Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DE BERGERAC · 09-06-2005, 11:19 AM

When Josephus discusses Izates' conversion to Judaism we find a very familiar pattern, since there is one ANANIAS who tells him that it is not completely indispensable to circumcise himself. The, another ELEAZAR, come from Galilee, urges him to circumcise. Wouldn't it be as if Ananias were a kind of Paul and Eleazar a kind of "false apostle" from the circumcision (group). It is stunning that Eleazar finds Izates reading the Sacred Scriptures, just like Candace's eunuch minister in Acts. Then this Ananias was a kind of early apostle whose name is the same that the man who takes care of Saul/Paul in Damascus, at his conversion.

But when Whiston translates what the precise practices of Izates, once conversed, were -fasting, praying...- he makes the remark that he looks like an "Ebionate-Christian" rather than like a Jew "proper".

Is this not a case of "Christianity" under another name in Josephus?

Come on, the whole NT presupposes Josephus, and Luke in particular, without a doubt.

Amaleq13 · 09-06-2005, 12:38 PM

Could you provide the specific location of this passage in Josephus, please?

andrewcriddle · 09-06-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Could you provide the specific location of this passage in Josephus, please?

The Account is in Antiquities Book 20 chapter 2 (20:17-53 in Loeb numbering)

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 09-06-2005, 01:47 PM

Robert Eisenman's theory is that Ananais' companion was Paul, and this represents proto-Christianity.

As summarized here

Quote:

. . . Eisenman points out that despite the frequent mentions of Saul's early travels to Antioch, there is actually no evidence of an early Christian community there prior to the beginning of the 2nd century, either historically, or literately, except in the letters of Saul in the New Testament.

What he suggests is that when Saul says he went to Antioch, etc, he's not talking about the Antioch on the Mediterranean, he's actually talking about another city entirely. Outside of the Roman Empire, in the southeast of modern Turkey (Asia Minor) there was a small kingdom called "Adiabene." The capital of this kingdom was called "Antioch of the Assyrians". It was ruled by a young king named Izates. This was an Arabic kingdom. The people were Semitic, and apparently even had legends of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishamel, and were aware of Judaism, to which they felt they were tied, but were pagan and happy that way.

Queen Helena of Adiabene was the mother of King Izates. About the same time Saul is said to have had his conversion experience, Helena developed an interest in Judaism. She did not convert, but followed the Torah as closely as she was able without conversion, thus making her a 'God Fearer' according to Josephus.

Also according to Josephus, right about this time, a Jewish trader by the name of Ananias, and his unnamed traveling companion, show up in Adiabene, and, after some intrigue, make themselves known to the Queen. In fairly short order, Ananias' [unnamed] companion manages to talk the Queen into conversion to some 'new' form of Judaism that "Did not require circumcision" She talks to her son, and he, too, converts to this 'new' sect.

It's worth noting that 'Arabia' can have two meanings in this period. It can mean the Arabian Peninsula, as we mean it today, or it can mean 'Any Arab Land', which Adiabene certainly is. This, then, could jibe with Paul's assertion that he spent 'Three years in Arabia." Thus, Eisenman suggests, that when the bible says 'the believers were first called Christians in Antioch', what it's actually talking about was a cult started by a crazy man who misunderstood the doctrine of an esoteric sect of Judaism and converted the royal family of Adiabene in the city of Antioch-of-the-assyrians.

I'm not totally convinced. The Josephus reference is Ant XX

Quote:

And when [Izates] perceived that his mother [Helena] was highly pleased with the Jewish customs, he made haste to change, and to embrace them entirely; and as he supposed that he could not he thoroughly a Jew unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done. But when his mother understood what he was about, she endeavored to hinder him from doing it, and said to him that this thing would bring him into danger; and that, as he was a king, he would thereby bring himself into great odium among his subjects, when they should understand that he was so fond of rites that were to them strange and foreign; and that they would never bear to be ruled over by a Jew. This it was that she said to him, and for the present persuaded him to forbear. And when he had related what she had said to Ananias, he confirmed what his mother had said; and when he had also threatened to leave him, unless he complied with him, he went away from him, and said that he was afraid lest such an action being once become public to all, he should himself be in danger of punishment for having been the occasion of it, and having been the king's instructor in actions that were of ill reputation; and he said that he might worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision. He added, that God would forgive him, though he did not perform the operation, while it was omitted out of necessity, and for fear of his subjects. So the king at that time complied with these persuasions of Ananias.

. . .

09-06-2005, 11:19 AM	#1
DE BERGERAC Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tarraconensis (Hispania) Posts: 13	ANANIAS/ELEAZAR in Josephus. When Josephus discusses Izates' conversion to Judaism we find a very familiar pattern, since there is one ANANIAS who tells him that it is not completely indispensable to circumcise himself. The, another ELEAZAR, come from Galilee, urges him to circumcise. Wouldn't it be as if Ananias were a kind of Paul and Eleazar a kind of "false apostle" from the circumcision (group). It is stunning that Eleazar finds Izates reading the Sacred Scriptures, just like Candace's eunuch minister in Acts. Then this Ananias was a kind of early apostle whose name is the same that the man who takes care of Saul/Paul in Damascus, at his conversion. But when Whiston translates what the precise practices of Izates, once conversed, were -fasting, praying...- he makes the remark that he looks like an "Ebionate-Christian" rather than like a Jew "proper". Is this not a case of "Christianity" under another name in Josephus? Come on, the whole NT presupposes Josephus, and Luke in particular, without a doubt.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-06-2005, 12:38 PM	#2
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Could you provide the specific location of this passage in Josephus, please?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.