Author Topic: Conspiracy Theorist Ralph Ellis says Jesus of Nazareth = Jesus ben Gamala  (Read 108617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair
Ellis, if you are interested, this is a good article about the aerliest history of Edessa and the name of the city:
http://www.aramaic-dem.org/English/History/The%20Ancient%20Name%20Of%20Edessa%20Harrak.pdf

Also, The Seleucid Empire had two capitals, during its history: Seleucia, in modern day Iraq and Antioch, in modern day Turkey. Edessa was a part of the Empire, but was not the capital.
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Ellis, if you are interested, this is a good article about the aerliest history of Edessa and the name of the city:
http://www.aramaic-dem.org/English/History/The%20Ancient%20Name%20Of%20Edessa%20Harrak.pdf

Also, The Seleucid Empire had two capitals, during its history: Seleucia, in modern day Iraq and Antioch, in modern day Turkey. Edessa was a part of the Empire, but was not the capital.


Thanks for that, much appreciated.

Ralph

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair
Ellis, if you are interested, this is a good article about the aerliest history of Edessa and the name of the city:
http://www.aramaic-dem.org/English/History/The%20Ancient%20Name%20Of%20Edessa%20Harrak.pdf

Also, The Seleucid Empire had two capitals, during its history: Seleucia, in modern day Iraq and Antioch, in modern day Turkey. Edessa was a part of the Empire, but was not the capital.


Thanks for that, much appreciated.

Ralph

You're welcome.
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

You're welcome.


You might also be interested in this paper on the location of Adiabene by Prof Marciak. As you can see, the evidence is 'lacking'.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/12884154/contents-libre.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1394744545&Signature=2epBt0dfYXvdSmyYrW3PaVmI6bM%3D

I did suggest to the Prof, that it was a bit odd to go looking for Adiabene and never mention its royal family. Surely, if you find the royal family, then you might find Adiabene.  But he did not appreciate my comments, and broke off all communication after i said that.

Of course, we know that Queen Helena of 'Adiabene' was a queen of Edessa......


Ralph



« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 03:48:14 PM by ralfellis »

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

You're welcome.


You might also be interested in this paper on the location of Adiabene by Prof Marciak. As you can see, the evidence is 'lacking'.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/12884154/contents-libre.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1394744545&Signature=2epBt0dfYXvdSmyYrW3PaVmI6bM%3D

I did suggest to the Prof, that it was a bit odd to go looking for Adiabene and never mention its royal family. Surely, if you find the royal family, then you might find Adiabene.  But he did not appreciate my comments, and broke off all communication after i said that.

I am afraid that the link only shows the Table of Contents.

Of course, we know that Queen Helena of 'Adiabene' was a queen of Edessa......


Ralph





I doesn't make sense. Queen Helena of Adiabene was a jew. King Abgar and his family were pagans before their conversion.
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

I am afraid that the link only shows the Table of Contents.

I doesn't make sense. Queen Helena of Adiabene was a jew. King Abgar and his family were pagans before their conversion. ***


Try this link.  If it does not work, try googling 'anabasis Michał Marciak adiabene'.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/33019377/Marciak_Gordyene-libre.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1394778668&Signature=fdsmDiAnrSmdXEoxAr80uY4KHJk%3D



Actually, I trace the family of Edessa back to Queen the Muse Ourania,* a diplomatic gift to Parthia from Octavian who was probably an Egypto-Ptolomaic princess.   But please remember two things:

a.  What was Judaism? It was not the Judaism of today, which does not have a temple and refuses to make burned offerings.

b.  The Judaism of King Solomon was a very different animal. If you read the accounts, it was polytheistic and honoured all of the main 'Pagan' gods.  And while Jeremiah may have ranted and raved, his people refused to give up worshipping the Queen of Heaven (ie: Isis), and told him to get stuffed. **


So when you say that "King Abgar and his family were Pagans before their conversion", you probably mean that they were true Jews who were holding onto the true foundations of the religion.


Ralph


*  Note that Queen Ourania means the Queen of Heaven (ie: Isis).

** Quote from Jeremiah:

"We will not listen to you. But we will do everything that we have vowed, burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and pour out libations to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no evil. But since we left off burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine." Jer 44:16-18

As you can see, these people were not Jews in the modern sense, they were Pagans.


***   And do remember that Queen Helena was not originally a Jew, she was a proselyte convert, according to the Talmud. She had to do a seven year initiation (and some say she had to do it twice).  And also she converted to Nazarene Judaism, not orthodox Judaism.


Ralph
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 01:44:09 AM by ralfellis »

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

I am afraid that the link only shows the Table of Contents.

I doesn't make sense. Queen Helena of Adiabene was a jew. King Abgar and his family were pagans before their conversion. ***


Try this link.  If it does not work, try googling 'anabasis Michał Marciak adiabene'.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/33019377/Marciak_Gordyene-libre.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1394778668&Signature=fdsmDiAnrSmdXEoxAr80uY4KHJk%3D

The link didn't work. I'll try google.

Actually, I trace the family of Edessa back to Queen the Muse Ourania,* a diplomatic gift to Parthia from Octavian who was probably an Egypto-Ptolomaic princess.   But please remember two things:

a.  What was Judaism? It was not the Judaism of today, which does not have a temple and refuses to make burned offerings.

b.  The Judaism of King Solomon was a very different animal. If you read the accounts, it was polytheistic and honoured all of the main 'Pagan' gods.  And while Jeremiah may have ranted and raved, his people refused to give up worshipping the Queen of Heaven (ie: Isis), and told him to get stuffed. **


So when you say that "King Abgar and his family were Pagans before their conversion", you probably mean that they were true Jews who were holding onto the true foundations of the religion.


Ralph


*  Note that Queen Ourania means the Queen of Heaven (ie: Isis).

** Quote from Jeremiah:

"We will not listen to you. But we will do everything that we have vowed, burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and pour out libations to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no evil. But since we left off burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine." Jer 44:16-18

As you can see, these people were not Jews in the modern sense, they were Pagans.


***   And do remember that Queen Helena was not originally a Jew, she was a proselyte convert, according to the Talmud. She had to do a seven year initiation (and some say she had to do it twice).  And also she converted to Nazarene Judaism, not orthodox Judaism.


Ralph

I really think we should stick to the current time period. If you wan't to discuss the religious history of the Israelites, may I suggest that you dedicate that topic to another thread.

The supposed paganism of the ancient Israelites is irrelevant, in the context of this discussion. THere is no doubt that judaism, both orthodox and nazarene, was monotheistic. Besides, the pagan gods mentioned in the OT were canaanite gods. King Abgar and his family most likely worshipped assyrian gods, therefore, your theory about them being "true jews" is ultimately baseless.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 06:01:59 AM by Ansgar »
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
I'm afraid it CAN be done.  What you may not know, is that (most?) Aramaic/Hebrew words were derived from Ancient Egyptian.

This simply isn't true at all. The alphabet derives archaically from the adaptation of Egyptian hieroglyphic by Semites living in Egypt, but a script is a far different thing from a language.

That is, after all, where the Israelites came from.

There is no linguistic, historical, or archaeological data that suggests the Israelites came from Egypt. The preponderance of evidence suggests, rather, that the Israelite ethnos began as a loose tribal confederacy constituting a variety of nomadic and sedentary subgroups from Syria-Palestine, with the most prominent (or at least visible) group settling in the north from the area of Edom/Midian. This is reflected not only in the biblical traditions associated with the area, and in the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscription's reference to YHWH of Teman, but also in the earliest known references to YHWH, which are 13th/14th century BCE Egyptian texts that refer to Midianite territory as the land of YHW. Excellent research on this question can be found in the following texts:

N. Amzallag, “Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy?” JSOT 33.4 (2009): 387-404.

J. Blenkinsopp, “The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah,” JSOT 33.2 (2008): 131-53.

J. Kelley, “Toward a new synthesis of the god of Edom and Yahweh,” Antiguo Oriente: Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente 7 (2009).

T. Schneider, “The First Documented Occurrence of the God Yahweh? (Book of the Dead Princeton ‘Roll 5′),” JANER 7.2 (2007): 113-20.

N. Shupak, “The God from Teman and the Egyptian Sun God: A Reconsideration of Habakkuk 3:3-7,” JANES 28 (2001): 97-116.

Most of the words i used in this book were taken from: "Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts" by James Hoch, which is the standard academic work in this field of linguistics.  Additional words came from the renown Egyptologist, Wallis Budge.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WRuGQgAACAAJ&dq=Semitic+Words+in+Egyptian+Texts&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nAkeU_OqFOKs4AS3iIHIDg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg

The only change i made, was to assume that these were Egyptian loan-words in Hebrew.  (Hoch mistakenly assumed they were hebrew loan-words in Egyptian).   But look at this logically.

Yes, since we can override mountains of linguistic data and careful analysis with a few broad assumptions we just assert are "logical." No need to have a linguistic argument of any kind. Also, Hoch's text addresses Semitic words, not just Hebrew words.

.. Which was the older language here, Egyptian or Hebrew?  
 .. Does a world-power take its language from immigrants, or do immigrants take on the language of their adoptive country?
 .. The adoptive words include ordinal numbers. Are we to believe that the Israelites taught the Egyptians how to count?

Ralph obviously has no linguistic training whatsoever, and no familiarity at all with the dynamics involved in linguistic borrowing. A couple good places to start would be the following:

Y. Matras, Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007).

F. Field, Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Contexts (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002).

From this research you would learn a number of helpful principles. First, for instance, borrowings can happen in either direction when two languages are in extended contact, but the primary factor is language dominance, not comparative age. Language dominance is determined by culture, ethnicity, and region. Keep in mind that the periods covered in Hoch's book follow after Egypt's rule by Semitic peoples (not Israelites, as is naively suggested by Ralph and others who don't have a clue about the actual history of the period), and include the Amarna period, when a Canaanite language was the lingua franca in the Ancient Near East (including Egypt), as well as periods of extensive occupation in Canaan, where the local languages would have been highly influential on the Egyptian officials (Hoch himself points out that the most extensive contact took place in Canaan [p. 485]). Gary Rendsburg put it this way:

Quote
During the period of the Egyptian New Kingdom, there was large scale interaction between the Egyptians of the Nile Valley and the Semites of the Levant and beyond. Such contacts existed earlier (note the story of Sinuhe from the Middle Kingdom, the Hyksos rule over large portions of Egypt, and so οn), but it was during the New Kingdom that the intensity of this interaction increased dramatically. The contact was in two directions. For the first time in its history Egypt ruled over large areas of Canaan in an imperial manner, with garrisons
of troops and administrators stationed throughout the region; and Semites in increasing numbers made their way to Egypt, where their occupations ranged from slaves performing menial tasks to high officials serving the pharaoh. Furthermore, as the Amarna letters attest,
Akkadian had become the lingua franca of the Near East, so that the language could be read and written by scribes at the court of Akhenaten.

In light of this historical picture, it is no surprise that Semitic words and names appear in unprecedented numbers in Egyptian texts of the New Kingdom (and in the Third Intermediate Period thereafter). These words and names are presented in the traditional Egyptian hieroglyphic script, specifically in a variation called "group writίηg" or "syllabic orthography." This system was developed to transcribe foreign words and names, with an attempt to render the vowels accompanying the consonants.

Note, please, that the script in which the Semitic borrowings into Egyptian were written was specifically used to transliterate foreign words. This makes it difficult (read: "impossible") to insist that the words were indigenous to Egyptian and just borrowing into the Semitic languages. 

On, Hebrews in Egypt, Ralph is just assuming that the biblical text is accurate in its description of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt, but there's nothing in any historical or material record that at all lends support to such a notion. In fact, all the data conflicts with it. Also, the adoption of "ordinal numbers" is not really that astonishing, nor does it indicate who taught whom how to count. English uses Arabic numerals, but that doesn't mean the Muslims came and taught early English speakers how to count.

Further, the phonological and morphological discussions alone absolutely preclude Ralph's attempt to switch directionality, but Ralph obviously does not have the learning or resources to adequately engage any such discussion. The historical usage is also definitive. When one language uses the same word over a long period of time that suddenly pops up in another language where it never appeared before, there's no mystery regarding who borrowed the word from whom. Just arbitrarily assuming the directionality should be reversed is just nonsensical and has no justification whatsoever.

No.  These are all Egyptian loan-words, and they form the whole basis for the Hebrew language (probably up to 1,000 words).

And it would take someone with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of Semitic or Egyptian historical linguistics, or the difference between Semitic languages and Afro-Asiatic languages, to say something so utterly and completely laughable. Proto-Semitic is easily traceable, as is the relationship of the wider Semitic family to its Proto-Semitic roots. Anything by Huehnergard on the question will be thorough and accurate. Egyptian is a completely different story that has absolutely nothing to do with the development of Semitic languages.

In which case, the whole of the Torah is written in a daughter-language of ancient Egyptian.  And in which case, the Torah can also be read in Egyptian.

If it were translated into Egyptian, yes, it could be read in Egyptian. There is not a single piece of evidence that anything other than the script of ancient Semitic languages is a "daughter" of ancient Egyptian (on the origin of the script in Egyptian, see Hamilton, The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts [Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 2006]). The two languages developed independently from different sources. For more, see the following:

Kutcher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Leiden: Brill, 1982).

Kaltner, Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002) [see especially Redford's article on Egyptian, beginning on p. 109]

Lipínski, Semitic Languages. Outline of a Comparative Grammar (Leuven: Peeters, 1997).

Rainey, "Whence Came the Israelites and Their Language?" Israel Exploration Journal 57.1 (2007): 41-64.

Woodard, The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

P.S.   Joseph became high priest of Heliopolis, while Moses was brought up in Egypt's royal court and became their top army commander.   Do you think these people could do this, without speaking fluent Egyptian??

Again, Ralph is arbitrarily assuming the historicity of the biblical text and then leveraging that assumption as some kind of evidence of something.

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Yes, strong words.   But i do not make that accusation lightly.

You do make them frequently and with fake identities, though. Why haven't you mentioned that you have started blogs using Tom's full name in an effort to appear high up on searches of his name that are full of personal attacks? Like this blog that you started back in 2009 that is entitled "Tom Verenna is a Lying Idiot," but has a url of thomasverenna.blogspot.com?

This is a man who claimed to be at a university that denied all knowledge of him.

You're lying, Ralph. You know very well he is officially enrolled at that school. You've been shown official documentation multiple times to prove it, and you've even been in contact with the school directly in a failed attempt to get Tom in trouble. You acknowledged his enrollment when you lied about the university beginning an investigation:

Quote
Rutgers Uni have started an investigation into Tom Verenna's conduct. With any luck, he will not be there much longer.

No such investigation was ever started, was it, Ralph? You whined about the university and the protective cabal that is the academy shortly after posting this, so things must not have gone well, huh?
  
This is a man who reviews a book without reading it.

When key portions of the book can be shown to be just methodologically senseless and laughable, as is the case with your fumbled attempt to insist Adiabene means "sons of Addai," there's no real need to read the rest of the book. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
  
This is a man who fabricates sections that do not even exist in a book, so that he can criticise those fabricated passages.
This is a man who refuses to withdraw those fabrications when attention was politely drawn to them.

You've never said a polite word to Tom. Here's what you wrote about him in 2009:

Quote
Tom Verenna never had academic credibility in his life. Scoring poorly in high school, no college would accept him

Also, since he was sexually repressed as a teenager, he made up yet another title "the ladies man." As "the ladies man" he met a few girls on line, had sex with them, and wrote a number of pornographic articles.

For as long as he lives, Verenna will never be taken seriously as a "historian" let alone as a man with intelligence.

Verenna's stupidity is astounding. He has the inability to comprehend the material he reads

Verenna's name is downright synonymous with the word "dishonesty."

he is an intellectual pussy.

Tom Verenna the pervert

Verenna is actually a terrible writer when he's not plagiarizing other people's works

Tom thoroughly explained his past and how and why he left it behind to you and to everyone else over a year ago, but you refused to accept him at his word and continue to bring up the same tired accusations from years ago.

This is a man who refuses a right of reply by an author.

A "right of reply"?

Sorry, but this is not normal academia,

You're right, it's the internet. At the same time, however, you hate academia and everything it stands for, and you don't meet any of their standards at all. You constantly and offensively deride and mock academia and other professional fields (calling their constituents "retards" and "incompetents") just because they don't accept your claims. Why should anyone treat you with the respect you so belligerently refuse to show anyone else, particularly while outside of the context of their professional field?

this was and is a deliberate hatchet-job on a book that certain people did not like.

Those certain people being anyone and everyone that knows anything at all about the topic.

I have given this individual a year to amend or withdraw his fake review, but he has refused to do so and has gone into hiding.

And the whole time you harassed, insulted, and attempted to cause professional and legal trouble for him. And he didn't apologize? Imagine that.

My only recourse, is to fight fire with fire.  He has had quite enough warning.  Sorry, but this is the level that this genre has descended to.

Ralph, you brought it down to this level long ago and with extreme prejudice. He has tried to leave you alone, but you continuously attack him and try to cause trouble for him. Why this delusional and psychotic obsession?





[/quote]

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,725
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
I'm afraid it CAN be done.  What you may not know, is that (most?) Aramaic/Hebrew words were derived from Ancient Egyptian.

This simply isn't true at all. The alphabet derives archaically from the adaptation of Egyptian hieroglyphic by Semites living in Egypt, but a script is a far different thing from a language.
I
That is, after all, where the Israelites came from.

There is no linguistic, historical, or archaeological data that suggests the Israelites came from Egypt. The preponderance of evidence suggests, rather, that the Israelite ethnos began as a loose tribal confederacy constituting a variety of nomadic and sedentary subgroups from Syria-Palestine, with the most prominent (or at least visible) group settling in the north from the area of Edom/Midian. This is reflected not only in the biblical traditions associated with the area, and in the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscription's reference to YHWH of Teman, but also in the earliest known references to YHWH, which are 13th/14th century BCE Egyptian texts that refer to Midianite territory as the land of YHW. Excellent research on this question can be found in the following texts:

N. Amzallag, “Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy?” JSOT 33.4 (2009): 387-404.

J. Blenkinsopp, “The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah,” JSOT 33.2 (2008): 131-53.

J. Kelley, “Toward a new synthesis of the god of Edom and Yahweh,” Antiguo Oriente: Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente 7 (2009).

T. Schneider, “The First Documented Occurrence of the God Yahweh? (Book of the Dead Princeton ‘Roll 5′),” JANER 7.2 (2007): 113-20.

N. Shupak, “The God from Teman and the Egyptian Sun God: A Reconsideration of Habakkuk 3:3-7,” JANES 28 (2001): 97-116.

Most of the words i used in this book were taken from: "Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts" by James Hoch, which is the standard academic work in this field of linguistics.  Additional words came from the renown Egyptologist, Wallis Budge.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WRuGQgAACAAJ&dq=Semitic+Words+in+Egyptian+Texts&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nAkeU_OqFOKs4AS3iIHIDg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg

The only change i made, was to assume that these were Egyptian loan-words in Hebrew.  (Hoch mistakenly assumed they were hebrew loan-words in Egyptian).   But look at this logically.

Yes, since we can override mountains of linguistic data and careful analysis with a few broad assumptions we just assert are "logical." No need to have a linguistic argument of any kind. Also, Hoch's text addresses Semitic words, not just Hebrew words.

.. Which was the older language here, Egyptian or Hebrew?  
 .. Does a world-power take its language from immigrants, or do immigrants take on the language of their adoptive country?
 .. The adoptive words include ordinal numbers. Are we to believe that the Israelites taught the Egyptians how to count?

Ralph obviously has no linguistic training whatsoever, and no familiarity at all with the dynamics involved in linguistic borrowing. A couple good places to start would be the following:

Y. Matras, Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007).

F. Field, Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Contexts (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002).

From this research you would learn a number of helpful principles. First, for instance, borrowings can happen in either direction when two languages are in extended contact, but the primary factor is language dominance, not comparative age. Language dominance is determined by culture, ethnicity, and region. Keep in mind that the periods covered in Hoch's book follow after Egypt's rule by Semitic peoples (not Israelites, as is naively suggested by Ralph and others who don't have a clue about the actual history of the period), and include the Amarna period, when a Canaanite language was the lingua franca in the Ancient Near East (including Egypt), as well as periods of extensive occupation in Canaan, where the local languages would have been highly influential on the Egyptian officials (Hoch himself points out that the most extensive contact took place in Canaan [p. 485]). Gary Rendsburg put it this way:

Quote
During the period of the Egyptian New Kingdom, there was large scale interaction between the Egyptians of the Nile Valley and the Semites of the Levant and beyond. Such contacts existed earlier (note the story of Sinuhe from the Middle Kingdom, the Hyksos rule over large portions of Egypt, and so οn), but it was during the New Kingdom that the intensity of this interaction increased dramatically. The contact was in two directions. For the first time in its history Egypt ruled over large areas of Canaan in an imperial manner, with garrisons
of troops and administrators stationed throughout the region; and Semites in increasing numbers made their way to Egypt, where their occupations ranged from slaves performing menial tasks to high officials serving the pharaoh. Furthermore, as the Amarna letters attest,
Akkadian had become the lingua franca of the Near East, so that the language could be read and written by scribes at the court of Akhenaten.

In light of this historical picture, it is no surprise that Semitic words and names appear in unprecedented numbers in Egyptian texts of the New Kingdom (and in the Third Intermediate Period thereafter). These words and names are presented in the traditional Egyptian hieroglyphic script, specifically in a variation called "group writίηg" or "syllabic orthography." This system was developed to transcribe foreign words and names, with an attempt to render the vowels accompanying the consonants.

Note, please, that the script in which the Semitic borrowings into Egyptian were written was specifically used to transliterate foreign words. This makes it difficult (read: "impossible") to insist that the words were indigenous to Egyptian and just borrowing into the Semitic languages.  

On, Hebrews in Egypt, Ralph is just assuming that the biblical text is accurate in its description of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt, but there's nothing in any historical or material record that at all lends support to such a notion. In fact, all the data conflicts with it. Also, the adoption of "ordinal numbers" is not really that astonishing, nor does it indicate who taught whom how to count. English uses Arabic numerals, but that doesn't mean the Muslims came and taught early English speakers how to count.

Further, the phonological and morphological discussions alone absolutely preclude Ralph's attempt to switch directionality, but Ralph obviously does not have the learning or resources to adequately engage any such discussion. The historical usage is also definitive. When one language uses the same word over a long period of time that suddenly pops up in another language where it never appeared before, there's no mystery regarding who borrowed the word from whom. Just arbitrarily assuming the directionality should be reversed is just nonsensical and has no justification whatsoever.

No.  These are all Egyptian loan-words, and they form the whole basis for the Hebrew language (probably up to 1,000 words).

And it would take someone with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of Semitic or Egyptian historical linguistics, or the difference between Semitic languages and Afro-Asiatic languages, to say something so utterly and completely laughable. Proto-Semitic is easily traceable, as is the relationship of the wider Semitic family to its Proto-Semitic roots. Anything by Huehnergard on the question will be thorough and accurate. Egyptian is a completely different story that has absolutely nothing to do with the development of Semitic languages.

In which case, the whole of the Torah is written in a daughter-language of ancient Egyptian.  And in which case, the Torah can also be read in Egyptian.

If it were translated into Egyptian, yes, it could be read in Egyptian. There is not a single piece of evidence that anything other than the script of ancient Semitic languages is a "daughter" of ancient Egyptian (on the origin of the script in Egyptian, see Hamilton, The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts [Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 2006]). The two languages developed independently from different sources. For more, see the following:

Kutcher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Leiden: Brill, 1982).

Kaltner, Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002) [see especially Redford's article on Egyptian, beginning on p. 109]

Lipínski, Semitic Languages. Outline of a Comparative Grammar (Leuven: Peeters, 1997).

Rainey, "Whence Came the Israelites and Their Language?" Israel Exploration Journal 57.1 (2007): 41-64.

Woodard, The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

P.S.   Joseph became high priest of Heliopolis, while Moses was brought up in Egypt's royal court and became their top army commander.   Do you think these people could do this, without speaking fluent Egyptian??

Again, Ralph is arbitrarily assuming the historicity of the biblical text and then leveraging that assumption as some kind of evidence of something.

Welcome aboard.

Wow. References.  ;)

Trust us. No one is falling for his particular brand of 'scholarship'
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 09:04:37 AM by DeniseDenise »
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

I really think we should stick to the current time period. If you wan't to discuss the religious history of the Israelites, may I suggest that you dedicate that topic to another thread.

The supposed paganism of the ancient Israelites is irrelevant, in the context of this discussion. THere is no doubt that judaism, both orthodox and nazarene, was monotheistic. Besides, the pagan gods mentioned in the OT were canaanite gods. King Abgar and his family most likely worshipped assyrian gods, therefore, your theory about them being "true jews" is ultimately baseless.


Regards the paper on Adiabene, try this link. This is the page that the PDF comes from.
https://rzeszow.academia.edu/MichalMarciak/Papers



You may be right that the Torah is a completely different topic, but what i am saying is that 1st century Judaism was not the same animal we see today. So what do you mean by 'the Edessans were not Jews'? To which form of Judaism do you refer?

Actually, the Edessans are likely to have been Sabaean more than anything.  And yet we know that 1st century Jews were also Sabaean.  This is a 1st century zodiac from the Hamat Teverya synagogue in Tiberias, Galilee (it is said to be 4th century, but for many reasons it is 1st century).  







This is pure Sabaeanism, and yet this is also pure 1st century Judaism - that same kind if Nazarene Judaism that the Edessans would have been familiar with.


Ralph



« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 12:21:20 PM by ralfellis »

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

I really think we should stick to the current time period. If you wan't to discuss the religious history of the Israelites, may I suggest that you dedicate that topic to another thread.

The supposed paganism of the ancient Israelites is irrelevant, in the context of this discussion. THere is no doubt that judaism, both orthodox and nazarene, was monotheistic. Besides, the pagan gods mentioned in the OT were canaanite gods. King Abgar and his family most likely worshipped assyrian gods, therefore, your theory about them being "true jews" is ultimately baseless.


Regards the paper on Adiabene, try this link. This is the page that the PDF comes from.
https://rzeszow.academia.edu/MichalMarciak/Papers



You may be right that the Torah is a completely different topic, but what i am saying is that 1st century Judaism was not the same animal we see today. So what do you mean by 'the Edessans were not Jews'? To which form of Judaism do you refer?

Actually, the Edessans are likely to have been Sabaean more than anything.  And yet we know that 1st century Jews were also Sabaean.  This is a 1st century zodiac from the Hamat Teverya synagogue in Tiberias, Galilee (it is said to be 4th century, but for many reasons it is 1st century). 
http://i45.tinypic.com/2zf6783.jpg

This is pure Sabaeanism, and yet this is also pure 1st century Judaism - that same Judaism that the Edessans would have been familiar with.


Ralph






Ralph, I think you know what kind of judaism I am talking about. The Jews of the first century were not sabaeans. They are two entirely different groups of semitic people. And I say it again. The gods in the OT are canaanite. The Edessans would have worshipped assyrian gods. Their religion had nothing to do with judaism. Queen Helena converted to judaism, King Abgar and his family were polytheists before their conversion. 
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137


You do make them frequently and with fake identities, though. Why haven't you mentioned that you have started blogs using Tom's full name in an effort to appear high up on searches of his name that are full of personal attacks? Like this blog that you started back in 2009 that is entitled "Tom Verenna is a Lying Idiot," but has a url of thomasverenna.blogspot.com?



Remarkable. Truly remarkable.

This, everyone, is Professor Daniel McClellan. Or I am assuming it is Daniel McClellan, as this is hardly the language of someone with a M.A. in ancient languages.  Perhaps the mods could check his login details, because it could be Mr Verenna masquerading as Mcclellan (they know each other very well).


Anyway, the above is a stupendous lie.  Mr Verenna made his bogus review of my books in 2013, and I had never even heard if him prior to that time, let alone in 2009.  And McClellan knows this. Apparently, the blog post against Verenna mentioned here was made by people who were upset with his gratuitous treatment of the author called Archyra.

.

Anyway, if this is Prof Daniel McClellan posting, please note that he is a devout Mormon who subscribes to a belief that says the Sun is called Enish-go-on-dosh and it borrows its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars..... etc: etc:

Mormon beliefs - the Book of Abraham:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

Reviews of the Book of Abraham:
Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:
"It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations"
Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology,
“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud...”

And yet as a Mormon, 'Professor' McClellan will happily believe in these kind of 'impudent frauds' (an Egyptologist's phrase, not mine), invented by a man of dubious character called Josiah Smith.


Ralph



Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,725
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
One's personal beliefs do not prohibit one from engaging in academic research of a disparate topic.


I am of no consequence...but i would be careful with the name calling and ad hominems here......
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Ralph, I think you know what kind of judaism I am talking about. The Jews of the first century were not sabaeans. They are two entirely different groups of semitic people. And I say it again. The gods in the OT are canaanite. The Edessans would have worshipped assyrian gods. Their religion had nothing to do with judaism. Queen Helena converted to judaism, King Abgar and his family were polytheists before their conversion. 


Then why were Jews displaying a zodiac as the centrepiece of their synagogues?  What sort of Jews were these?  Please explain.

And who was Queen Helena of Adiabene?  Where did she come from?  What were her beliefs prior to her conversion to Nazarene Judaism?   I put it to you, that her beliefs were exactly the same as Queen Helena of Edessa.


Ralph


Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Remarkable. Truly remarkable.

This, everyone, is Professor Daniel McClellan. Or I am assuming it is Daniel McClellan, as this is hardly the language of someone with a M.A. in ancient languages.  Perhaps the mods could check his login details, because it could be Mr Verenna masquerading as Mcclellan (they know each other very well).

No, neither of us have ever "masqueraded" as each other, and despite your claims elsewhere, we are not the same person.

Anyway, the above is a stupendous lie.  Mr Verenna made his bogus review of my books in 2013, and I had never even heard if him prior to that time, let alone in 2009.  And McClellan knows this. Apparently, the blog post against Verenna mentioned here was made by people who were upset with his gratuitous treatment of the author called Archyra.

You may not have authored the blog post to which I linked, but you certainly do use it quite frequently, and you have unquestionably hidden behind numerous sock puppets to run around the internet and spew personal attacks at Tom. On top of that, after a year you're still aggressively attacking him and emailing people to try to get him in professional trouble. That's not healthy, Ralph.

Anyway, if this is Prof Daniel McClellan posting, please note that he is a devout Mormon who subscribes to a belief that says the Sun is called Enish-go-on-dosh and it borrows its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars..... etc: etc:

Mormon beliefs - the Book of Abraham:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

Reviews of the Book of Abraham:
Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:
"It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations"
Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology,
“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud...”

And yet as a Mormon, 'Professor' McClellan will happily believe in these kind of 'impudent frauds' (an Egyptologist's phrase, not mine), invented by a man of dubious character called Josiah Smith.

I've told you numerous times, Ralph, that you don't have the foggiest idea what my personal beliefs are. I've also challenged you numerous times to show me one example of anything I've ever published that you think could be traced back to LDS ideology. You've never deigned to take me up on that challenge to support your claims.

Also, I appreciate you responding to these three sentences, but I did post a few others, and I'd appreciate it if you would actually engage my arguments this time.

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Nothing better than ol fashioned internetz spillage.

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Then why were Jews displaying a zodiac as the centrepiece of their synagogues?  What sort of Jews were these?  Please explain.

It's called syncretism, Ralph, and it characterizes the majority of Judaism and Christianity throughout their histories. Jews everywhere conflated their ideologies and beliefs with those of local cultures. Check out the following publications to learn more:

Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).

Sharot, Comparative Perspectives on Judaisms and Jewish Identities (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2011)

Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (University of California Press, 2001)

Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity (University of Washington Press, 1998)

And who was Queen Helena of Adiabene?  Where did she come from?  What were her beliefs prior to her conversion to Nazarene Judaism?   I put it to you, that her beliefs were exactly the same as Queen Helena of Edessa.

That's certainly the conclusion at which one arrives if their sole and only concern is convenience and cognitive laziness to the exclusion of actual evidence. If one is to actually take into account any of the actual historical or material records, then there is no amount of argument that could be conjured up to overcome the preponderance of actual evidence that flatly precludes that.

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

Ralph, I think you know what kind of judaism I am talking about. The Jews of the first century were not sabaeans. They are two entirely different groups of semitic people. And I say it again. The gods in the OT are canaanite. The Edessans would have worshipped assyrian gods. Their religion had nothing to do with judaism. Queen Helena converted to judaism, King Abgar and his family were polytheists before their conversion.  


Then why were Jews displaying a zodiac as the centrepiece of their synagogues?  What sort of Jews were these?  Please explain.

Hellenistic jews, most likely.

And who was Queen Helena of Adiabene?  Where did she come from?  What were her beliefs prior to her conversion to Nazarene Judaism?   I put it to you, that her beliefs were exactly the same as Queen Helena of Edessa.


Ralph



Of course the people of Osroene and the people of Adiabene worshipped the same gods. They were all Assyrians. But that still has nothing to do with Judaism.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 01:38:31 PM by Ansgar »
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Of course the people of Osroene and the people of Adiabene worshipped the same gods. They were all Assyrians. But that still has nothing to do with Judaism.


But you said Queen Helena of Adiabene was Jewish, while Queen Helena of Edessa must have been Pagan.   But if Assyria has 'nothing to do with Judaism', then how can Queen Helena of Adiabene have been obviously Jewish?

Unless I am misinterpreting your post, you appear to be arguing against yourself.


But we know that a Queen Helena became an important figure in Jerusalem, indeed, she almost became a de facto Queen of Judaea.  And we know from the Talmud that she also became a proselyte Nazarene Jew.  So which of these Assyrian queens was she? And why could she not be the other?


Ralph

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

Of course the people of Osroene and the people of Adiabene worshipped the same gods. They were all Assyrians. But that still has nothing to do with Judaism.


But you said Queen Helena of Adiabene was Jewish, while Queen Helena of Edessa must have been Pagan.   But if Assyria has 'nothing to do with Judaism', then how can Queen Helena of Adiabene have been obviously Jewish?

Unless I am misinterpreting your post, you appear to be arguing against yourself.

Because she converted to judaism. She wasn't born a jew.

But we know that a Queen Helena became an important figure in Jerusalem, indeed, she almost became a de facto Queen of Judaea.  And we know from the Talmud that she also became a proselyte Nazarene Jew.  So which of these Assyrian queens was she? And why could she not be the other?


Ralph


She was the queen of Adiabene. She can't have been queen of Edessa, since there is nothing that suggests that the royal family of Osroene were jews before they became christians.
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
But you said Queen Helena of Adiabene was Jewish, while Queen Helena of Edessa must have been Pagan.   But if Assyria has 'nothing to do with Judaism', then how can Queen Helena of Adiabene have been obviously Jewish?

Unless I am misinterpreting your post, you appear to be arguing against yourself.

You were talking about their cultural affiliations prior to conversion. Pay attention to your own comments, Ralph.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 02:22:56 PM by maklelan »

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Because she converted to judaism. She wasn't born a jew.



But if this was a reference to Queen Helena of Edessa (and not Queen Helena of Adiabene), then she too could have been born outside Judaism but converted to Judaism at a later date.  

Whatever you like to assume about the history and beliefs of Queen Helena of Adiabene, could equally apply to Queen Helena of Edessa.




She was the queen of Adiabene. She can't have been queen of Edessa, since there is nothing that suggests that the royal family of Osroene were jews before they became christians.


Except for the Syriac historians like Moses of Chorene, who say that Queen Helena was the wife of King Abgarus of Edessa.  And we know that this was the same queen as the Adiabene Helena, as she was pointedly said to be the Queen Helena who saved Judaea from famine in AD 47.


And what do you mean by 'became Christians'?  Please remember that Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Nazarene Jew with a creed that was quite removed from later Christianity.  So if the Edessans became 'followers of Jesus', they would have been Nazarene Jews and not Christians. But later chroniclers like Eusebius (who lived in Edessa) would have regarded any 'followers of Jesus' as being Christians.

This is why 'Blessed Edessa' was considered to be the first ever Christian city. But they were not necessarily Christian, as we would know it, just 'followers of Jesus'.


Ralph




« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 02:44:45 PM by ralfellis »

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,725
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
You keep using

'we know'


Who is 'we' and where are the references ?
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
But if this was a reference to Queen Helena of Edessa (and not Queen Helena of Adiabene), then she too could have been born outside Judaism but converted to Judaism at a later date. 

Whatever you like to assume about the history and beliefs of Queen Helena of Adiabene, could equally apply to Queen Helena of Edessa.

As long as truth is just predicated on whatever you can imagine, sure, you can make anything up. For those who rely on texts and evidence, that's not supported by anything.

Except for the Syriac historians like Moses of Chorene, who say that Queen Helena was the wife of King Abgarus of Edessa.

One historian, Ralph, and Moses' tendentiousness and errors (not to mention the chronological disparity and the conflict with all other accounts) have been thoroughly pointed out to you in the past. You just ignored it, remember?

And we know that this was the same queen as the Adiabene Helena, as she was pointedly said to be the Queen Helena who saved Judaea from famine in AD 47.

No, that's not known, it's just something you assert by assuming the accuracy of a problematic and rhetorical later text and the inaccuracy of numerous other trusted texts, absolutely without argument.

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
You keep using

'we know'

Who is 'we' and where are the references ?


Anyone who has read Moses of Chorene's History of the Armenians.

I have already posted the quotation and the reference. Would you like it again?

.

Quote:
The chief of King Abgar’s wives, who was named Helena ... Helena could not bear to live with idolators, so she went away to Jerusalem in the time of Claudius, during the famine which Agabus had predicted. Spending all her treasures she bought an immense amount of grain in Egypt, which she distributed to the poor, to which Josephus bears witness. Her famous mausoleum stands before the gate at Jerusalem to this very day. (Moses of Chorene, History of the Armenians 2:35.)


The meaning of Moses of Chorene's text is clear - Queen Helena (of Adiabene) was actually the queen of Edessa. She was Queen Helena-Shalmath of Edessa.

You will find that there are some professors around who will refuse to believe Moses of Chorene, merely for idealogical/religious reasons.  And they will reject Moses' testimony even though they had never heard of him until this quote was given.  But this is not considered scholarship, this is merely a knee-jerk reaction to unexpected evidence, in order to maintain the religio-historical status quo.


Ralph

« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 02:58:08 PM by ralfellis »

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

Because she converted to judaism. She wasn't born a jew.



But if this was a reference to Queen Helena of Edessa (and not Queen Helena of Adiabene), then she too could have been born outside Judaism but converted to Judaism at a later date. 

Whatever you like to assume about the history and beliefs of Queen Helena of Adiabene, could equally apply to Queen Helena of Edessa.

There are no historical sources that suggests that the royal family of Osroene were jews at any point.



She was the queen of Adiabene. She can't have been queen of Edessa, since there is nothing that suggests that the royal family of Osroene were jews before they became christians.

Except for the Syriac historians like Moses of Chorene, who say that Queen Helena was the wife of King Abgarus of Edessa.  And we know that this was the same queen as the Adiabene Helena, as she was pointedly said to be the Queen Helena who saved Judaea from famine in AD 47.


Ralph






Moses is the only one who makes that claim, and he wrote his works several centuries after her death. All the earlier sources describe her as Queen of Adiabene.
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Anyone who has read Moses of Chorene's History of the Armenians.

I have already posted the quotation and the reference. Would you like it again?

Actually scholars universally highlight that quotation as one of Moses' many errors. You're the only one of which I know that has ever asserted in print that Moses was right. For instance, J. W. Drijvers, in his book Helena Augusta, says the following:

Quote
Moses of Chorene mentions her in his Armenian History (II 35), which work is dated by some to the fifth century. Mosts connects Helena with the history of Edessa in a striking way. He reports that Helena, who converted to Christianity instead of to the Jewish faith, was the first wife of the Edessene king, Abgar Ukkâmâ. Thus is has been argued that there was a connection between Helena of Adiabene and Edessa. It has been inferred from this that the spread and popularity of the legend of the Cross in Syria, and especially in Edessa, is to be ascribed to a confusion of Helena Augusta with Helena of Adiabene. An additional argument for this alleged confusion is that, according to the Actus Silvestri, Helena Augusta like Queen Helena had been converted to Judaism before she became a Christian. Once the confusion had taken place, the name of Helena was inexplicably altered into Protonike, while the legend of the discovery of the Cross was pushed back to the first century because Helena of Adiabene had lived then.

Although there are striking similarities between Helena of Adiabene and Helena Augusta––their conversion, their coming to Palestine, their care for those in need––there are no convincing reason to explain their possible confusion. In fact, this supposed confusion raises more questions than it solves. What is the explanation for the sudden transformation of the name Helena into Protonike? Why was Protonike considered to be Claudius' wife when there had been no previous connection between Helena of Adiabene and Claudius apart from the fact that her conversion and her providing of food for the starving Jews had taken place during his reign? But a more serious argument against the confusion of both Helenas is the uncertainty surrounding the dat of Moses of Chorene's Armenian History. This work should more probably be dated to the eighth century than to the fifth century, and therefore any connection between Helena of Adiabene and Edessa is not only a later invention of Moses of Chorene, but also an invention definitely later than the origin of the legend about Protonike's finding of the Cross.

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
You will find that there are some professors around who will refuse to believe Moses of Chorene, merely for idealogical/religious reasons.

Can you give me one single reason why I should believe Moses over and against numerous other textual and material remains that flatly contradict him?

And they will reject Moses' testimony even though they had never heard of him until this quote was given.  But this is not considered scholarship, this is merely a knee-jerk reaction to unexpected evidence, in order to maintain the religio-historical status quo.

Oh, I see.

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

There are no historical sources that suggests that the royal family of Osroene were jews at any point.
 


Sorry, I added this later, which explains your point.....


But what do you mean by 'became Christians'?  Please remember that Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Nazarene Jew with a creed that was quite removed from later Christianity.  So if the Edessans became 'followers of Jesus', they would have been Nazarene Jews and not Christians. But later chroniclers like Eusebius (who lived in Edessa) would have regarded any 'followers of Jesus' as being Christians.

This is why 'Blessed Edessa' was considered to be the first ever Christian city. But they were not necessarily Christian, as we would know it, just 'followers of Jesus'.


Ralph

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Sorry, I added this later, which explains your point.....


But what do you mean by 'became Christians'?  Please remember that Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Nazarene Jew

No, you assert that he was a Nazarene Jew.

with a creed that was quite removed from later Christianity.  So if the Edessans became 'followers of Jesus', they would have been Nazarene Jews and not Christians. But later chroniclers like Eusebius (who lived in Edessa) would have regarded any 'followers of Jesus' as being Christians.

This is why 'Blessed Edessa' was considered to be the first ever Christian city. But they were not necessarily Christian, as we would know it, just 'followers of Jesus'.

And what is the meaning of "Christian"?

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

There are no historical sources that suggests that the royal family of Osroene were jews at any point.
 


Sorry, I added this later, which explains your point.....


But what do you mean by 'became Christians'?  Please remember that Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Nazarene Jew with a creed that was quite removed from later Christianity.  So if the Edessans became 'followers of Jesus', they would have been Nazarene Jews and not Christians. But later chroniclers like Eusebius (who lived in Edessa) would have regarded any 'followers of Jesus' as being Christians.

This is why 'Blessed Edessa' was considered to be the first ever Christian city. But they were not necessarily Christian, as we would know it, just 'followers of Jesus'.


Ralph

They would definitely not have been nazarenes.

The followers of Jesus were already called christians in New Testament times. In the case of King Abgar, he would have been a gentile christian.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 03:12:12 PM by Ansgar »
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Moses is the only one who makes that claim, and he wrote his works several centuries after her death. All the earlier sources describe her as Queen of Adiabene.


He is not the only one - there is also the verse in Acts of the Apostles that I quoted earlier, which again links Queen Helena and the famine relief with King Abgarus and with Edessa (and not with Adiabene).  And again this interpretation is supported by Professor Robert Eisenman.  I will give you a quote in a minute.

Quote:
What I am attempting to show in these papers … is that despite the varying names of the messengers … and the varying ways of referring to these letters … all of these letters are basically the same.”

The Sociology of MMT and the Conversions of King Abgarus and Queen helena of Adiabene, by Robert Eisenman.

Eisenman here is referring to the letters and apostles being sent to Edessa in the Doctrine of Addai, to Antioch in Acts of the Apostles, and as mentioned in the DSS.



You will find some authors like JW Drijvers will claim that Moses of Chorene was confused by later references to Helena Augusta. But clearly this has nothing to do with it. Moses was not linking Queen Helena to Rome, but to Edessa.  And there was no political or religious gain in Moses doing so - he did it because that is what the Syriac records said.  Significantly, Moses was not overly influenced by Rome, who was most probably the source of the deflection towards and creation of the mythical region of Adiabene.

In fact, we could make more sense of JW Drijvers' claims if we assume the complete reverse of his argument.  It is entirely possible that the mission of Helena Augusta was mythical, and was created to co-opt and supplant the otherwise famous mission of Queen Helena of Edessa in the 1st century.  Thus if later theologians were ever questionsed about a Helena in Judaea and her links to Jesus, they could say "oh, that was merely Helena Augusta in the 4th century".  The mythology of Mary of Egypt appears to have been created for similar purposes.


Ralph

« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 03:29:20 PM by ralfellis »

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

Moses is the only one who makes that claim, and he wrote his works several centuries after her death. All the earlier sources describe her as Queen of Adiabene.


He is not the only one - there is also the verse in Acts of the Apostles that I quoted earlier, which again links Queen Helena and the famine relief with King Abgarus and with Edessa (and not with Adiabene).  And again this interpretation is supported by Professor Robert Eisenman.  I will give you a quote in a minute.
Again, Agabus and Abgarus are two completely different names and I am sorry to say it, but making a connection based on this, is ridiculous. There is nothing that indicats that these two persons should be the same. 

You will find some authors like JW Drijvers will claim that Moses of Chorene was confused by later references to Helena Augusta. But clearly this has nothing to do with it. Moses was not linking Queen Helena to Rome, but to Edessa.  And there was no political or religious gain in Moses doing so - he did it because that is what the Syriac records said.  Significantly, Moses was not overly influenced by Rome, who was most probably the source of the deflection towards and creation of the mythical region of Adiabene.
This has nothing to do with roman influence. The most likely scenario is that Moses simply got things mixed up, something which has happened to countless historians up through time.

In fact, we could make more sense of JW Drijvers' claims if we assume the complete reverse of his argument.  It is entirely possible that the mission of Helena Augusta was mythical, and was created to co-opt and supplant the otherwise famous mission of Queen Helena of Edessa in the 1st century.  Thus if later theologians were ever questionsed about a Helena in Judaea and her links to Jesus, they could say "oh, that was merely Helena Augusta in the 4th century".  The mythology of Mary of Egypt appears to have been created for similar purposes.


Ralph




Again, you are just assuming things. You have nothing to base this on. You say it is possible, but where is the evidence to back it up with?
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
He is not the only one - there is also the verse in Acts of the Apostles that I quoted earlier, which again links Queen Helena and the famine relief with King Abgarus and with Edessa (and not with Adiabene).

It does absolutely no such thing whatsoever. It simply mentions someone named Agabus, whom you just arbitrarily assert is actually Abgarus.

And again this interpretation is supported by Professor Robert Eisenman.  I will give you a quote in a minute.

And Eisenman's fringe theories have also been roundly refuted by the academy.

You will find some authors like JW Drijvers will claim that Moses of Chorene was confused by later references to Helena Augusta. But clearly this has nothing to do with it.

In other words, "Nu-uh!"

Moses was not linking Queen Helena to Rome, but to Edessa.  And there was no political or religious gain in Moses doing so - he did it because that is what the Syriac records said.

Another collection of naked assertions.

Significantly, Moses was not overly influenced by Rome, who was most probably the source of the deflection towards and creation of the mythical region of Adiabene.

In fact, we could make more sense of JW Drijvers' claims if we assume the complete reverse of his argument.

You seem to confuse your imagination with evidence. Making assumptions until the model feels right to you is not how history works.

It is entirely possible that the mission of Helena Augusta was mythical, and was created to co-opt and supplant the otherwise famous mission of Queen Helena of Edessa in the 1st century.  Thus if later theologians were ever questionsed about a Helena in Judaea and her links to Jesus, they could say "oh, that was merely Helena Augusta in the 4th century".  The mythology of Mary of Egypt appears to have been created for similar purposes.

Holy hannah, this would be laughable if you didn't seem so convinced by it.

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

They would definitely not have been nazarenes.

The followers of Jesus were already called christians in New Testament times. In the case of King Abgar, he would have been a gentile christian.


You mean the followers of Saul were called Christians.

Jesus was a Nazarene Jew who was circumcised and followed every jot and tittle of Mosiac Law, including all the dietry prohibitions. It was the followers of Saul who were not circumcised, who ate non-kosher, and who followed faith instead of the Law.

But if 1st century Edessans had been kosher followers of the Law who followed Jesus, they would have been regarded as Jews at the time, but as Christians in later eras.


Ralph



Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
You mean the followers of Saul were called Christians.

Jesus was a Nazarene Jew who was circumcised and followed every jot and tittle of Mosiac Law, including all the dietry prohibitions.

More naked assertion.

It was the followers of Saul who were not circumcised, who ate non-kosher, and who followed faith instead of the Law.

But if 1st century Edessans had been kosher followers of the Law who followed Jesus, they would have been regarded as Jews at the time, but as Christians in later eras.

Can you provide any actual evidence for this, or can you only say it has to be this way because you say so?

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

They would definitely not have been nazarenes.

The followers of Jesus were already called christians in New Testament times. In the case of King Abgar, he would have been a gentile christian.


You mean the followers of Saul were called Christians.

Jesus was a Nazarene Jew who was circumcised and followed every jot and tittle of Mosiac Law, including all the dietry prohibitions. It was the followers of Saul who were not circumcised, who ate non-kosher, and who followed faith instead of the Law.

While there was dispute between jewish and gentile christians, they were sorted out during the Council of Jerusalem. Therefore, the followers of Christ were still ultimately one single group at this point in time. They were all christians.

But if 1st century Edessans had been kosher followers of the Law who followed Jesus, they would have been regarded as Jews at the time, but as Christians in later eras.


Ralph




But they didn't, since the Edessans were pagans, not jews.
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Again, Agabus and Abgarus are two completely different names and I am sorry to say it, but making a connection based on this, is ridiculous. There is nothing that indicats that these two persons should be the same. 


I refer you to Professor Robert Eisenman who says:
http://roberteisenman.com/articles/mmt_agbarus.pdf

quote:

The pronunciation Agbarus/Abgarus depends on which sources one is drawing upon, Greek or Syriac.

According to Eusebius the Agbar or Abgar in question (I prefer to use the former because of its clear connection to Agabus in Acts and the matter of famine relief), was actually called Agbar Uchama
.


Clearly, Professor Eisenman considers that Abgar and Agbar are two spellings for the name of the same Edessan king. And furthermore, he clearly states that the Agabus in Acts of the Apostles was also the same Edessan king.  So please do throw your aversion to this concept open to Professor Eisenman as well as myself. I would be grateful for the professor's response, because he has not replied to myself.

It is true that you will find some pseudo-professors out there who dismiss Eisenman as quickly as they will dismiss myself, but they do this as a knee-jerk reaction towards any evidence that they do not like. Their mission is not the historical truth, but the maintenance if the status quo.


Ralph


Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,725
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
but they do this as a knee-jerk reaction towards any evidence that they do not like.

you mean like you have done with multiple different things presented as evidence against your 'theories'??????
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

Again, Agabus and Abgarus are two completely different names and I am sorry to say it, but making a connection based on this, is ridiculous. There is nothing that indicats that these two persons should be the same. 


I refer you to Professor Robert Eisenman who says:
http://roberteisenman.com/articles/mmt_agbarus.pdf

quote:

The pronunciation Agbarus/Abgarus depends on which sources one is drawing upon, Greek or Syriac.

According to Eusebius the Agbar or Abgar in question (I prefer to use the former because of its clear connection to Agabus in Acts and the matter of famine relief), was actually called Agbar Uchama
.


Clearly, Professor Eisenman considers that Abgar and Agbar are two spellings for the name of the same Edessan king. And furthermore, he clearly states that the Agabus in Acts of the Apostles was also the same Edessan king.  So please do throw your aversion to this concept open to Professor Eisenman as well as myself. I would be grateful for the professor's response, because he has not replied to myself.

It is true that you will find some pseudo-professors out there who dismiss Eisenman as quickly as they will dismiss myself, but they do this as a knee-jerk reaction towards any evidence that they do not like. Their mission is not the historical truth, but the maintenance if the status quo.


Ralph



And on grounds does Professor Eisenman make these assertions+ Okay, so Agabus from the NT was actually called Agbar Uchama. Where does he get this from. What sources indicates that this was his name. I still can't see how there can possibly be a connection between a christian prophet and an assyrian king. There is nothing that indicates that this is the same person. Even if they did share the same name, it still wouldn't prove anything, because there is nothing that ties these two persons together.   
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
but they do this as a knee-jerk reaction towards any evidence that they do not like.

you mean like you have done with multiple different things presented as evidence against your 'theories'??????

My dear Denise, Mr Ellis' sloppy assertions do not deserve to be dignified with the term theories. Even hypotheses is generous.  ;)
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,389
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Remember when speculation was the opposite of historical research?

 ???
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
I refer you to Professor Robert Eisenman who says:
http://roberteisenman.com/articles/mmt_agbarus.pdf

quote:

The pronunciation Agbarus/Abgarus depends on which sources one is drawing upon, Greek or Syriac.

According to Eusebius the Agbar or Abgar in question (I prefer to use the former because of its clear connection to Agabus in Acts and the matter of famine relief), was actually called Agbar Uchama
.

Well, I've searched the entire Greek text of Eusebius, and I find no spelling "Agbar." I've looked through all the occurrences of Abgar's name from the Greek in the Syriac, as well, and they are all spelled the same way (and I don't see any variant spellings in the critical apparatus). Additionally, unless you've got some other publication from Eisenman, his connection of Agabus from Acts and Abgar/Agbar is completely and utterly arbitrary. A reference to a famine is hardly a point of contact so overwhelming as to demand account be taken of the relationship of Abgar to Agabus. Even if you assert the spelling Agbar, they remain two completely separate names. Additionally, had they been the same name, more information would still be required to insist they refer to the same person. The notion that people sometimes had the spelling of their names altered slightly from one tradition or language to another, while true, is not evidence until you can actually show that such is the case here (which you obviously cannot).

Clearly, Professor Eisenman considers that Abgar and Agbar are two spellings for the name of the same Edessan king.

And furthermore, he clearly states that the Agabus in Acts of the Apostles was also the same Edessan king. So please do throw your aversion to this concept open to Professor Eisenman as well as myself. I would be grateful for the professor's response, because he has not replied to myself.

It is true that you will find some pseudo-professors out there who dismiss Eisenman as quickly as they will dismiss myself, but they do this as a knee-jerk reaction towards any evidence that they do not like. Their mission is not the historical truth, but the maintenance if the status quo.

Eisenman's theories are universally discredited in the world of biblical historicism, and when someone whose positions are widely ignored in the academy is ignoring your position, perhaps you should take a clue.

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,725
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
but they do this as a knee-jerk reaction towards any evidence that they do not like.

you mean like you have done with multiple different things presented as evidence against your 'theories'??????

My dear Denise, Mr Ellis' sloppy assertions do not deserve to be dignified with the term theories. Even hypotheses is generous.  ;)


Agreed...i tried to use quotes (picture Dr. Evil from Austin Powers), but beyond that i find that i have run out of polite words in English to better describe.....

I will try harder to find some next time .  :laugh:
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.