Steefen: Let me provide you some guidance: quote someone else other than Ralph Ellis about your issue with Izaates.
“It is this figure, Izates, that is central to your theory and that of Ralph Ellis.” The content of your posts do not indicate you have watched my 2 hour, 44 minute video presentation.
I probably will stop entertaining your comments because you do not know what is central to my presentation and you are not providing cause to doubt there was a famine in Israel for which Queen Helena and at least one of her offspring distributed food. Second, you have not provided cause to doubt that Queen Helena converted to Judaism.
Third, the account in Josephus is that Queen Helena converted to Judaism, at least one of her offspring converted to Judaism. We have two generations of proselytes. At the time of the Jewish Revolt, her offspring and her grandchildren sided against Rome. If you have something against these accounts, they will be considered.
===================
Now this is a joke – you want me to watch your 2 hour, 44 minute video presentation when you can’t answer my one question to you!! Stop changing the issue here. Deal with the question I asked you.
Please supply historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Izates.
Ralph Ellis: ”And when tracking the history of that same infant within the many chronicles of Josephus Flavius, it was apparent that he grew up to become King Izas of Adiabene in these texts. And so we at last knew who (King) Jesus was – he was King Izas, a minor prince and king of a land called Adiabene.
Steefen, your not facing reality. All you are doing is following speculation from Ralph Ellis. If one seeks to present a historical reconstruction of events pertaining to the NT – then by golly one needs to have historical reality on ones side. You, nor Ralph Ellis, have that. You have unfounded, unsubstantiated speculation.
Mary Helena:
What Josephus wrote is not in dispute. What is in dispute is Ralph Ellis’ interpretation of what Josephus wrote. i.e. Josephus mentioned a figure by the name of Izates. Ralph Ellis writes that this Josephan figure is (King) Jesus.
Steefen:
Sorry, that is your dispute and it is not topical to the original post.
MaryHelena,
I’ve given too many one-star ratings to your posts. Personally, I do not value your contributions after having given you ample opportunities. Second, you have opinions about my video presentation then said you have not watched my video presentation.
I have to list you as an adversary which supposedly will block all of your future posts from my view.
Steefen
Steefen said
Mary Helena:
What Josephus wrote is not in dispute. What is in dispute is Ralph Ellis’ interpretation of what Josephus wrote. i.e. Josephus mentioned a figure by the name of Izates. Ralph Ellis writes that this Josephan figure is (King) Jesus.Steefen:
Sorry, that is your dispute and it is not topical to the original post.
Who brought the Josephan figure of Izates into this thread? Look in the mirror, Steefen….
Steefen said
MaryHelena,I’ve given too many one-star ratings to your posts. Personally, I do not value your contributions after having given you ample opportunities. Second, you have opinions about my video presentation then said you have not watched my video presentation.
I have to list you as an adversary which supposedly will block all of your future posts from my view.
Steefen
Now you make accusations against me!! I’ve not watched your video and never said I had……
This exchange is now running towards the crazy.
Attempting to discuss the theory of Ralph Ellis with you – a discredited theory that you repeatedly bring up on this forum – has not been a compete waste of my time. It has focused my attention on the story Josephus told about Queen Helena and Izates – and that has not been a waste of my time…..
Steefen said
Stephen said
-eyeroll-List all characters in histories that are mentioned only by one historian and claim they do not exist.
There is a real reason for an eye roll.
My eyeroll was for the condescending way you dismissed MaryHelena simply because she had the temerity to criticize your piquant theories. Congratulations, you’re currently top poster. Has it ever occurred to you that we might not be the right audience for your genius? Why don’t you run your insights past a real Josephus scholar or two? Get published? The world of scholarship swoons in anticipation!
gmatthews said
Maybe you guys should just all agree to disagree. This is quickly turning into what Prof. Ehrman didn’t want.
I don’t agree or disagree. I can’t make heads nor tails of what Steefen is talking about. I was simply calling Steefen on HIS inappropriate response to MaryHelena. All she was doing was criticizing his arguments.
I find it hard to follow Steefen’s comments and arguments. I wonder if trying to engage him is not productive and perhaps if he continues to read other’s comments here and Dr. Ehrman’s posts and books he will find material to incorporate into his views. I enjoy exchanges between most commenters and appreciate the give and take in a civil fashion. I have little to contribute myself as I am only recently reading anything about the history of Christianity. So many of you have so much to share.
MaryHelena’s position is:
Izaates, son of King Monobazus and Queen Helena’s existence is highly questionable because it seems he is only mentioned by Josephus.
My position is:
“List all characters in histories that are mentioned only by one historian and claim they do not exist” as MaryHelena did with Izates is a flawed rule for establishing historicity. Her methodology is simplistic and flawed. Second, Izates is too interwoven in Antiquities of the Jews and Wars of the Jews to be dismissed as a person who did not exist. She admitted King Monobazaus and Queen Helena did have male offspring.
Trying to flesh out her criticism into something meaty I asked her what other writers other than Ralph Ellis have a problem with the existence of a male offspring of the king and the queen. No answer was given. I asked her what problem does she have with King Izaates helping with the famine of 47? No answer given.
She insisted that what I took as valuable from Josephus first, Ralph Ellis second was Ralph Ellis’ theory. (First, I had to inform her that I was not Ralph Ellis. Then I had to inform her I have no relationship to Ralph Ellis: I am only one person who read some of his works.) No, I do not agree with some of the views expressed by Ralph on the subject of Prince/King Izates.
When I offered her to at least have an informed criticism of my work, something I can convert into constructive criticism, she refused to even see my work to see if it is a regurgitation of Ralph’s views on the Izates-Jesus connection.
Then she changed her criticism of “my theory” to only my response to gmatthews who asked why Jesus was worthy of coverage by a historian. Well, number one, Prince Izates is referred to as “only begotten son” (Jesus was called only begotten son as well); second, he fed 5,000, a number of times (Jesus fed 5,000); third, he was a prince and a king (Jesus was called prince and king as well); fourth, Izates’ father said store your treasures in heaven (Jesus said store your treasures in heaven as well).
Izates is source material for a biblical Jesus who is a composite character, not an individual soul. This is why Justus of Tiberias had reason to write about Jesus or a component character of / source material for Jesus. Second, Josephus wrote about Jesus. Steve Mason concluded some lines of the Testimonium Flavianum are lines of Josephus: it would be wrong to say the whole Testimonium Flavianum is an insertion, by say, Eusebius.
Stephen said
Steefen said
Stephen said
-eyeroll-List all characters in histories that are mentioned only by one historian and claim they do not exist.
There is a real reason for an eye roll.
My eyeroll was for the condescending way you dismissed MaryHelena simply because she had the temerity to criticize your piquant theories. Congratulations, you’re currently top poster. Has it ever occurred to you that we might not be the right audience for your genius? Why don’t you run your insights past a real Josephus scholar or two? Get published? The world of scholarship swoons in anticipation!
I’ve already explained what you’ve written above misses your mark. I patiently and cooperatively engaged MaryHelena’s accusatory and insistent posts. I tried to help her help me but she acted as if she had a checkmate with her opinion that Izates did not exist. She does not value Ralph Ellis’ work but uses Ralph Ellis’ work to justify her position–another line of reasoning I question. In actuality, Ralph Ellis’ work proves he takes the existence of Izates as a historical fact despite how MaryHelena quotes him.
magpie said
I find it hard to follow Steefen’s comments and arguments. I wonder if trying to engage him is not productive and perhaps if he continues to read other’s comments here and Dr. Ehrman’s posts and books he will find material to incorporate into his views. I enjoy exchanges between most commenters and appreciate the give and take in a civil fashion. I have little to contribute myself as I am only recently reading anything about the history of Christianity. So many of you have so much to share.
Ralph Ellis’ theory is very hard to follow. I bought the Kindle version of ‘Jesus, King of Edessa‘ from amazon last week….it will have your head spinning for days on end….
Yes, engaging Steefen on the Ralph Ellis theory is not productive. I initially responded because of being intrigued that anyone would be promoting Ralph Ellis’ theory – let alone on this site….Not, of course, that outside the box ideas should be dismissed out of hand – but when objections are raised and the one proposing the out of the box theory responds as Steefen has done – then rational discussion ends.
If your new to the debates about the early history of Christianity – then you have lots of reading – and thinking – ahead of you. It’s a fascinating subject for lots of reasons and one that has kept me occupied for over 30 years now….
Steefen said
gmatthews said
Steefen said
Could he really write a history of without writing about one of the most famous men of Galilee?The implication of your question is that Justus SHOULD have written something about “one of the most famous men of Galilee”. I’m asking you why you think he should have. Just because they were from the area of Galilee you think Justus should have written about Jesus, but there could be any number of reasons why he wouldn’t have. You sound like you’re exasperated that it didn’t happen. Maybe Jesus just wasn’t all that big of a deal.
In my video, I give evidence that components of Jesus were
King Izates, son of Queen Helena who gave iconic pieces of gold to the Temple. Big deal.
King Izates, who along with his mother, saved Judea from famine. Big deal.
King Izates, who was called “only begotten son” by his father. Big deal.
King Izates, whose father was a personal friend of Octavian – Augustus. Big deal. (His father’s wisdom appears in the gospel “store your riches in heaven.”
gmatthews asked for someone worthy of a historian’s pen.
I have him Prince/King Izates because I speak from the biblical Jesus being a composite of characters perspective. Prince Izates was an only begotten son, like Jesus and he fed 5,000, a miraculous claim attributed to Jesus. In my book, the Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy, First Edition, I mention the curious wording used by Jesus when speaking with the pharisees, “in your law” instead of saying “in our law.” King Izates was not Jewish and with this curious wording, neither is Jesus. So, one of the composite characters of the biblical Jesus was not Jewish.
Here’s a second person, a member of the composite characters team who make up the biblical Jesus, worthy of a historian’s pen–a person who is Jewish: Jesus Sapphias/Shaphat, a governor of Tiberias, a leader of a band of mariners and the poor.
gmatthews, he is worthy of Justus of Tiberias’ pen because this Jesus is from the same Tiberias as Justus.
@manx said
I have read some of Ralph Ellis’s books. I personally find him to be along the lines of Zechariah Sitchen and David Icke. Basically sell books.But hey what do i know
When you discuss points which are statements of Josephus, which Ralph Ellis does, sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully, I’d value your contributions more highly.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)