Steefen said
So I don’t have to say Moses challenged Thuthmose III yet.
Steefen, no one would mistake Thutmose III the Pharaoh with Thutmose the Overseer of Foreign Lands and Frontier Lands for his Majesty and King’s Son of Kush.
(Or Thutmose the sculptor, or Thutmose the brother of a pharaoh. Thutmose is a name like John. There’s a lot.)
Thutmose the Overseer is tribal level. The wonderful Jewish people are always tribal level in the Hebrew Bible. Every major Hebrew figure is in a tribe.
Why are y’all posting ridiculous YouTube videos?
As a card carrying Pedant, First Class, I wish to point out the interesting etymology of the names Thutmose and Ramesses which share a similar linguistic construction.
The Egyptian suffix -mose (-ms, -msy) translates to “born of,” “child of,” or “begotten by”. It functions as a “theophoric” name where a god’s name forms the first part.
Thutmose = “Born of Thoth”
Ramesses = “Born of Ra” or “Ra has fashioned him”
Many scholars point out that the biblical name Moses (yeah, the famous one) is an abbreviated Egyptian name with the divine prefix lopped off. They note that -mose or -mses often appears independently as Mose (meaning “child/son”) as a standalone name, especially during the Egyptian New Kingdom.
And now you know the rest of the story.
Elijah is the most famous Transjordanite.
Elijah was trans? Who knew? (That popping you hear off in the distance is the sound of baptist heads exploding all over our great land.)
“a historical fact that is quite simple: the ethnicity of a people were equal to their religion”
Individuals– and also groups of individuals– can change their religion, and have changed their religion.
Individuals _can’t_ change their genes, nor can they change who their ancestors were.
“Can you become black if you live in a ghetto?”
No.
“Can you become Amish if you live nearby Amish people and go to their gatherings?”
No.
But I could become Amish if I strongly desired to.
“failed to mention the wars between Protestant Irish and the Catholic Irish, as well as between the Catholic Irish and Protestant English”
I “failed to mention” innumerable things.
“The French today are Atheist, with a history of being Catholic and Protestant”
If I met a Frenchman today, I could assume that he was an atheist, but chances are high I’d be mistaken.
Just because somebody alive today is French, that doesn’t mean he’s an atheist.
“Calling Jesus ‘jewish’ is a lie”
There are several different definitions of ‘Jewish.’
By some definitions of ‘Jewish,’ Jesus is Jewish;
by other definitions of ‘Jewish,’ Jesus isn’t Jewish.
1 Adherents of which if any varieties of rabbinic Judaism consider a convert to their variety of rabbinic Judaism to be a Jew?
2 What factors were involved in Khazars converting to rabbinic Judaism?
3 How can somebody become Amish?
4 Describe religious beliefs in Ireland just before and just after Saint Patrick’s evangelization of Ireland.
5 Regarding the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, what views did they have regarding the possibility of a resurrection?
6 Religious affiliations of those living in France in the year ~2020.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
**1. Adherents of which (if any) varieties of rabbinic Judaism consider a convert to their variety to be a Jew?**
All major branches of rabbinic Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative/Masorti, Reform, and Reconstructionist) consider a person who completes a conversion process according to *their own* standards and under *their own* authority to be a full Jew within that community.
– Orthodox Judaism requires circumcision (or *hatafat dam brit* for already-circumcised males), immersion in a *mikveh*, acceptance of the commandments (*kabbalat ol mitzvot*), and approval by an Orthodox *beit din*. Orthodox authorities generally do not recognize Reform, Conservative, or non-Orthodox conversions as valid.
– Conservative Judaism has similar ritual requirements (circumcision/immersion + *beit din*) but is somewhat less stringent on full observance commitment. It typically accepts Orthodox conversions and some others.
– Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism emphasize informed choice, study, and often immersion (circumcision is encouraged but not always required); they accept their own conversions fully and are generally more inclusive of other progressive conversions.
In short, every variety regards a convert to *itself* as a Jew;
the main disagreements concern mutual recognition across denominations.
**2. What factors were involved in Khazars converting to rabbinic Judaism?**
The conversion of (at least part of) the Khazar elite to Rabbinic Judaism (traditionally dated to the 8th–9th centuries) is described in sources such as the *Kuzari*, Arabic histories, and the Khazar Correspondence.
Key factors cited by historians include:
– **Political neutrality**: Positioned between the Christian Byzantine Empire and the Muslim Caliphate, adopting Judaism (a monotheistic religion without a contemporary imperial power base) allowed the Khazars to avoid subordination to either rival.
– **Elite decision after religious disputation**: Traditional accounts describe King Bulan (or a successor) hearing representatives of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and choosing Judaism.
– **Existing Jewish presence and trade links**: Jewish merchants, refugees from Byzantine or Persian persecution, and longstanding communities in the region (especially Crimea) provided cultural and economic influence.
– **State-building and identity**: Conversion of the ruling class (and eventually some of the population) helped consolidate a distinct imperial identity.
Note that the extent of the conversion (elite only vs. broader) and even its full historicity remain debated among scholars;
archaeological evidence is limited.
**3. How can somebody become Amish?**
Becoming Amish as an adult outsider is rare and difficult, as Amish communities do not proselytize and prioritize cultural continuity.
The typical path involves:
– Establishing contact with a specific Amish church district and finding a family or members willing to host/guide the person.
– Living in the community for an extended period (often a year or more) while adopting the *Ordnung* (unwritten rules of the district):
plain dress, no cars/electricity (or limited use depending on the group), Pennsylvania Dutch language learning, farming or traditional work, and full participation in community life.
– Demonstrating sincerity, learning the faith (including the Dordrecht Confession), and requesting baptism.
– Receiving approval via congregational vote (often requiring near-unanimity).
– Adult baptism by pouring, which formalizes membership and commitment to the church.
Most Amish are born into the group and baptized as young adults after *Rumspringa*.
Outsider conversions succeed only occasionally and require complete lifestyle transformation.
**4. Describe religious beliefs in Ireland just before and just after Saint Patrick’s evangelization**
**Just before (late 4th–early 5th century)**: Ireland was predominantly Celtic polytheist/pagan. Beliefs centered on a pantheon of gods and goddesses (e.g., associated with the Tuatha Dé Danann), nature spirits, the Otherworld, sacred sites, seasonal festivals (Samhain, Beltane, etc.), and the authority of druids as religious specialists, judges, and keepers of lore. Animal sacrifice, ancestor veneration, and oral traditions were important. There was already a small Christian presence (via trade, slaves, or Romano-British contacts), enough that Pope Celestine I sent Bishop Palladius in 431 to minister to existing Irish Christians.
**Just after (mid-to-late 5th century onward)**: Patrick’s mission (traditionally beginning ~432) accelerated Christianization, especially among elites and in the north. Christianity spread through conversion of kings, establishment of churches and monastic centers, and the development of a distinctive Celtic/Insular Christianity (emphasizing monasticism, learning, and some continuity with local customs). Pagan practices did not vanish overnight; they persisted in folk traditions, and full institutional Christianization took generations (into the 6th–7th centuries). By ~600, Ireland was largely Christian in hierarchy and public practice, though residual pagan elements lingered.
**5. Regarding the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, what views did they have regarding the possibility of a resurrection?**
The Pharisees affirmed the resurrection of the dead.
This is consistently attested in multiple sources:
– The New Testament (e.g., Acts 23:6–8 explicitly contrasts them with the Sadducees, who denied resurrection, angels, and spirits;
Matthew 22 and parallels show Jesus engaging the issue in a way that aligns with Pharisaic belief).
– Josephus (*Antiquities* and *Jewish War*) describes Pharisees as believing in the immortality of the soul, post-mortem rewards/punishments, and the revival of the righteous.
This belief in resurrection (often understood as bodily or involving a renewed body) distinguished them from the Sadducees and became foundational in later rabbinic Judaism.
**6. Religious affiliations of those living in France around 2020**
Around 2019–2020 (INSEE Trajectoires et Origines 2 survey and related data for adults 18–59 in metropolitan France):
– No religion / unaffiliated: ~51%
– Catholic: ~29%
– Muslim: ~10%
– Other Christian (Protestant, Orthodox, etc.): ~9%
– Other religions (including Jewish, Buddhist, etc.): smaller shares (Jews and Buddhists each around 0.5% or less in some breakdowns)
Catholicism remained the largest single affiliation but had declined sharply;
the non-religious share had risen.
Islam was the second-largest religion.
Practice rates were low across groups (especially among nominal Catholics).
Figures vary slightly by source and age group;
younger cohorts showed higher unaffiliation.
Sean Clayton:
At 15, Jesus goes to Petra, the Nabatean capital carved into rose-colored rocks. It is where the frankincense and the myrrh roots came north out of Arabia. And the Nabatians controlled the water in the desert. What that means is whoever controls the wells controls the road. So he spends a season on a caravan seeing the empire from underneath. Jerusalem is not the center of the world. And the merchants he works for teach Jesus one principle. You spend your whole life accumulating inventory. And then, one day you find the one item worth more than anything else you hold.
And the only correct move at that moment is to liquidate all of it.
Most men see the pearl and try to keep the inventory too. Those men die owning a warehouse.
So he takes the map of the world and he refuses the conclusion that comes with it
that nothing means more than anything else.
I’ve met people who have traveled everywhere and came back believing in nothing.
So there’s even a scripture on this in Matthew, Chapter 13, verses 44-46:
The merchant who finds a pearl of great price and sells everything to buy it.
Right before it, the treasure is hidden in field.
Let me tell you, nobody writes those parables without having watched it happen.
In Matthew Chapter 25, verses 14-30, the servant who gets condemned for bearing his talent
instead of putting it at risk.
Why is this important? It’s about finding what’s most important and then going all in to make the sacrifice.
This happened in Jesus’s life and this can happen in yours as well when you know that you’re all in for what you believe in.
Steefen:
Then, Sean goes to Jesus at age 16. Jesus is at Lake Mareotis.
So, the question is:
While Serene insists Jesus has a tie to Petra,
and since Sean Clayton is the ONLY other person I’ve heard connect Jesus to Petra,
give Serene a shot at a QUESTION OF SUPPORT.
Could the Matthew verses stem from merchants in Petra?
Answer:
She attacks Sean Clayton. She doesn’t discuss merchants in Petra.
= = = = =
I do not write in the style of Sean Clayton.
I never read the gospels to try to find tie-ins where Jesus could have sourced his sayings.
The leader Malcolm X spent time in prison and came out prepared to lead.
I googled Sean Clayton to try to find out about his writing style. I saw he had problems but he has a school.
I was a little bit curious about how he said Jesus spent time in Sepphoris also.
But I didn’t like his style of writing because he didn’t source how he came up with the lost years of Jesus in a way that was thoroughly convincing to me.
Serene didn’t source how the gospel authors didn’t explicitly say Jesus, May, and Joseph spent time in Petra.
Stephen said
Everybody knows Jesus went to India and learned how to get his groove on with the Swamis.
Knowing what you’re talking about is definitely not a requirement in order to post a YouTube video.
I like the idea that Jesus had traveled all over and had a kind of education. For one thing, it makes him more like the rest of us and not just like this perfect person who just dropped from the sky.
There’s also the idea that there are other people and traditions contributing to the Jesus story.
Other people have written on and done more documentary-type work and videos on the subject
Helen Young said
Stephen said
Everybody knows Jesus went to India and learned how to get his groove on with the Swamis.
Knowing what you’re talking about is definitely not a requirement in order to post a YouTube video.
I like the idea that Jesus had traveled all over and had a kind of education. For one thing, it makes him more like the rest of us and not just like this perfect person who just dropped from the sky.
There’s also the idea that there are other people and traditions contributing to the Jesus story.
This is a good point and I really like your appreciative tone, Helen.
I mean, can we try the real world-based explanation for why someone could speak at such an eloquent level (remarked on by third parties within the Gospels) with the idea that the Gospels are not making it up?
Education.
The son of a Lord for that period gets an education beginning around 12.
The Gospels are all “oh they thought he was the son of Joseph”
Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph…
There’s plenty of Jewish texts from somewhat around Jesus’ time, and I think these texts have a distinctly different collective ‘tone’ than Jesus does.
He’s supposed to be the poor one but he doesn’t sound like a poor. The sameish era Jewish texts read distinctly ‘earthier’. Less ‘oral poetry tradition’ coded. Certainly less majesterial than the Book of Revelation-era Jesus.
The concerns of that place and time remind me of tribal places today.
So who were the people with the travel and wealth to be able to provide him that education?
Serene said
Helen Young said
Stephen said
Everybody knows Jesus went to India and learned how to get his groove on with the Swamis.
Knowing what you’re talking about is definitely not a requirement in order to post a YouTube video.
I like the idea that Jesus had traveled all over and had a kind of education. For one thing, it makes him more like the rest of us and not just like this perfect person who just dropped from the sky.
There’s also the idea that there are other people and traditions contributing to the Jesus story.
This is a good point and I really like your appreciative tone, Helen.
I mean, can we try the real world-based explanation for why someone could speak at such an eloquent level (remarked on by third parties within the Gospels) with the idea that the Gospels are not making it up?
Education.
The son of a Lord for that period gets an education beginning around 12.
The Gospels are all “oh they thought he was the son of Joseph”Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph…
There’s plenty of Jewish texts from somewhat around Jesus’ time, and I think these texts have a distinctly different collective ‘tone’ than Jesus does.
He’s supposed to be the poor one but he doesn’t sound like a poor. The sameish era Jewish texts read distinctly ‘earthier’. Less ‘oral poetry tradition’ coded. Certainly less majesterial than the Book of Revelation-era Jesus.
The concerns of that place and time remind me of tribal places today.
So who were the people with the travel and wealth to be able to provide him that education?
They say that Jesus had an uncle, also named Joseph, who took him on his travels. They say that Joseph was a tin merchant.
There is even a legend in Cornwall, England, that they traveled that far north together. I believe Cornwall was famous for tin.
Could Jesus even have learned from and studied with the Druids of Britain?
William Blake wrote a poem about it called ‘Jerusalem’:
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!
I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In England’s green & pleasant Land.
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I want to comment on the Moses story in Historical Accuracy because Steve Campbell goes from Sobekhotep to Osarseph-Moses.
If we take Manetho’s narrative at face value, Osarsiph/Moses would have known about Amenophis, the seer. In fact, Manetho’s story puts them in the same political crisis.
The sequence in the fragment you quoted is important:
Amenophis, the seer
→ receives the oracle/prediction concerning the polluted people
→ gathers 80,000 polluted people and puts them to work in the stone quarries
→ the seer Amenophis becomes frightened about the consequences
→ predicts that the polluted people will eventually gain allies and take Egypt for 13 years
→ Amenophis records the prophecy and dies
→ then Osarsiph enters the story and becomes their leader.
So, if Manetho’s narrative is read sequentially, Osarsiph doesn’t need to have personally known the seer Amenophis beforehand. The crucial point is that Amenophis’s action and prophecy precede Osarsiph’s leadership.
And this actually strengthens the question you’ve been developing.
Look at what Manetho gives us
There are three different actors:
- Amenophis the king
- Amenophis the seer
- Osarsiph/Moses
The seer sees the danger created by the treatment of the polluted population and predicts a revolt.
Then Osarsiph becomes the leader of that population.
So the narrative is essentially:
oppressed/polluted population → royal mistreatment → prophetic warning of revolt → Osarsiph becomes leader → rebellion
That is remarkably close to the connection you’re proposing between social oppression and the subsequent Moses revolt.
But there’s an important textual point
Manetho does not explicitly say:
“Osarsiph knew the prophecy of Amenophis.”
Nor does he say:
“Osarsiph was one of Amenophis’s priests.”
What he does say, according to the surviving account, is that Osarsiph was a priest of Heliopolis and that he subsequently became leader of the polluted population.
Therefore, we should distinguish:
Textually demonstrated:
Amenophis’s treatment of the polluted population precedes Osarsiph’s leadership.
Historically plausible inference:
Osarsiph, as a Heliopolitan priest who became their leader, could have known about the circumstances and prophecy surrounding them.
Not demonstrated:
That Osarsiph personally knew the seer Amenophis or that the two men had a documented relationship.
= = = =
Steefen / Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
I think that is a fair comment.
Steefen said
I want to comment on the Moses story in Historical Accuracy because Steve Campbell goes from Sobekhotep to Osarseph-Moses.
If we take Manetho’s narrative at face value, Osarsiph/Moses would have known about Amenophis, the seer. In fact, Manetho’s story puts them in the same political crisis.
The sequence in the fragment you quoted is important:
Amenophis, the seer
→ receives the oracle/prediction concerning the polluted people
→ gathers 80,000 polluted people and puts them to work in the stone quarries
→ the seer Amenophis becomes frightened about the consequences
→ predicts that the polluted people will eventually gain allies and take Egypt for 13 years
→ Amenophis records the prophecy and dies
→ then Osarsiph enters the story and becomes their leader.
So, if Manetho’s narrative is read sequentially, Osarsiph doesn’t need to have personally known the seer Amenophis beforehand. The crucial point is that Amenophis’s action and prophecy precede Osarsiph’s leadership.
And this actually strengthens the question you’ve been developing.
Look at what Manetho gives us
There are three different actors:Amenophis the king
Amenophis the seer
Osarsiph/MosesThe seer sees the danger created by the treatment of the polluted population and predicts a revolt.
Then Osarsiph becomes the leader of that population.
So the narrative is essentially:oppressed/polluted population → royal mistreatment → prophetic warning of revolt → Osarsiph becomes leader → rebellion
That is remarkably close to the connection you’re proposing between social oppression and the subsequent Moses revolt.
But there’s an important textual point
Manetho does not explicitly say:“Osarsiph knew the prophecy of Amenophis.”
Nor does he say:
“Osarsiph was one of Amenophis’s priests.”
What he does say, according to the surviving account, is that Osarsiph was a priest of Heliopolis and that he subsequently became leader of the polluted population.
Therefore, we should distinguish:
Textually demonstrated:
Amenophis’s treatment of the polluted population precedes Osarsiph’s leadership.
Historically plausible inference:
Osarsiph, as a Heliopolitan priest who became their leader, could have known about the circumstances and prophecy surrounding them.
Not demonstrated:
That Osarsiph personally knew the seer Amenophis or that the two men had a documented relationship.
= = = =
Steefen / Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
I think that is a fair comment.
Egyptologists already read Amenophis as Amenhotep in its Hellenized form. Manetho’s account, as preserved by Josephus, is already taken by mainstream Egyptologists like Jan Assman and Donald Redford to be a recounting of the events surrounding the Amarna period. Akhenaten’s dad is Amenhotep III, Akhenaten starts out as Amenhotep IV before changing his name.
The Amarna Period
The Amarna Period was made famous by Akhenaten the proto-monothiest pharaoh, but since the historical records had been erased by damnatio memorae, there is less to go on.
I think not enough can be said about damnatio memorae — because myths seem to grow around a lack of historical records (like aliens built it! around the pyramids).
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, known as Caligula — was similarly rising in Jesus time, and made Emperor in Paul’s time, and had similarly received this rare damnatio memorae like Akhenaten did — they both presented themselves as a living God. So did lots of God-kings, but I think their common error was to restrict the freedom of religion in order to quickly raise their God profile. Let it simmer, baby!
Josephus criticizes Manetho’s account of Osarsiph for using some oral history, as if the Hebrew Bible hadn’t, but it’s because of damnatio memorae that Manetho incorporates it. Manetho can’t say “Oh Moses was Thutmose the Overseer,” because he doesn’t have the records which were buried way before his time, and found in modern times — Thutmose the Overseer’s very long resume is on a excavated tomb wall. So Manetho uses the correct theonyms for a Heliopolitan, Semitic-speaking peoples origin, as Manetho was a priest for Sarapis (the Osiris syncretic deity.)
Osarsiph = Osiris-Reseph?
Heliopolis was the seat of Osiris’ temple. Heliopolis also had a Semitic-speaking origin population. It was once ruled by the Hyksos, whose seat was Avaris (capital city of the Biblical Land of Goshen). They came from Canaan, and the Canaanite deity imported into Egypt was Reseph. Heliopolis is where Patriarch Joseph’s Father-In-Law is from in the Bible narrative, as the city of Heliopolis is known in the Bible as the city of On.
In Manetho’s Account
Amenophis has a same-named servant — well, this is simply Amenhotep III’s servant scribe Amenhotep. Scribe Amenhotep is the rare non-Emperor-type to be deified, but this is the period right before Atenism that divinizes regular people and prizes scribes.
Therefore in my original hypothesis and watermarked by my unique language style heh heh, these are the characters in the Exodus:
Osarsiph = Moses = Thutmose the Overseer
King = Amenhotep III (or maybe Akhenaten?)
Bad Pharaoh = Pharaoh Ay
God = Horemheb
All the Yah theonyms in Hebrew names in the Bible start right around the Exodus. They are brought from Egypt, everybody. Historically, Yah is a favorite personal God of the Egyptian Hyksos.
This isn’t to say that the full four- letter Tetragrammaton Yahweh starts here, but Yah, the earlier form.
The God that challenges Pharaoh Ay imho would be Horemheb — you call God the one that you are loyal to as a term of address, unless you are family.
Thutmose the Overseer starts out serving Amenhotep III, Akhenaten’s father, per some but not all historians. Thutmose the Overseer is also a General (that campaign that matches Moses’ second wife’s ethnicity, ie a marital alliance), and Horemheb is a Generalissimo. The actions that God and Moses take in the Exodus are military actions — like manipulating the Sea of Reeds’ Canal of the Pharaohs to instantly raise the water level, and like Moses’ hand signals atop a hill during the battle.
The epithets for God in the Hebrew Bible once they reach Canaan imo match the changing epithets for God-kings in Egypt chronologically using Ohr Somayach dating in my original research. Sometimes there are two Pharaoh/God-Kings simultaneously (like in the case of the retrojection of reincarnation because of damnatio memorae), and the one that the Hebrews were not subject to would be anachronistically called the Pharaoh. This would be because Syrio-Palestine had been under claimed Egyptian hegemony since about 3000 BCE during Narmer, and they used middle-men, like the Amorites, to govern the native population. Imo, Joshua’s Israelites become the middle-men for Ramses II, taking the hills and south (replacing Amorites), while Ramses II directly takes the way more lucrative merchant coastal route.
Oh and discounting Hatseput (because she also receives damnatio memorae) there’s one God-queen type, the God’s Wife of Amun! Watch as the Book of Isaiah does a 360 and immediately begins to talk only about tooooooons of female topics part-way through, then it stops on a dime, and starts talking about masculine topics again. God’s Wife of Amun Nitocris, everybody, the spouse to Nebuchadnezzer’s son Nabonidus and imo likely one of the last holders of the contract that the Hyksos (the possible Patriarchs) would be presumably under.
I have a lot of respect for these God-kings btw, they are doing the best they know how.
So, how does this relate to Jesus in my evolving hypothesis?
Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus would be types of intercessors, leaders of free-will coalitions of everyday people. These leaders then pray to the highest power on behalf of their people.
The unique and amazing innovation of Jesus is that he’s teaching his inner circle to pray directly to the highest power.
Edit: every so often I feel like I need to add that I’m not an athiest and am a huge fan of Jesus
Robert said
Serene said
Ok now i get. Elijah is the most famous Transjordanite.It doesn’t seem like you do, not if you’re refusing to acknowledge the differences between residents of Perea (possibly Jewish transjordanites under Herod Antipas), citizens of any of the Decapolis city-states (culturally Greek, Hellenized transjordanites), and subjects of the Nabataean Kingdom. If you’re trying to lump them all together into the same political and ethnic entity as a way to help prove that Jesus visited Petra, you’re definitely going down the wrong path.
The Septuagint and Deuteronomic Geography of the phrase Beyond the Jordan, peran tou Iordanou:
In the Old Testament translations (LXX), peran tou Iordanou is the standard catch-all phrase for the entire Transjordanian plateau—stretching from Bashan and Gilead down through Moab, encompassing regions that were radically non-Israelite, fluctuating, and tribal depending on the century.
WWJD — What Would Josephus Describe?
With Josephus (Antiquities and The Jewish War), when he speaks broadly of the region “beyond the Jordan,” he frequently uses it to describe sweeping tracts of land that include the Decapolis cities (like Gadara and Pella) and Gaulanitis, which were not neatly boxed into the ethnic-Jewish administrative province of Peraea. They were autonomous Greek cities or Nabataean-influenced borderlands tucked inside the broader eastern horizon.
The Decapolis is the artificially-created Jewish-Nabataean buffer zone.
The artificial creation of the Decapolis region both liberated territory from the conquering Hasmoneans and absorbed the quickly-expanding Nabataean coalition that included the Decapolis city of Damascus under Aretas III.
The word Peraea is not in the New Testament
The location name Peraea is not used by the New Testament authors, and they easily could have, as they are adept at using many location names.
Ideological Blur
By using “Beyond the Jordan” instead of a precise provincial name, the texts intentionally evoke a liminal space. It bypasses the tidy Roman-client-state borders of Herod Antipas’s jurisdiction and evokes the wilder, mixed-population fringe where tribal groups, Hellenized city-states, and Nabataean caravan ways intersected. It’s the ancient equivalent of saying “out in the badlands” or “across the frontier”—a deliberate stylistic choice that signals a pivot away from the Jewish heartland into a multi-ethnic geopolitical mashup.
This is why the newest New Testament scholarship focuses on the Transjordan influence.
Edit: Autocorrect and a Correction to my Previous Comment: ‘reincarnation’ should be ‘reign’
Helen Young said
Serene,
Did you have a chance to watch the video at the link I posted?
I’d love to know what you thought of it.
This is the link and video again:
Hiya Helen! Thank you for sharing this.
So I watched the vid for a moment, but 45 minutes is a bit long for me for a Youtube without a beautiful rock star playing music. But the moment that I did see brought up the idea of Jesus possibly being in India?
I haven’t come across anything like that in my independent research of academic biblical papers, yet. You didn’t necessarily need to travel to India to be exposed to Indian religion, either.
Herod the Great’s biographer and friend Nicolaus of Damascus mentioned meeting an Indian religious practitioner delegation: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
And Indian religious art was found in the unfortunate Pompey ruins of 79 CE
The Pompeii Lakshmi is an ** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Petra (where again, the ‘Queen’ of Galilee-Peraea, Phaesalis, ‘King’ Herod Antipas’ first wife grew up, and the Herodian Dynasty children who were partly Nabataean were raised) has Indian elephant colonnades, among many religious motifs that seem to span the civilized world, because Nabataeans travel.
The elite** you do not have permission to see this link ** site discusses the possibility of dating their trade with India beginning in the 2nd C BCE based on mould ware (it’s not an academic paper
Then there’s the Berenike Buddha in Egypt, accompanying Sanskrit text and other goodies that could have informed potential syncreticism in the early Christian literature:
According to Steven Sidebotham, a history professor at the University of Delaware who is co-director of the Berenike Project, the statue could date between 90 and 140 CE.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And Emperor Ashoka’s Kandahar edict in Aramaic and Greek goes all the way back to 260 BCE.
…Ptolemy II Philadelphus,** you do not have permission to see this link **
The Greeks in India even seem to have played an active role in the propagation of Buddhism, as some of the emissaries of Ashoka, such as ** you do not have permission to see this link **
So knowing that:
• the belief in reincarnation is connected to Indian religion
• and also existed at least as far back as Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BC)
• and that cultural exchange with India has been proven for awhile
• and that John the Baptist’s followers, the Mandaeans believe in reincarnation
it’s always surprised me that scholars including Dr. Ehrman don’t think there’s any hint of reincarnation discussed even in the Gospel of John. Idk.
John 8:39-41
39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. 41 You do what your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”
I can argue that here the Pharisees did not called Jesus a child from an illegitimate couple, “born out of fornication”; Jesus confronts the Pharisees that Abraham is not their father, but I think he was calling them on spiritual standards, not genetical. However, the Pharisees misunderstand this, and they try to prove their racial purity by saying “we are not born of fornication”. That is opposed to the tribe from Jesus came. A tribe of gentile Galileans, mixed with gentile populations. This verse is usually interpreted as they try to mock him being born from an unwed Marry to Joseph, thus, not fulfilling the law and even might hint towards a bastard lineage, of an unknown father.
But either way, having the Pharisees calling either Jesus a bastard or his entire Galilean tribe mixed, it goes towards a non-Jewish ethnicity of Jesus, or at least not a pure one, one that is according to the rigors of the Pharisees.
John 8:48
48 The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?”
This saying is even more explicit: Pharisees call Jesus a Samaritan. But even this might be interpreted just a pejorative name despite Jesus might’ve not be one (i.e. like calling a non-black person the n word, implying that he acts like one, or a non-gay the gay or the f word, with the purpose of offending). “You act like a Samaritan”. Or is it not?
Serene said
Helen Young said
Serene,
Did you have a chance to watch the video at the link I posted?
I’d love to know what you thought of it.
This is the link and video again:
Hiya Helen! Thank you for sharing this.
So I watched the vid for a moment, but 45 minutes is a bit long for me for a Youtube without a beautiful rock star playing music. But the moment that I did see brought up the idea of Jesus possibly being in India?
I haven’t come across anything like that in my independent research of academic biblical papers, yet. You didn’t necessarily need to travel to India to be exposed to Indian religion, either.
Herod the Great’s biographer and friend Nicolaus of Damascus mentioned meeting an Indian religious practitioner delegation: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
And Indian religious art was found in the unfortunate Pompey ruins of 79 CEThe Pompeii Lakshmi is an ivory statuette that was discovered in the ruins of Pompeii, a Roman city destroyed in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius79 CE. It was found by Amedeo Maiuri, an Italian scholar, in 1938.[1] The statuette has been dated to the first century CE.[2] The statuette is thought of as representing an Indian goddess of feminine beauty and fertility. It is possible that the sculpture originally formed the handle of a mirror.[2] The statuette is evidence of commercial trade between India and Rome in the first century CE.[3
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Petra (where again, the ‘Queen’ of Galilee-Peraea, Phaesalis, ‘King’ Herod Antipas’ first wife grew up, and the Herodian Dynasty children who were partly Nabataean were raised) has Indian elephant colonnades, among many religious motifs that seem to span the civilized world, because Nabataeans travel.
The elite Nabataea.net site discusses the possibility of dating their trade with India beginning in the 2nd C BCE based on mould ware (it’s not an academic paper
Then there’s the Berenike Buddha in Egypt, accompanying Sanskrit text and other goodies that could have informed potential syncreticism in the early Christian literature:According to Steven Sidebotham, a history professor at the University of Delaware who is co-director of the Berenike Project, the statue could date between 90 and 140 CE.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And Emperor Ashoka’s Kandahar edict in Aramaic and Greek goes all the way back to 260 BCE.…Ptolemy II Philadelphus,[191] who himself is mentioned in the Edicts of Ashoka as a recipient of the Buddhist proselytism of Ashoka. Some Hellenistic philosophers, such as Hegesias of Cyrene, who probably lived under the rule of King Magas, one of the supposed recipients of Buddhist emissaries from Ashoka, are sometimes thought to have been influenced by Buddhist teachings.[192]
The Greeks in India even seem to have played an active role in the propagation of Buddhism, as some of the emissaries of Ashoka, such as Dharmaraksita, are described in Pali sources as leading Greek (Yona) Buddhist monks, active in spreading Buddhism (the Mahavamsa, XII).[193]So knowing that:
• the belief in reincarnation is connected to Indian religion
• and also existed at least as far back as Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BC)
• and that cultural exchange with India has been proven for awhile
• and that John the Baptist’s followers, the Mandaeans believe in reincarnation
it’s always surprised me that scholars including Dr. Ehrman don’t think there’s any hint of reincarnation discussed even in the Gospel of John. Idk.
Hiya Serene, Thank You too for sharing!
Not long ago, Bart did a video on the Misquoting Jesus Podcast about reincarnation in early Christianity. I don’t remember if he mentioned the Gospels or the Gospel of John in it, however. Here’s a link to the video: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I understand what you mean; having 45 minutes or an hour to watch a video or read a bunch of papers, with or without rock and roll playing in the background, can sometimes be hard to come by. The video isn’t just about JC just visiting India; it suggests he traveled to other places as well. It’s a relatively easy watch that doesn’t overtax one’s mind or knowledge of history. I’d still love to know what you think of it, if you ever do have the time. The vid starts kind of slow, but then it gets going. – One thing that bothered me about it, however, is that it states that Jesus just taught. It doesn’t say that he could have ever learned anything as well. They say a good manager knows how to collect ideas and sort the good ones from the bad or not-so-good ones. Jesus, I believe, had this talent and ability.
I can see what you are saying in that Jesus didn’t necessarily have to go to India to be exposed to Indian culture and religion. There’s also the possibility that he was exposed to it in Judea or the Near East, and this is what inspired him to go there and investigate their teachings and their philosophy.
Good to hear from you, and thank you for your links and insights.
dansanta2003 said
John 8:39-4139 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. 41 You do what your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”
I can argue that here the Pharisees did not called Jesus a child from an illegitimate couple, “born out of fornication”; Jesus confronts the Pharisees that Abraham is not their father, but I think he was calling them on spiritual standards, not genetical. However, the Pharisees misunderstand this, and they try to prove their racial purity by saying “we are not born of fornication”. That is opposed to the tribe from Jesus came. A tribe of gentile Galileans, mixed with gentile populations. This verse is usually interpreted as they try to mock him being born from an unwed Marry to Joseph, thus, not fulfilling the law and even might hint towards a bastard lineage, of an unknown father.
But either way, having the Pharisees calling either Jesus a bastard or his entire Galilean tribe mixed, it goes towards a non-Jewish ethnicity of Jesus, or at least not a pure one, one that is according to the rigors of the Pharisees.
John 8:4848 The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?”
This saying is even more explicit: Pharisees call Jesus a Samaritan. But even this might be interpreted just a pejorative name despite Jesus might’ve not be one (i.e. like calling a non-black person the n word, implying that he acts like one, or a non-gay the gay or the f word, with the purpose of offending). “You act like a Samaritan”. Or is it not?
Great call. It seems the Pharisees may be be sniffing the Mesopotamianization that matches the Assyrian edicted population swap that created the hybridized Samaritans? Some are from Babylon, and the Cutha are from an originally Sumerian city even.
So there’s actually two population swaps:
• one from the North that creates Samaritans, named after the Israelite capital of Samaria (mostly ‘low-level’ skilled peoples) are swapped with educated Israelites, as edicted by Assyrians.
• one from the South with swapping Shasu and Libyans, much earlier, as edicted by Egyptians.
You know how Jesus loves his comparisons.
The Abu Simbel Great Temple Inscription (KRI II, 206-207). A rhetorical text detailing Ramesses II’s universal power over his borders states:
Carrying off the land of Nubia to the Northland, and the Asiatics to Nubia. He has placed the Shasu in the Westland, he has settled the Libyans (Tjehenu) on the ridges.”
The Tanis Obelisk XXI (KRI II, 426)
Another Ramesside text that repeats this exact “swapping” policy:
settling] the East with Libyans (…) [placing Eastern]ers [in] the Western country.”
I think Jesus may be side-hinting at various times that he knows that the Tetragrammaton is a syncretic deity, adding a deity to Yah?
I think he’s responding that there’s a matching mixed-lineage insult to throw back.
John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires…
I don’t mean El the sweet fatherly deity which is already academic consensus.
As far as I can tell, one that adds the Lord of Foreign Lands, YHW-H (Yahu-Ha.)
That addition of -H would be in the 9th C BCE, in the desert campaign that unites the Kingdoms of Israel, Judah, and Edom. Since Egypt still claims hegemony over Syrio-Palestine, and this is the period that Egypt drops the now-unpopular desert deity Seth for the much more obscure desert deity Ha as Lord of Foreign Lands; this would possibly require a new titulary deity, one that simultaneously raises Yahwism to multiple kingdoms. The rise of Yahwism may have first inspired the finding of the miraculously-found proto-Deuteronomy scroll. Deuteronomy 33:2 describes a three-fold area for the origin of the Lord — Sinai, Seir (think the Shasu of Seir) and Mount Paran — well, all three areas happen to be under the Lord of Foreign Lands Ha’s jurisdiction, per the Egyptians.
2He said: The Lord came from Sinai, and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran
Ha is:
• the obscure-ish desert deity associated with the miracle of food appearing
• the conqueror of foreign tribes deity with the rare accoutrement of sword (since Egypt’s deities were usually depicted as more pacifistic unless the depiction involved administrating foreign peoples, like Seth)
• an Egyptian deity in both Arabian (like Midianite) and Libyan areas. Midianites worshipped Egyptized deities, like Hathor especially.
• Ha was originally in charge of mining stuff in Egypt’s foreign lands, a task done by Semitic-speaking peoples for Egypt, before his scope widens in this period
No, Ha may not originally be Libyan, as he is not from the geographical West as Wikipedia might suggest; his also being “Lord of the West”, in a great paper by a Ha scholar, Kata Jasper in 2023, is originally said to use the spiritual meaning of West (the underworld, and not the geographical West) and that Ha becomes associated with the geographical West in a later period. This scholar says that foreign desert groups on both sides of Egypt, including Shasu and Libyans, are administered/trampled a lil by Ha
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Viewed from the Nile Valley, this mostly arid region was a territory of smaller or higher rocky mountains constituting the area of what is now known as the Arabian and the Libyan Deserts, indicating a secondary meaning “desert.”
So, Ha’s area was originally inclusive of both Arabian (Midianite) and Libyan deserts. Ha was even sometimes syncretized with Seth in the middle times. Ha in Jesus‘ time has now become fully associated with an origin in the geographical West even as he is um involved with people from the East, in this inscription from Tiberius’ reign:
Ha, the great god in the West, lord of the western mountain, (2) who tramples the Shasu-beduins.”
Recitation by Ha, the great god in the West, lord of the western mountain, who tramples the Shasu-beduins, who gives his knife in the vile st.tjw-people of the East, who commands to slay the enemies.”
And all that reminds of the population swap:
settling] the East with Libyans (…) [placing Eastern]ers [in] the Western country.”
Lord/King/Ruler of Foreign Lands is the same name as the Hyksos who worshipped Seth Baal/Asiatic Seth, while Yah was a favorite personal deity.
So the Samaritan swap included various peoples, including the Cuthha/Kutha from an originally Sumerian city, and I think that the Pharisees may recognize a phrase or so that first returns in the Antiquarian Revival of Seleucid Uruk in 4th C BCE, and spreads to NW Arabian-ruled travel nodes like Palmyra and the ethnically-Nabataean Abgarid Dynasty of Edessa.
I recommend ** you do not have permission to see this link **, by Dr. Robin Baker, 2022
And I think, Nabataea proper. Dr. David Graf ascribes Nabataea a mixed Mesopotamian-NW Arabian origin (with Aramaean influence too, I think.) Their royals share the same blessing, “for the life of…” as Seleucid Uruk, Palmyra, and Edessa.
They didn’t leave their possessions behind as much to ponder on for achaeologists, as archaeologists find that they had an about six-month orderly move; Arabia Petraea was acquired, and not conquered, by the Romans..
Again, the Queen of Galilee was a Nabataean for most of Jesus‘ lifetime until the marital alliance breaks and subsequent conflict where some Jewish people side with the Nabataeans per Josephus, and I think the mission begins here.
I mean, I think that exchange between the Pharisees and Jesus could also work with or stack with the Herodian Dynasty, too maybe
all my comments copyright me 2026
“a link to the video: Did Early Christians Believe in Reincarnation?”
Did Early Christians Believe in Reincarnation? – Bart D. Ehrman
light edits, 26:07+
I will say, though, that there’s not so much a move toward reincarnation– although some people are moving that way– but the bigger move is towards some other kinds of universalism.
Because in a way, Origen’s doctrine of reincarnation was a way of expressing how God’s power _ultimately_ will dominate, that you cannot stop God.
You might try, you might resist, but you can’t, and in the end, you too will be convinced.
And in Origen’s view, God’s not _forcing_ you to agree.
He’s not.
It just, over time, after a few million ages, you’re going to realize you’re wrong, because you _are_ wrong, and so God’s being merciful.
But this modern universalist movement is really a lot more about that, it’s not just for God to say,
‘You died, now time’s up’– boom– ‘heaven or hell– you don’t get more chances.’
‘Why not after death? Why isn’t God merciful? Why does he torture you for trillions of years for 20 years of sin? That just doesn’t make any sense.’
And so people are moving toward more of a universalist model– even Evangelical Christians– many I know Evangelical thinkers apologists theologians, who are moving in that direction.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)