately led to the unusual circumstances of becoming high priests, and their rather easy instigation of the war.

And, just who was Philo, BTW?

Strangely enough, we don’t exactly know who Philo was. Philo was a Hellenistic Jewish Philosopher who was chosen to represent the Alexandrian Jews before Emperor Caligula, regarding their dispute with the Alexandrian Greeks. The Greek representative was Apion who ‘uttered many blasphemies against the Jews’ (prompting Josephus Flavius to write his Against Apion polemic), while Philo tried to defend Judaism before he was dismissed by Caligula. Knowing this history, it is odd that every reference book will say that Philo’s name was Philo Judaeaus, without remarking that this title merely means ‘Friend of the Jews’, a title that could be taken either as a compliment or an insult, depending on its creator’s viewpoint. Apion would have most definitely created such a title as an insult. Since it is beyond belief that a friend of the Jews just happened to be named ‘Friend of the Jews’ by his parents, this logical absurdity does imply that we do not know the true birth-name of Philo of Alexandria.
Ellis, Ralph. Jesus, King of Edessa (The King Jesus Trilogy Book 3) . Edfu Books. Kindle Edition.

Ellis forgot to add the curious aspect of Philo's nephew leading a Roman legion against the Jews in the war.

Such Hellenizing Jews are also consistent with the claim of Moses Hadas in his Hellenistic Culture that the Jewish 'heroes' were really Hellenizers. As such, one plays the political and cultural fence as expedience dictates.
 
In my recent reading of Haller and Gott, I came see there is more to Philo that I'd imagined. He was the intellectual leader of the Alexandrian Jewish community and highly influential in politics. He was involved with the Therapeutae, who Eusebius called the first Christian monks. The Theraputes in turn were associated with the Ptolemaic god Serapis, who Vaspasian claimed to be. So Philo was surely at the center of whatever intrigues were brewing in Alexandria. I don't see why Ellis says we don't know who he was, when it is commonly stated he was brother of the Alabarch. We have a lot of his writings and he is held in high esteem by the patrists.

Gott dwells on his method for finding deeper meanings in scripture, which involves examining deliberate quirks and codewords to find parallels in other writings. She thinks Plutarch used this technique to imbed the truth about Paul in Luke and Acts. Philo would have applied this to the Torah in arriving at his conception of the Logos. And if the Torah had been so encoded, then that must have happened during the captivity in Babylon by someone who wanted it to be decoded. You are supposed to ask, "Who is this God?"

Going back to my speculation on Izates and Parthians, it does not seem that he would be in league with Alexandrians, given that Vepasian/Titus are clearly their guys. I'm hesitant to go as far as thinking the whole conflict was staged. If the ambition was just to control the Levant, then they would still need to be prepared to fight off Rome, while flanked by the Egyptians. A Parthian long game would be to secure the Levant and then turn to Egypt. When you control the Egyptian navy and the food supply, Rome goes down.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Whoever, 'Philo' was he certainly knew a lot about Judaism ... and Platonism. Your objections make sense, however Ellis is correct that referring to a Jew as being "Friend of Jews" seems rather odd, at least from a contemporary perspective.

Also, to support your side, I am of the school that the most elite Jews, at least, were always on board with the larger, long term project. Namely that of gradual 'Globalizing' and merging of religions and cults. This Globalizing is the most important subtext of both the OT and the NT.

Which brings up you point:

I'm hesitant to go as far as thinking the whole conflict was staged. If the ambition was just to control the Levant, then they would still need to be prepared to fight off Rome, while flanked by the Egyptians.
I don't think the greater ambition was to control the Levant, but to achieve geo-political-religious unification. Of which, control of the Levant was just one move in the larger chess game.

The figurative shepherds of humans have a degree of difficulty greater than the literal shepherds of actual sheep. This in that humans are much more obsessive with the respective cultures that they grow up with. On the one hand this is a control benefit for the 'shepherds', but as time moves on, the human sheep must then become conditioned (by various mental and/or physical trauma) to accept a new culture. The winners have the winning god and the losers the opposite. Of course, the Christian transition was very clever, where the King of the Jews seemed to lose, only to win from his throne in Heaven. All the while the elite families involved generally stayed intact.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
After engaging the reader in more discussion of why we should consider Jesus of Gamala as being the same leader of the Jewish revolt as with the other aliases discussed before, Ellis finally gets into a discussion of the 'locust' wordplay names, Abgarus/Agabus and Kamza. These names allow one to discern the linkage being made, which only an alert insider - with access to both the NT (Acts) and the Talmud could make.

But, Ellis doesn't stop there, making a typological link to the Exodus story about the plague of the locusts, blown in from the East, an apt analogy for the Parthian heritage of the royal family that Josephus was so careful to encrypt. Thus, the Parthian 'locusts' that had blown into Jerusalem had destroyed the city and forced another exodus, the diaspora.

Then, bringing up an apocryphal Jewish text, the Toledot Yeshu, of uncertain dating that makes a third and hilarious linkage to 'locusts', this directly nailing Jesus to a locust ... tree, an apparent parody of the gospel account. Likely this was not from the quill of Josephus but some later individual who understood the original linkage.

The date of composition cannot be ascertained with certainty and there are conflicting views as to what markers denote dates. For instance, the Toledot refers to Christian festivals and observances that only originated after the 4th century.[13][14] However, in his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man Robert M. Price states that the Toledot Yeshu is "dependent on second-century Jewish-Christian gospel",[15] and Alexander argues that the oral traditions behind the written versions of the Toledot Yeshu might go all the way back to the formation of the canonical narratives themselves.[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu

Here is what Ellis writes about this matter below. Yeshu, or Jesus, has been brought to trial before Queen Helena, his mother, before being nailed to the traditional tree, this time the lowly carob tree. All other trees refused to let Yeshu be nailed to them. A parody, ya think? In any case, Ellis greater point is that the author was aware of the wordplay involving the locust and made a distinct approach to it.

The story in the Toledoth Yeshu concludes with Jesus having a wild and fantastical airborne battle with Judas Iscariot, before Jesus is finally crucified. But then a very strange thing happens, for Jesus was not crucified upon a cross in this text, but on a carob tree - a small species of tree that bears large and often edible bean-pods. So Jesus was hung on a carob tree, rather than a cross. But why, of all the many types of tree in the world, would this obscure manuscript make up a ludicrous and fantastical tale, just to get Jesus hung on a carob tree? Something is being covered up here and one can just smell the joyful, knee-slapping deliberate deceit of this author.
According to this text, when Jesus was invincible (because he held the secret name of god), he prohibited all the trees of the world from taking his body for a crucifixion. But because the carob tree is more of an overgrown bean plant than a tree, he forgot to prohibit the carob tree from taking his body. And so when the Jewish authorities tried to nail Jesus to various trees, the trees all refused to accept him - all except for the humble carob tree. So why all this convoluted fantastical tale, just to get Jesus hung upon a large bean-tree?
The incredible occult answer to this, is that the carob is also called the ‘locust tree’, a common but ancient name for this species that was derived from the Assyrian kharubu, the Arabic kharrub, and the Hebrew kharob חרוב with all three meaning ‘locust’. (Apparently the bean-pods look like locusts, but some imagination is required to achieve this likeness.) So this short and ‘unreliable’ manuscript is directly associating Jesus with the Talmud’s bar Kamza, who was the Son of a Locust, and also with the New Testament’s Agabus (King Abgarus) who was also called a locust. So while no modern theologian appears to know what this locust symbolism is all about, it would seem that the author of the apocryphal Toledoth Yeshu did!
In the earlier discussion on the Talmudic texts, we saw that Kamza was an anagram of gazam גזם meaning ‘locust’, and the talmudic notes confirm this cryptic association. Conversely, the nickname Agabus comes from the Greek agabos αγαβος which was derived in turn from the Hebrew-Aramaic khagab חגב meaning ‘locust’, and again the biblical Concordance confirms this meaning. But now we find a carob tree ‘locust’, which comes from the Hebrew kharob חרוב. Note how the Aramaic terms kharob חרוב and khagab חגב are closely related words that both mean ‘locust’, and so the Khagab or Agab(us) locust can be directly derived from the carob-tree locust, without needing any intervention from the Greek language.
Thus whoever wrote the Toledoth Yeshu was ‘in on the big secret’. He was someone with ‘ears to hear’ and ‘eyes that see’ - he was someone who could shed light on occult or dark and hidden things, he was an Illuminati. This unknown author also obviously had a good knowledge of the Talmud, and a clear understanding of the Aramaic wordplay being employed there; and he presumably he had an equally good knowledge of the New Testament’s Acts of the Apostles and the similar Aramao-Greek wordplay being used in this text. He then decided to write a deliberately heretical (in Christian eyes) short story that directly linked Jesus with the royal family of Queen Helena and King Abgarus, through an occult wordplay on the many cryptic nicknames that refer to both Abgarus and Jesus as locusts. However, do note that this was not a simple repetition of the wordplay in the Talmud or Acts, this was someone who understood that wordplay about a locust, and devised their own version of it; someone who joined in with the acerbic merriment but tacitly agreed to keep it a secret. It would be interesting to learn who the original author of the Toledoth Yeshu really was.
...​
Land of Locusts
Perhaps we can now see another reason why the Talmud pronounces the name for the lands of Adiabene as both Hadyab הדייב and Khadyab חדייב for these terms may not have been the ultimate intention of the scribes and rabbis. As we have seen previously, the favourite consonant swap in these texts is between the ‘r’ and ‘d’, because these letters look identical. And if that same swap is applied in this case then the alternate homophone we should be looking for would be pronounced something like Kharyab חרייב. Yes, Khadyab חדייב and Kharyab חרייב do look remarkably similar, but that is the whole point of these deliberate errors; for even if sworn enemies were looking over the scribe’s shoulder, as he was scribbling away at these texts in the scriptorium at Jabneh, they would never spot the difference. The price of a scribe’s neck may well have turned upon one consonant having a slightly more inclined upright than it should have. (Note: as mentioned previously, the various tablet-readers contain different Hebrew fonts. It is classical Hebrew that is the most difficult to differentiate, especially between the 'd' and 'r', while more modern Hebrew fonts have a greater differentiation.)
And what was the result of this slightly exaggerated incline in the upright of one consonant? Well, the Aramaic Khadyab חדייב had just become a Kharyab חרייב and this latter name was firmly based upon the kharob חרוב meaning ‘locust’. And so the mythical Greek principality called Adiabene (Adiab-ene) was known in the Aramaic as Kharyab(ene), the Land of the Locusts, a derogatory term that quite accurately explained how the Adiabene royalty had blown in from the Parthian east and were taking over the region and leading it and its people to destruction and exile - just as in the Exodus saga. And this is exactly what happened. ...
Ellis, Ralph. Jesus, King of Edessa (The King Jesus Trilogy Book 3) . Edfu Books. Kindle Edition.​
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
In a modern analogy to these characters: perhaps the Flavians and Julians families were the Democrats and Republicans of their day, respectively. Helena was like Queen Elizabeth. Izates was like the UAW leadership, and James and Lazarus were like striking autoworkers.

I'm hesitant to go as far as thinking the whole conflict was staged.
The conflict was real, but the Edessan royalty was playing a dual role. As leaders of the Jewish revolt, they were serving as "controlled opposition", even as (according to Ellis) they were positioning themselves to challenge the Flavians for the Roman throne. Have I got that right?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Maybe rather than Republicans and Democrats per se, perhaps the Bushes and Clintons and Trumps might be closer analogues for the Roman factions. On the surface, with their rhetoric, they seem to be in conflict, but on closer examination they are all rowing in the same direction. As Julius was a shrewd fake populist, so have been all three of these families to varying degrees.

The conflict was real, but the Edessan royalty was playing a dual role. As leaders of the Jewish revolt, they were serving as "controlled opposition", even as (according to Ellis) they were positioning themselves to challenge the Flavians for the Roman throne. Have I got that right?
I think that the meeting in the desert of Jesus with Satan where Jesus was offered the crown of the temporal world may be the attempt to explain the situation. There was this 'possibility', but perhaps merely a further 'dangle' of what 'could be', if you do this or that for us. Elsewhere the 'rebel' Jesus comes across a barren fig tree and unhappily realizes that the time is not ripe for him, the dangled opportunity is not his.
 

Seeker

Active Member
As Julius was a shrewd fake populist
I love these analogies being made, so Julius Caesar could have been a renegade Republican, going against his conservative Establishment family and friends, while the humble origins, risen from the ranks Flavians were the liberal Democrats who actually carried on the legacy of Caesar.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Well, according to the accounts, Julius royal Iulia family had for centuries been relegated to the political backwaters, because of the shift to the republican anti-monarchical bias. That is, until Julius showed his mettle in various ways, rising up somewhat like the lowly shepherd, David.
 

Seeker

Active Member
True, and I also believe that a big influence on him was his Uncle Marius, the parvenu risen from the ranks (like the Flavians) "liberal Democrat", who married his Aunt Julia. In his day, he "showed his mettle" also, and was the David against the Establishment of Rome. Perhaps not enough attention has been given to what a stupendous, larger than life role model he may have been for his very young nephew Caesar, who was only 13 when he passed away, while serving as consul for an unprecedented 7th time. The first wife of the dictator Sulla, whom the young Caesar defied (and whose granddaughter he later married), was an Ilia (Julia?) according to Plutarch, and may also have been a relative of his.
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Active Member
perhaps Josephus was actually Jesus of Gamala's uncle despite being of approximately the same generation.
For further variety, "Roman Piso" makes "Jesus" and "Josephus" the same person, Arrius Calpurnius Piso, of course, and Charles N. Pope makes "Jesus" the father of the historical Josephus born 37 AD. In both scenarios, there could be an English bloodline from both Jesus and Joseph, and an esoteric church of the "Sangraal", which has also been described as a STONE, as well as a cup or dish, in the custody of the "Fisher King" (Jesus/Josephus and their bloodline?), who lives in a CASTLE. Writing appears on the stone which states that any Templar appointed by "God" to rule a distant people must forbid them to ask his name/lineage, and while Peter is indeed the "rock" or "stone" that the exoteric Roman Catholic Church was founded upon, Jesus himself is the esoteric "stone" that the builders rejected, illustrating elite duality. The British Empire eventually became the largest in history, including America, "The New Atlantis", at one time, with its "Founding Fathers" mostly of English extraction. But did Rome kick start all of this into action, beginning as far back as the aftermath of the First Jewish War, by sending a wounded "Fisher King" to England as a "stone" that the Roman Emperor (Pontifex Maximus, or Supreme Bridge-BUILDER) rejected?
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Active Member
Note how the Norman Conquest employed similar principles as the Biblical Conquest, where with the latter the Levites were placed in administrative control of all the cities (the 48 largest) of the 12 tribal 'shires' of Israel. We know today that some of these Hebrew 'tribes' were just pre-existing Canaanites all along. With the Normans they quickly placed their Domesday nobles in charge of each shire.
So the "Companions" of William the Conqueror were the "Levites" of their era, with a de Vere among those Domesday nobles. Later on, in 1215, another de Vere will be among the 25 Magna Carta barons forcing King John to acknowledge their feudal rights. Still later, a de Vere will even be speculated to be a natural son of Tudor Queen Elizabeth I, and also the true author of the plays of Shakespeare. If Nicholas de Vere was correct in his claims, then these "Levite" de Veres are the true Kings of England, as opposed to the line of the present Queen Elizabeth II on the throne today, which is traditionally supposed to be descended from the tribe of "Judah".
 

Seeker

Active Member
Ellis discusses that it seems that after the time accorded to the death of his Jesus, that the Elliptical Building is abandoned and literally trashed. Archaeologists claim the circumstances are evidence that the construction was never completed, but Ellis makes an argument that it was completed. But who knows why it was abandoned, perhaps beyond no longer being needed as leverage against the 'Galilean' - Syrians? In any case, about 120 years later, the Severan emperor (of Rome), Elagabalus (most likely according to Ellis) has the structure rebuilt. Elagabalus is famous for his fixation with a sacred stone, evoking such as the Omphalos of Delphi or the Ben-ben stone of Heliopolis Egypt, or the stone of Jacob.
Perhaps the Elliptical Building was abandoned after the passing of Jesus, if his children by Mary Magdalene were safely in Gaul and one line eventually became the Merovingians. The present Habsburg family are supposed to be the heirs of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, and postulated to be the male line descendants of "Jesus", so perhaps posthumously "Jesus" won his victory, becoming the Emperor/Savior of the Roman Empire/Church with an imperial dynasty lasting to this day (although, like him, exiled from the throne), starting with a prototype who was also his great-grandfather, Julius Caesar, whom the Habsburgs have also been claimed to be descended from.
If Jesus was truly the son of "Pantera" Ptolemy of Mauretania and a male line Berber, then perhaps the male line Berber Roman Emperor Septimius Severus was a descendant of his, and Roman Emperor Elagabalus was a member of his Severan dynasty and his grandnephew. One pedigree chart even has him as a possible illegitimate son of Roman Emperor Caracalla, and thus a grandson of Severus, perhaps explaining his rebuilding of that structure, but the stone of Jacob would have been in Ireland at that time, if the legend is true. At any rate, if Elagabalus had any personal plans for the Elliptical Building they were cut brutally short by his murder, and two centuries later the Roman garrison withdrew from it permanently. Could the civilian settlement that remained have smuggled and hidden any stone that was there, and could it still be in the area today? After all, there are also stories that the publicly known Stone of Jacob/Stone of Destiny is not the original one.
 
Glad to see this thread is still winding on.

The conflict was real, but the Edessan royalty was playing a dual role. As leaders of the Jewish revolt, they were serving as "controlled opposition", even as (according to Ellis) they were positioning themselves to challenge the Flavians for the Roman throne. Have I got that right?
So, Jerry, who would these controllers be? There is obviously a conspiracy involving the Flavians with the cooperation of the Alexandrians. And they could have enlisted the Edessans to gain control of the Jewish opposition. But what is the payoff to the Edessans, if Vespasian is getting the Imperial throne?

And are there forces in Rome guiding the whole plot -- perhaps the powers behind the Imperial Cult? If you believe in Imperial rule, then the strongest possible ruler would be the God-King and this is what Vespasian was set up to be. The deification of the Julians had stumbled due to the inability of the rulers to produce heirs and Tiberias' outright refusal of apotheosis. Despite its equestrian origins, the Flavian line at least offered a viable succession. (Had Titus lived, Domitian would not have come to power.) Of course, this ambition would later be realized through the papacy.

I've searched without success for information on the origins of the Imperial Cult and who controlled it. I suspect it was founded by the family of Antony and was later taken over by Octavian. If you can fill me in, I'd be most grateful.

If the Alexandrians just had a mercenary deal with Flavians, then they might have had their own plans. They seem more motivated to spread a Hellenized Judaism and thereby advance their trade interests than to march on Rome. But with Cleopatra, Julian power is also being expressed.

Back in Rome we have other patrician players such as our boy Piso, the ridiculously wealthy Crassus, the scheming Seneca, and many more.

But finally, I still think there is a possibility that Izates was working for the Parthians in an attempt to insinuate Babylonian Judaism into the Levant in preparation for annexing it. But I've gone over that before.
 
Top