Seeker

Well-Known Member
I just found this on Bartram's old "Origins of Christianity" site, perhaps his Izates/Azes can be reconciled with that of Ellis, after all:


Helen and Izates

According to the main historical source for Judea in the 1st century (Josephus), Izates was an important king in the north, who converted to Judaism. His future importance - an Annunciation - was announced by an angel. His mother, Helen, made a partial conversion. They impact New Testament accounts and appear in the 'Apocrypha'. Yet neither exist in any other contemporaneous record - no coins, statue, or reference. Clearly, these accounts are trying to tell us something important - so important, it has to be told discretely.









Izates and Azes (in Greco-India)
Both pose as Zeus with his sceptre.


I admit that Bartram confuses me, as he says above that there exist no coins, statue, or other reference for Izates, and yet he has found images of Izates/Azes, and posted them right there, next to his article, just as you posted some previously on this thread.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Thanks for reminding me about the pics. Yes, this is confusing.

BTW, you can easily cut and paste URL links just like standard text, and the forum software will automatically activate the link for you.

And double BTW, we should be careful to qualify our speculative leaps no matter how good the new puzzle pieces look to fit. I am (occasionally/frequently?) guilty of doing such.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 1

John Bartram has equated Cleopatra VII to the NT's Virgin Mary via Josephus' account of poor Paulina tricked by Decius Mundus in Antiquities. Paulina is tricked into having an all night tryst with Decius Mundus, who pretends he is the god Anubis, a standard part of the Isis cult. The hot action takes place in Rome's temple of Isis. This has strong echoes of the account of 'pharaoh' Octavian Augustus' divine conception, and of course, the Immaculate Conception.

Here it is also interesting that this story is immediately after the infamous Testimonium Flavinium (TF) account of Jesus Christ. As most readers should know, the TF is considered by most critical scholars to by a late interpolation based upon its out-of-context placement and some other factors. What does get short shrift, for a number of reasons is Joe Atwill's take on the TF (which he calls the Testimonium Josephus - corrected in the Flavian Signature Edition). Maybe it is Joe's placement of this chapter as number 11, after all the discussion of the gospel parallels and the Empty Tomb analysis. Or that it is so contrarian to the main stream?

In any case, in revisiting it after reading Bartram I had forgotten the exact nature of the analysis, and that Joe made such a strong argument for that not only is the TF contextually out of place, but the subsequent two stories are as well. At least, out of context in a more superficial sense. These 3 stories are placed into a deeper context by Joe later in the chapter, but even without doing so, Joe demonstrates that these 3 stories are part of a deliberate set, a puzzle by the same author or team. If one chooses to ignore the deeper placement context, then one must consider that all three are part of the interpolation, and I think this is more difficult since it is only the TF itself which differs (in presence or not) between extant manuscripts.

Atwill tells us the key to deciphering the puzzle of the three stories where Josephus has Decius Mundus say: "As for the reproaches thou hast laid upon Mundus, I value not the business of names; but I rejoice in the pleasure I reaped by what I did, while I took to myself the name of Anubis."

Understanding this one can then play with the names, and here the underlying stories of Paulina and Fulvia are generally the same, and Josephus has told us that they all take place temporally at the same time. I will try to go more into detail about these stories in a subsequent post. Can Paulina thus be Fulvia, the Virgin (per Bartram), and Paul himself? "Through God all things are possible".

[Maybe we can pressure Jerry into asking Joe to post his TF (TJ) chapter on either his site, here, or both. I think it might be a good thing all around, including more sales for CM.]​

But to finish, I'll say that Joe provides a sequence from Josephus that includes the surrounding elements that focus on the narrative of Pontius Pilate, who is, of course, connected intimately with the trial and cruci-fiction. The first in the sequence is that Pilate arrives in Judea to abolish Jewish laws. This is very interesting to me in how this can be read two different ways with reference to Christianity. In the first case, gospel Jesus answers that he has not come to change the laws, presumably the 613 Commandments of Moses. In the second case, under Pauline supercessionism (i.e. the Second Covenant supersedes the First), the Mosaic laws have been eviscerated for the benefit of the goyim. There are different prismatic ways to see this.

And in the next post on this I will discuss that there are two similar ways to look at who the 'Jesus Christ' (of Josephus and the NT) is representing. The Titus (and the caesars, even including Domitian) ... and the man associated with the rebel Zealots, but which we claim is controlled opposition for the Romans. Joe also provides some interesting commentary on the Sicarii which I totally do not remember.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 2

The first thing that Atwill notices about Decius Mundus is that this is not a real name, but rather a play on the then famous father and son who separately sacrificed themselves in battle, as part of a pious Roman religious practice, and ironically enlisting the aid of the enemy gods. Such also fits in with both the Roman and Abrahamic themes of conquering the world, i.e. Globalism. The father and son were named Decius Mus.

Decius Mus' famous self-sacrifice was performed to "free the Romans from all religious fears." To accomplish this he offered his life to both the gods of the Romans (the Quirites) and the gods of his enemies. This technique was aimed at "appeasing" the gods of Rome's enemies and thus freeing the Romans from concerns about whether these gods would give divine assistance to their enemies. Notice that Decius also appealed to "new gods." I suspect that Decius "Mundus" or Decius "World" would have been understood by a patrician as a pun calling to mind Decius Mus on a worldwide scale. This wordplay to show a larger scale for Decius Mus is made clearer by the fact that "mus" means "mouse" in Latin. If a playwright created a character named Napoleon World, it would be obvious which character in history he was lampooning. Decius was perhaps Rome's most famous war hero and all patricians were aware of his exploits. For example, the Roman satirist Juvenal, writing during the Flavian era, waxed glowingly about the heroics of Decius Mus. Juvenal clearly understood that his audience was familiar with Decius and his devotio, as he refers to both without explanation. (Caesar's Messiah, First Edition, pp. 232-233)​

Note that Atwill references Juvenal here and that I have frequently discussed Juvenal's Satire IV in regards to what I call Domitian's Big Fish story, where all the Roman poobahs of the day are called to the Papal Villa (now), errr Domitian's Villa (then), to determine what is to be done with this amazingly big fish that was caught. As Atwill relates elsewhere, it is thought that Domitian exiled Juvenal, and Atwill discusses Juvenal a dozen or so times throughout the book, so it would be good for me to go back and read these passages again. Domitian had a bloody reputation, so these 'exiles' are of a type I'm suspicious of as a cover story.

Atwill notes that the surname 'Mus' derives from the common root for our 'mouse'. This is an interesting, but maybe coincidental, theme found in the OT and NT of a humble man, or 'Israel' itself, rising to extreme prominence, or in this case of making such a significant sacrifice for the cause.

More importantly, Atwill notes that Decius Mundus waits 3 days before announcing to poor Paulina that he has taken advantage of her. Paulina gets her husband, Saturninus involved in informing emperor Tiberius. Tiberius crucifies the evil Isis priests and Decius' freedwoman, curiously named 'Ide', but Decius merely gets banished. This on the grounds that Tiberius, the Epstein-esque pedo, feels Decius was merely motivated by unrequited 'love', however malicious. Yes, Atwill goes into some discussion of the Ides of March and related timing, but that is too much to go into.

Atwill goes on to discuss the importance of this 3rd day announcement in relation to the story of Fulvia, but before we get there, since the Ides were mentioned, let's remember that Julius Caesar was seen to rise from his now lit funeral bier, on the third day. This was witnessed by thousands of people, including the adoring [sic] Jews of Rome, so we are told. Who are we to doubt? Julius was adored by the Jews of the day because he had defeated Pompey the Great who had defiled the Temple, similar to what Pontius Pilate would attempt ... in the supposed time of Decius, Paulina, Fulvia, ... and Jesus.

And so, Atwill notes that for the Flavians, the gospel sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is the spoof equivalent of Decius Mus' father and son devotio ritual sacrifice(s) for the good of the expanding republic cum empire. The question for me becomes exactly how this sacrifice of Jesus exactly pacified the relevent Jews of the day. Are we talking the Zealots and the Poor Ones, or are we talking about fence sitters? Because there were 3 wars with the Jews. Or, is this more pointing to the new devotio being a statement that the god of the Jews has been brought over to the Romans, reflecting and justifying the metaphorical graft of Romans 11?
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
This has strong echoes of the account of 'pharaoh' Octavian Augustus' divine conception, and of course, the Immaculate Conception.
A parallel scenario occurs in "King Jesus" (1946) by Robert Graves (whose 125th birthday would have been today), in which "Gabriel" makes an "Annunciation" to the temple virgin Mary, the end result being that she is impregnated by Prince Antipater, with her eventually giving birth to "King Jesus", the grandson and heir of King Herod, after Mary has married a much older Joseph.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
The question for me becomes exactly how this sacrifice of Jesus exactly pacified the relevent Jews of the day. Are we talking the Zealots and the Poor Ones, or are we talking about fence sitters? Because there were 3 wars with the Jews. Or, is this more pointing to the new devotio being a statement that the god of the Jews has been brought over to the Romans, reflecting and justifying the metaphorical graft of Romans 11?
I wonder if the following New Testament quotes could have been amended to fit the last Jewish War that ended in 135 AD, as well as the first in AD 70.



Matthew 24
King James BiblePar ▾
Temple Destruction Foretold
(Mark 13:1-9; Luke 21:5-9)

1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
False Christs
5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Witnessing to All Nations
(Mark 13:10-13; Luke 21:10-19)

9Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. 10And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. 11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
[Bartram] says above that there exist no coins, statue, or other reference for Izates, and yet he has found images of Izates/Azes, and posted them right there, next to his article

Azes is a different ruler from Izates. He was an Indo-Scythian ruler from the 1st century BC. So perhaps Bartram's point is that one can only find sketches depicting Izates posing as Zeus in the same way as Azes, but there is no contemporaneous, archaeological evidence depicting Izates as a distinguishable ruler in his own right.

As most readers should know, the TF is considered by most critical scholars to by a late interpolation

Another commonly held scholarly view is that the TF originally said something else, and that the current version is the result of Christian meddling with whatever Josephus really had to say.

it is only the TF itself which differs (in presence or not) between extant manuscripts.

I'm not sure there are any extant manuscripts in which the TF is completely missing. The passage in the Arabic version of Josephus has a version of the TF that "lacks distinct Christian terminology while sharing the essential elements" according to Wikipedia quoting Andreas Kostenberger. Early references and indexes of Josephus didn't mention the TF, which is a very odd and incriminating omission, but maybe the passage said something that the early Church didn't want to call attention to.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 3

Next Atwill compares the accounts of Paulina and Fulvia, noting that they have the same underlying plots, and both upstanding women have husbands with the same name, that of Saturninus, and whom both happen to know the emperor. and the emperor banishes persons in both stories, among other 'executive' punishments. BTW, 'Saturn', of course, is an important aspect for the Romans, with such as the Saturnalia, so perhaps this is a clue in and of itself. Both pious women are duped by wicked priests, one for sex and the other for wealth (to be sent to Jerusalem Temple no less).

And, before going any further, one wonders what in the world these two post-TF accounts are doing in the middle of the narration about Pilate, other than this business of wealth including royal 'purple' goodies to the Temple. Together, and taken with the TF, we are to be drawn to the incongruities, as Atwill asserts, as it all being a puzzle to be solved, not as such as commonly taken as an interpolation for the TF, at least.

Much is made by those arguing the claimed interpolation position of the TF based upon Josephus use of the word 'disorder', but Atwill separately shows that Josephus refers to the two additional stories 'out of order', i.e 'disorder'. This is separate from the issue of the TF itself.

Josephus also provided other statements to help the reader recognize that the two stories are to be understood as parallel and therefore interchangeable. First, he reverses the order in which he states that he will describe them.
About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome.
I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs.
Further, at the beginning of the third story Josephus claims to be returning to an episode about the Jews "at Rome" as he had "formerly" stated.
I now return to the relation of what happened about this time to the Jews at Rome, as I formerly told you I would.
However, it was the "shameful practices at the temple of Isis' that Josephus previously claimed to have occurred "at Rome," not the episode regarding the Jews. Josephus does not mention where the "sad calamity [that] put the Jews into disorder" occurred. He last mentioned the Jews in a story regarding their persecution by Pontius Pilate in Judea. Josephus appears to be treating the two stories as though they are interchangeable. In doing so he continues the strange "logic" that exists between them, since their only significant differences are in the names of some of the elements in them. (Caesar's Messiah, First Edition, pg. 235)​

Atwill goes on to discuss that Paulina, an apparent Roman rents her garments, a deep Jewish practice, upon finding out her disgrace. This while Fulvia, whose story connects to the Jewish Temple, at least, does not do so. As Atwill asserts, Josephus is inviting the reader to see that elements such as names can be interchanged to find out the encrypted reality.

So with the story of Fulvia, we are told that a wicked man in Rome ostensibly to teach men the wisdom of the Laws of Moses, and three like-minded compatriots, dupe Fulvia into sending 'purple' and 'gold' to the Jerusalem Temple. And when it gets there they put it to their own use instead of for the Temple. This sounds remarkably like what some accused the Apostle Paul of doing and he protested much. But, Paul and Paulina? This is a sex-change transformation, and role reversal in other terms, and perhaps then another lampoon.

Here is a good point to come back and remember that Decius Mundus revealed to Paulina, on the third day, that he was the entity appearing as Anubis, and thus was NOT a god. This the inverse of Jesus, who on the third day rose, proving that he was divine.

And so Atwill offers his interpretation of what Josephus is really telling us:

While this new story is still a satire, it is one whose meaning can easily be grasped. The translation that I offer is as follows:
Rome desires Judea but cannot tempt it with wealth because of the staunch religious convictions of its people. Therefore, a Roman fools the Jewish Zealots into believing that he is the Christ. He pays wicked priests to help him carry out the plot. The authors of Christianity "enjoy" the experience of pretending to be the Messiah. (Caesar's Messiah, First Edition, pg. 240)​

Through one viewing angle, figuratively, with the prism I support this interpretation. Through another contextual view, more literal, I say that the Zealots, and 'Nazarenes' would have necessarily needed to actual rally around a figure, with credentials, like "the Egyptian", a member of the Edessan royal family. They just don't realize that they are being played, the equivalent of the modern era's fake populists ... and Julius Caesar himself.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
After 135 AD, could some of those verses have implied that the "Christ" of the First Jewish War was certainly not the last one, and there were more wars to follow. Don't worry though, surviving Jewish subjects, it was all meant to happen (since you continued to rebel), your false prophets deceived you, there was much internal strife among you also, but because you endured all of this to the end (of the last Jewish war), you will be saved, after the "good news"(the Son of God [Emperor] is "Lord" of all) has been spread all through the (Roman) world (which included the Jewish diaspora).
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Azes is a different ruler from Izates. He was an Indo-Scythian ruler from the 1st century BC
This is true.
So perhaps Bartram's point is that one can only find sketches depicting Izates posing as Zeus in the same way as Azes, but there is no contemporaneous, archaeological evidence depicting Izates as a distinguishable ruler in his own right.
Please see Richard's Post #659 on page 33 here, and see what you think of that.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Looks like I missed this second episode of Derek interviewing James Valliant about Carotta's Jesus Was Caesar:

[The first episode was posted here: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/from-cleopatra-to-christ.2515/post-13912 -rs ]


In this Valliant mentions the two Roman political parties, the aristocratic senators' Optimates versus the plebians' Populares. It very crudely represents the more confusing political dialectic of today's Rome on the Potomac. This is because today the effective PTB in charge are the so-called Establishment, and corporate wings of both the Republicans and Democrats.

As Valliant notes, Julius Caesar, like the gospel Jesus, was a man with a reputed royal and divine lineage while in the more immediate past was of humble descent. Julius was even a 'Marian', like 'Jesus. And here Julius, despite his rubbing elbows and coins with the other Roman aristocrats, played the populist political card to his great benefit. This attribute and Julius' famous clementia became infused in both Roman Christianity and the so-called Good Emperors (e.g. Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan ...).

They also missed, again, that Carotta stated near the end of the book that he thought the Flavians were highly involved in formalizing the nascent religion. This in what appears to be, at that time, Bartram's imperial Chrestianity cult (needing time in the imperial nursery to bloom).

In reading some of the CM again, Atwill believes that the canonic gospels were prepared in the months between Vespasian's death and his elevation to a god by the Senate. This was a relatively long time (somewhat less than a year) compared to prior dead emperors' wait. Atwill believe's that (avatar) Jesus' miracles and such, draped onto Vespasian's own alleged miracles would have been part of the case to win senators' votes. If so, it would make great sense that prior templates would be utilized, as imitatio was the preferred literary method in any case, to save time. Both Carotta and Gary Courtney, Et tu Judas, propose that typical military camp paens, in this case to Julius Caesar, would have been employed well.

As such, Valliant mentions the Latinisms found in the otherwise Greek gMark, as indicative of the typical Greek that would be employed in some of the Roman legions, smattered with Latin loan words, like 'legion'.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 4

Note that Atwill references Juvenal here and that I have frequently discussed Juvenal's Satire IV in regards to what I call Domitian's Big Fish story, where all the Roman poobahs of the day are called to the Papal Villa (now), errr Domitian's Villa (then), to determine what is to be done with this amazingly big fish that was caught. As Atwill relates elsewhere, it is thought that Domitian exiled Juvenal, and Atwill discusses Juvenal a dozen or so times throughout the book, so it would be good for me to go back and read these passages again. Domitian had a bloody reputation, so these 'exiles' are of a type I'm suspicious of as a cover story.

The following quotes are the first references in CM regarding Juvenal or what he wrote. Keep in mind what I said about Satire IV talking about Domitian's Big Fish Story, as a cryptic reference to Christianity, errr Chrestianity. Atwill's references are respectively to Satires VI, X, and XIII. He is just prior talking about the Roman elites' attitudes to religion generally and also to the imperial cult, their own creation. With the latter that it seems more as a dry political affair of showing loyalty (like with North Korea today), rather than a spiritual matter for the 'true believing' involvement of the hoi polloi. I would suggest that the imperial cult and its physical assets offered social organizing aspects targeted towards the elites under the cover of a religion.

From Caesar's Messiah, First Edition, pp. 28-29:

The cynicism that the patrician class felt toward religion was a subject of the satires of the Roman poet Juvenal. While the exact dates of Juvenal's birth and death are unknown, it is believed that he lived during the era of the Flavians. One of his satires concerns Agrippa and Bernice, the mistress of Titus.25 Tradition has it that Juvenal was banished from Rome by Domitian.
Sophisticated Romans like those Juvenal wrote about did not believe in the gods but rather in fortune and fate. The prevailing ethos of the patrician class was that the world was either ruled by blind chance or immutable destiny:
Fortune has no divinity, could we but see it: it's we, we ourselves, who make her a goddess, and set her in the heavens.26
Judging from the works of Juvenal, many Romans saw all religious belief, including their own, as ridiculous.
Just hark at those loud denials, observe the assurance of the lying face - He'll swear by the Sun's rays, by Jupiter's thunderbolts, by the lance of Mars, by the arrows of Delphic Apollo, by the quiver and shafts of Diana, the virgin huntress, by the trident of Neptune, Our Father of the Aegean: he'll throw in Hercules' bows and the spear of Minerva, the armories of Olympus down til their very last item: and if he's a father, he'll cry; "May I eat my own son's noodle—poor child!—well boiled and soused in a vinaigrette dressing!27

Satire VI is also expressing sarcasm towards Judaism, but I have read of contemporaneous accusations that Juvenal's parents were Jews. Similarly that Livy, as the lawmaker was Jewish (Livy - Levite), as the Romans' Moses.

Atwill finishes this segment asking why such cynical elites as the Flavians would then go on to be recorded as among the earliest Christians (Chrestians). Number 1 is that they created it, and number 2 is that it makes more sense initially as an esoteric cult of syncretistic matters including Pythagorus, Plato, and Philo. For instance, the 153 fish in the net (John 21:11), is a reference to one 'eternal' geometrical ratio number derived from the Pythagorean Vesica Piscis.

On page 40, Atwill makes another Juvenal reference, which may indeed by the same Satire IV, as he lists it as The Sixteen Satires, 4. I need to check this, that is if Seeker doesn't beat me to it.

If the authors of the Gospels were being less than transparent when they referred to the Jewish rebels as fish, they were at least using a metaphor common in the first century. For example, Rabban (chief Rabbi) Gamaliel spoke of his disciples through a parable in which they were compared to four different kinds of fish—an unclean fish, a clean fish, a fish from the river Jordan, and a fish from the sea. Roman authors also used the metaphor. Juvenal, a contemporary Roman poet, specifically compares fugitive slaves and informers to fish.40

If we are talking about the same satire, I did not interpret it as specifically Atwill has, only that the singular big fish must be Xianity. But, in the Bartram context, that Domitian is not happy about Chrestianity, maybe then this refers to Chrestians being brought in for interrogations and such? The Flavian imperial symbol, and the 'Christian', was the Fish and Anchor.

This represents all of Atwill's references to Juvenal except one, the last about the relationship of human flesh to that of swine. But this is a good place to break.
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Julius was even a 'Marian', like 'Jesus.
Good point, I had never thought of that "connection". Charles N. Pope, in his book "Jesus Among the Julio-Claudians", actually goes even further than that, making Caesar the biological son of Marius, instead of his nephew by marriage.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Please see Richard's Post #659 on page 33 here, and see what you think of that.

Here, Bartram is indeed suggesting that Izas and Azes were one and the same. And that Josephus thought that Izas and Izates were the same.

But it's still possible to construe that Bartram thinks the representations of 'Izates' are all from the 2nd century, thus not contemporaneous. Maybe the artists forgot what Izates looked like, so they figured they'd use an image of Azes and no one would complain? Or, maybe Izates didn't exist as a ruler in the 1st century AD (rather than the 1st century BC when Azes is elsewhere attested) and Josephus was also confused.

I'm not sure that's what Bartram is trying to say. We could go over to Quora and ask him?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 5

OK, so I lied, we'll have to wait for my commentary of the crispy saints, because I wanted to finish with Atwill's Juvenal references first. Also, if you haven't already, please see my separate analysis of Juvenal's entire Satire IV, which I have called The Case of the Fresh Fillet and Crispy Sprats.

The last of Atwill's CM references to Juvenal are in regards to the Cannibal Mary issue. This comes from Satire XIV and here I have added Atwill's context from page 157:

I would note that the analysis above has implications for the sacrament of Communion. It suggests that the Romans deliberately created the ritual as a cruel joke on Christians.
In any event, the humor that the Romans created regarding the cannibalism of the messianic Jews evidently springs from the irony they saw in a people with such strict dietary laws eating rancid human flesh. The irony of the Jews, a people too fastidious to eat pork, eating human flesh would have been widely understood within the patrician class when War of the Jews was written. The satirist Juvenal, for example, referred to it without providing any context.
Some, whose Lot [sic -rs] it has been to have Sabbath fearing fathers,
Worship nothing but clouds and the numen of heavens,
And see no difference between the flesh of swine and humans
Since their fathers abstained from pork.119

Atwill is correct that there is no (seeming) context to this passage, as the whole work is a laundry list of Juvenal's about the impact of good or bad parenting on children. One might say the same for good or bad culture incidentally. Therefore, one can surmise that the passage implies that a child becomes Jewish via learning from its parents (and Hillary's village), and nothing more. This is the take on Wikipedia:

lines 14.96–106 – People learn to be Jewish from their parents.

Below is from a different translation and a few more related lines of Jewish context. The prior passages are about a man and his son who have taken to building massive mansions far too big for what a family actually needs. The subsequent passages are about the sin of being a miser, and the turning of a virtue into a vice. The work overall is a satirical complaint about the unhealthy moral changes that wealth has brought to Rome over the centuries. Sounds like today in New Rome. In any case, Juvenal seems to be bringing a lot of wisdom here. So one must ask whether or not he intended here to also be acknowledging the dark humor of Cannibal Mary or not?

Some who have had a father who reveres the Sabbath, worship nothing but the clouds, and the divinity of the heavens,5 and see no difference between eating swine's flesh, from which their father abstained, and that of man; and in time they take to circumcision. Having been wont to flout the laws of Rome, they learn and practise and revere the Jewish law, and all that Moses committed to his secret tome, forbidding to point out the way to any not worshipping the same rites, and conducting none but the circumcised to the desired fountain.6 For all which the father was to blame, who gave up every seventh day to idleness, keeping it apart from all the concerns of life.7

And in the context of our discussing motivation and intent by the NT authors, whether 'Chrestians' or not, in producing such a work Atwill closes his The Puzzle of The Empty Tomb chapter on page 168 with pondering the following:

The reader must resolve those logical contradictions; if he or she fails, the punishment is belief in a false god. It is possible that the authors of the Gospels created them as a sort of educational tool disguised as a narrative about Jesus. The authors may have wished their readers to work through the various contradictions in logic in order to develop their reasoning ability and thus be able to think their way out of religious superstition. They may have wished the Gospels to be seen by posterity as their contribution to the development of reason.

Apparently the tool or test was too hard, as Joe was the only non-insider to have figured it out in almost 2,000 years. At least that we gnow of.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Azes is a different ruler from Izates. He was an Indo-Scythian ruler from the 1st century BC. So perhaps Bartram's point is that one can only find sketches depicting Izates posing as Zeus in the same way as Azes, but there is no contemporaneous, archaeological evidence depicting Izates as a distinguishable ruler in his own right.
In doing my due diligence for the followup on the 'Crispy' saints, I backtracked into J. Rendel Harris' The Dioscuri Twins in the Christian Legends. I had purchased this book and then made some more use of an online work, The Cult of the Heavenly Twins, of Harris' in my Chrest to Christ thread. In any case, in noticing the very last supplemental note of the book I read (from pg. 64):

761

Unfortunately, I had let my attention drift away from this book to the different online work. In any case, in skimming quickly we see Harris discussing much more that I will go into more detail on on the Chrest to Christ thread. But for this question of Azes and/or Izates being equated in some manner with the gospel Jesus, how is this?

That this Edessan junior deity, Azizos, represents the Morning Star. It only gets better as I will explain why this is so and in contrast to the Evening Star, and why 'Thomas' ended up in India, as well as likely being the (mythic) one on the cross, the real source of the Islamic version of the Cruci-fiction. And, well get more background on the lunar associated Helens of Troy/Sparta and Adiabene/Edessa.
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Apparently the tool or test was too hard, as Joe was the only non-insider to have figured it out in almost 2,000 years. At least that we gnow of.
This is probably why we have Mensa ;)

PS- What I personally did figure out was that "The Puzzle of the Empty Tomb" closes on page 158, not 168, so perhaps I am gradually seeing the light of reason, as the Postflavian insider "Joseeker". Ah, Vanity, Vanity, All is Vanity!
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
That this Edessan junior deity, Azizos, represents the Morning Star.
I really have to hand it to you, Richard, you always find a "way". You also try to discover the "truth", and bring some "life" to these discussions, though I am not quite ready yet to equate your "RS" with "IHS"!
 
Top