Copyrighted Material Stolen by Ralph Ellis

The following is a re-posting of material that were originally published on The Aramaic Blog (here) to which I (Steve Caruso) hold copyrights to. I also hold copyrights to Mr. Ellis’ contributions, as the posting notice on The Aramaic Blog includes a binding agreement that all comments posted become my intellectual property.

Since Mr. Ellis became belligerent, I deleted the comments from my blog in an effort to clean up the correspondence. Like an author of an out of print book, I still retain my copyrights even in my decision to remove them from my blog, as copyrights enable to holder to control the publication and distribution of their work.

I have re-published them here in an effort to aid their removal from Mr. Ellis’ website, as he reproduced them there, nearly in full, without obtaining permission from myself, the rightful copyright holder.

Published Material in Question Follows:

Unknown has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

.
Sir,

Your analysis is flawed from the very start.

Like Tom Verenna, you are reviewing a book without having read it, and that is – well – highly unprofessional. And if Tom Verenna had allowed comments on his blog, you would know that epub files for iBooks only allow one font. Thus the fact that we got most of the Greek alphabet is a miracle in itself, let alone a ‘final sigma’. You will note that all the Hebrew/Aramaic words are still pictures, because iBooks will not allow Hebrew fonts.

Ralph Ellis

Posted by Unknown to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 2:09 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

You reference Tom Verenna as an ally in reviewing this book (which you have never read). You might like to know that Tom Verenna is a fraud whose word is of little merit:
http://thomasverenna.blogspot.nl

.

Posted by Unknown to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 4:16 AM

Steve Caruso has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

Ah, the esteemed Ralph Ellis. I was curious when you would show up here. 🙂

I appreciate that you decided against commenting anonymously as your chosen monicker suggests you were planning on.

“Your analysis is flawed from the very start.”

You are perfectly welcome (and I assume capable) of explaining how my analysis is flawed, especially when it comes to very simple matters of established etymology and syntax.

“Like Tom Verenna, you are reviewing a book without having read it, and that is – well – highly unprofessional.

You put a substantial amount of material up on the web as preview text and there were some noteworthy assertions that were worth addressing. There is nothing “unprofessional” about critiquing that.

If you would consider sending a review copy my way, I would be more than glad to read it cover-to-cover and give a full review of the work as a whole.

“And if Tom Verenna had allowed comments on his blog, you would know that epub files for iBooks only allow one font. Thus the fact that we got most of the Greek alphabet is a miracle in itself, let alone a ‘final sigma’. You will note that all the Hebrew/Aramaic words are still pictures, because iBooks will not allow Hebrew fonts.”

As both a trained librarian and someone who is intimately familiar with computer programming and the ePub format, your understanding is a bit outdated.

First: ePub supports the full range of unicode characters. You could have written in English side-by-side with Greek (with proper final forms and diacritical marks), side-by-side with Hebrew (with full niqqud), etc. This has been the case since the beginning.

Second: ePub, since version 2, also supports OpenType font embedding through stylesheets, so you can use pretty much any font you wish. iBooks has supported this feature since early 2011. iOS, itself, fully supports Hebrew since version 4.2 and Greek since version 3.x ( I can’t remember which). 🙂

You reference Tom Verenna as an ally in reviewing this book (which you have never read). You might like to know that Tom Verenna is a fraud whose word is of little merit:

Wow, do you even *realize* what you have posted, and the kind of liability you’ve opened yourself up to with such declarations? 🙂

I strongly suggest that you read your sources a bit more carefully to get a sense of their mettle before you post them. That’s a rather mean-spirited *SATIRE* site with oodles of broken links. For someone who says it’s “unprofessional” to post some thoughts about a single chapter, what does that make this? 🙂

I’m thinking that this is like North Korea picking up that The Onion article, thinking it was true. If I were you, I’d be horridly embarrassed spreading that around the Internet. 🙂

As it stands, Tom is a member in good standing of the SBL and ASOR, and has a number of academic publications under his belt. A fraud he is not; far from it. 🙂

Peace,
-Steve

Posted by Steve Caruso to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 7:07 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

>> First: ePub supports the full range of unicode characters. You could
>> have written in English side-by-side with Greek
>> Second: ePub, since version 2, also supports OpenType font
>> embedding through stylesheets

If that is true, then why does Innodata not know about it?
Google for innodata.com

Innodata are Apple’s approved epub producer, and it was Innodata who used jpeg images in the book, for both Hebrew and Greek words, instead of type-fonts.

And even if you used the feature you talk about, if it exists, would it also work on Kindle? I very much doubt it. And since Kindle sells 10x the number of books, they rule the industry at present.

But the bottom line here, is that this Greek font business is yet another baseless criticism, and yet Verenna refuses to withdraw it even after being advised of his error. Professional? He does not know the meaning.

_______

And while we are at it, Tom Verenna’s other criticisms include.….

The conflation of four kings.

I have NOT conflated four kings into one, as Tom Verenna claimed. In reality, I have conflated two pairs of different kings, and if Verenna had read the book he would have known that. The kings are:

a. King Abgarus V of Edessa is King Monobazus of Adiabene.
b. King Manu VI of Edessa is King Izas of Adiabene.

Why have I done so? Because King Abgarus and King Monobazus shared a common wife – Queen Helena of Adiabene/Edessa (and thus King Manu and King Izas shared a common mother). If Thomas Verenna cannot understand that two kings with the same wife are likely to be the same person, he is either a retard or a troll. In the case of Tom Verenna, he is probably both, because if had read the book he would have known that I have four chapters that outline the reasons why Adiabene and Edessa were actually the same location.

Incorrect coin image.

If Verenna had bothered to turn to the inside cover of the book he would have found an explanation as to why this coin was used.

The reality is that the coin of King Izas-Manu (i.e.: King Jesus-EmManuel) is too rough to demonstrate the Crown of Thorns properly, but since all the kings of Edessa used the same crown and had the same facial profile, the 3rd century coin used on the cover is completely representative of the 1st century coin (which is shown inside the book). And this is explained to all readers – except for the Verenna retard, who could not be bothered to read the book.

And no, it is not illegal to own these coins, as they came from French territory. Perhaps Verenna and his self-congratulatory mafia need to read a little more about Edessan coin finds before they display their ignorance.

____

Again, the bottom line here is that it is highly unprofessional for a reviewer or a commentator, like yourself, not to read the book before putting pen to paper. It is even more unprofessional for a reviewer not to correct his errors when they are pointed out. What Verenna is writing is propaganda for a cause, presumably the anti-biblical cause, but he is so stupid that he does not realise that the ‘Jesus of Edessa’ book is highly critical of and completely demolishes orthodox Christian beliefs.

Sincerely,
Ralph Ellis

Posted by Unknown to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

.
>> You are perfectly welcome (and I assume capable) of explaining
>> how my analysis is flawed, especially when it comes to very simple
>> matters of established etymology and syntax.

Of course your analysis is flawed. And the reason is that Josephus was writing propaganda, not history. Josephus was not concerned with every jot and tittle of Aramaic syntax, what he wanted was to conceal names and personalities so that only a few ‘initiates’ would know the text’s true meaning.

I ask you – why do you think that Josephus Flavius never mentions King Abgarus, King Manu, or Edessa, even though they were very influential characters and kingdoms in 1st century Judaean politics? How did that happen? Indeed the Edessan army joined forces with King Aretas in the AD 30s to defeat King Herod. But you would hardly know that, because Josephus Flavius calls the Edessan army: “a band of fugitives from Syria.” Hmm. Do you not see the political propaganda? Do you only see the jot and tittle of Aramaic syntax??

Similarly, why do you think that Josephus transliterates the Greek ‘Monos Basileus’ as ‘Mono Bazus’ (meaning Only King)? Answer – this not only represents a Parthian pronunciation of basileus, it also neatly covers up what the name means, except for a select few initiates. Only a few ‘initiates’ were to know that King Monobazus was King Abgarus – but then the Syriac historians gave the game away by mentioning that their wives (wife) was the same person.

However, it is not only the Gospels and Josephus that have fun with wordplay, the Talmud is full of it too (and this one is in Latin, which is most unusual). The Talmud says that Emperor Titus had an flying insect in his brain…

Quote:
When Titus landed, a gnat entered his nose, and it knocked against his brain for seven years. One day as he was passing a blacksmith’s it heard the noise of the hammer and stopped. He said; I see there is a remedy. So every day they brought a blacksmith who hammered before him. If he was a non-Jew they gave him four coins, if he was a Jew they said, ‘It is enough that you see the suffering of your enemy’. (Gittin 55 – 57)

Vespasian … Vespa-sian … Wasp. Duhh…
Do you now see how all of these texts were written? Its less of a grammar book, and more like ‘Up Pompeii’ by Frankie Howerd. Look for youtube.com/watch?v=eIpkNVL1JNQ

Sincerely,
Ralph Ellis

Posted by Unknown to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Steve Caruso has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

Ralph,

First let me explain why I temp-deleted your posts and then invite you to re-write them.

I do not take kindly to people calling other people “stupid” or “retards” in the comments on my blog. There is a line between satire and bad faith and that crosses it.

Sadly, Blogger (unlike other blogging tools like WordPress) does not allow me to individually edit comments to remove such things or links that I do not wish to give Google rank to. It only leaves me with one choice, and that is to “temp-delete” a post, which keeps it on record, but removes it from display.

So, with that said, I invite you to continue commenting provided that you follow proper decorum and please address the following:

1) “There is no relation between Jesus (from the Aramaic ישוע /yeshua’/) and Izas/Izates (from the Persian ایزد‎ /’izad/). The only similarity is in their English transliteration.”

2) Barabbas comes from the Aramaic בר–אבא /bar-abba/, not the Latin “barbar”. This etymology is not in dispute.

3) Manu (?) provided it is from Monobaz does not share etymological origins with the Hebrew אמנואל /immanuel/.

4) The clam that Adiabene means “Sons of Addai” (I assume ܐܕܝ ܒܢܝ /addai b’ney/) is against verified, established etymology and does not follow Aramaic grammar and syntax. Adiabene comes from ܚܕܝܐܒ‎ /hadiyav/ which is found from inscriptions at the site. There is no similarity between ܚܕܝܐܒ‎ /hadiyav/ and ܒܢܝ ܐܕܝ /b’ney addai/.

5) The progression of Judas into Addai does not follow any established etymology outside of blatant theological speculation. Judas comes from יהודה /yehuda/, and יהודה and אדי /adai/ could not perturb from one to the other following any established drift mechanisms.

While you do this, I must also ask that you do not make any appeals to conspiracies (“a few ‘initiates'”; “self-congratulatory mafia”). They bloody occam’s razor very badly, and I would like to keep that philosophical device clean and sharp.

Furthermore, you were the one who mentioned iBooks, which does support Unicode ePub. Third Generation Kindles fully support Unicode and additional fonts, too (this would make it the case since 2010). It sounds like your vendor is either not up to spec, or is publishing for the lowest common denominator and not versioning properly for recent systems. It’s uncommon, but not unheard of, for Apple to blunder like this (in fact it is becoming more common since we have lost Steve Jobs, rest his soul). This is why hiring an editor who is e-book savvy is imperative when publishing on the platform.

The hex code for final sigma is 0x03C2, so you could have simply typed in ς and that would have popped it in there like this: ς 🙂

In any case, I look forward to your re-framed responses.

Peace,
-Steve

Posted by Steve Caruso to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

Sure I can moderate the language; but I would point out that the intemperate language did not start with me. So, to the points being made:

If that is true, then why does Innodata not know about it? Google for innodata.com  Innodata are Apple’s preferred epub supplier, and it was Innodata who used jpeg images in the book, for both Hebrew and Greek words, instead of type-fonts.

And even if you used the feature you talk about, if it exists, would it also work on Kindle? I very much doubt it. And since Kindle sells 10x the number of books, they rule the industry at present.

But the bottom line here, is that this Greek font business is yet another baseless criticism, and yet Verenna refuses to withdraw it even after being advised of his error.

>> The hex code for final sigma is 0x03C2, so you could have
>> simply typed in ς and that would have popped it in
>> there like this: ς

Again I will point out that this is not a valid criticism of the author. The epub translation was not done by myself, it was done by a professional company who make ebooks, and charge a great deal for the privilege. I did suggest they tried hexcode (I used to be a computer programmer), and the reply was that ePubs do not understand hexcode. This is why all the Hebrew fonts are STILL little jpeg pictures (many of which were placed in the wrong place, because they could not read Hebrew, and thought they all looked the same).

I can only go on what a professional company says. Indeed, they are Apple iBooks’ preferred supplier. How can one challenge that?

_______

Tom Verenna’s other criticisms, some of which you repeat, include.….

The conflation of four kings.

I have NOT conflated four kings into one, as Tom Verenna claimed. In reality, I have conflated two pairs of different kings, and if Verenna had read the book he would have known that. The kings are:

a. King Abgarus V of Edessa is King Monobazus of Adiabene.
b. King Manu VI of Edessa is King Izas of Adiabene.

In addition, if had read the book he would have known that I devote four chapters explaining the reasons why Adiabene and Edessa were actually the same location.

Incorrect coin image.

If Verenna had turned to the inside cover of the book he would have found an explanation as to why this coin was used.   The reality is that the coin of King Izas-Manu (i.e.: King Jesus-EmManuel) is too rough to demonstrate the Crown of Thorns properly, but since all the kings of Edessa used the same crown and had the same facial profile, the 3rd century coin used on the cover is completely representative of the 1st century coin (which is shown inside the book). And this is explained to all readers – except for Verenna apparently.

And no, it is not illegal to own these coins, as they came from French territory. Perhaps Verenna should read a little more about Edessan coin finds.

Again, the bottom line here is that it is highly unprofessional for a reviewer or a commentator not to read the book before putting pen to paper. It is even more unprofessional for a reviewer not to correct his errors when they are pointed out.

Sincerely,
Ralph Ellis

.

Posted by Unknown to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Unknown has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

>> You are perfectly welcome (and I assume capable) of explaining
>> how my analysis is flawed, especially when it comes to very simple
>> matters of established etymology and syntax.

Of course your analysis is flawed. The reason is that Josephus was writing propaganda, not history. Josephus was not concerned with every jot and tittle of Aramaic syntax, what he wanted was to conceal names and personalities so that only a few confidants would know the text’s true meaning.

Indeed the Edessan army joined forces with King Aretas in the AD 30s to defeat King Herod. But you would hardly know that, because Josephus Flavius calls the Edessan army: “a band of fugitives from Syria.” (see Antiquities 18:5:1 ) Do you now see the political propaganda, rather than the jot and tittle of Aramaic syntax?

Similarly, why do you think that Josephus transliterates the Greek ‘Monos Basileus’ as ‘Mono Bazus’ (meaning Only King)? Answer – this not only represents a Parthian pronunciation of basileus, it also neatly covers up what the name means, except for a select few of Josephus’ confidants. Only a select few were to know that King Monobazus was King Abgarus – but then the Syriac historians gave the game away by mentioning that their wives (wife) was the same person.

Vespasian … Vespa-sian … Wasp.
Ho, ho – very droll.
Do you see how these texts were written? They are less of a grammar book, and more like ‘Up Pompeii’ by Frankie Howerd.
Look for youtube.com/watch?v=eIpkNVL1JNQ

P.S. Mentioning “a few initiates” is not an “appeal to a conspiracy”, it is historical reality. The Talmudic authors did not indulge in pesher and obfuscation for the fun of it, they did it for secrecy and security. When they appealed for Jesus to be boiled in semen and sh!t they were playing with fire, and they knew it, and so by all available means they covered this up so that only a “few Talmudic initiates” could understand it. See Talmud Gittin 55-57

.

Posted by Unknown to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Unknown has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

In answer to additional points:

>>1) There is no relation between Jesus and Izas/Izates.

Likewise, there is no obvious relation between Yakob and James, and yet we know that they are the same name. If you did not have the intermediate forms, how would you know that Yakob was James?

In reality Yeshua is not the original form of Jesus’ name, because Jesus was not a Judaic Jew. Instead Jesus (Izas) was a Nazarene Babylonian Jew who came from Parthia, as did all the Edessan monarchs (he was related to Queen Thea Muse Ourania of Parthia, who was exiled from Parthia in AD 4). Thus his original name was the Parthian Izates, Izad or Izas. From this name we derive the Arabic Issa, and the Greek Iesous, and not the other way around.

>> 2) Barabbas comes from the Aramaic bar-abba,
>> not the Latin “barbar”.

Indeed it probably does, and I say this many times. However, Josephus Flavius makes a huge play on the Edessans “Beyond the Euphrates” being Barbarians. (Bearded people, in contrast to Josephus who was apparently clean shaven.) Since Josephus says this so often, I made the enquiry whether Barabbas might have been influenced by these continual references to Barbarians. That is the whole point of biblical enquiry, to test the possibilities.

>> 3) Manu (?) provided it is from Monobaz does not share
>> etymological origins with the Hebrew Immanuel.

Sorry, you don’t seem to fully understand Judaic pesher. This technique involves finding a verse in the Tanakh that suits current events, and then using that ancient verse to predict future events. When performing pesher, you are never going to find a verse in the Tanakh mentioning Manu. But Josephus did find one mentioning Em-Manu-El. Brilliant.

But even better than that, the same verse says that Em-Manu-El’s mother was called Almah. Now this was just too good to be true, because King Manu’s mother was called Sh-Almah-Th. Absolutely brilliant.

And this is why Jesus’ mother is pointedly called a virgin, because Almah means ‘virgin’ and her real name was Queen Sh-Almah-th (Shalmath). The precise etymology is irrelevant, it is the pesher that counts.

.

Posted by Unknown to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Unknown has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

>> 4) The clam that Adiabene means “Sons of Addai” is against
>> etymology and does not follow Aramaic grammar and syntax.

Again, the grammar and syntax is irrelevant. The whole point of this deliberate obfuscation is that Josephus could cover up the location he was referring to (and have a bit of a laugh while doing so). This is why Josephus apparently never mentions Edessa – he did mention Edessa, of course, but he calls it Adiabene instead.

And this deceit has worked like a charm, because people (including Verenna) are still looking towards Erbil in Iraq to find Adiabene to this very day – even though there is no evidence for Adiabene being there. I positively show that Adiabene was NOT in Iraq, and the final proof is that the Syriac historians say that Queen Helena of Adiabene came from Edessa.

So Josephus’ cover story worked, and nobody realised that Adia-Bene (Sons of Addai) referred to Edessa. And you should note that Edessa IS “Beyond the Euprates”, just as Josephus says.

>> Adiabene comes from
>> inscriptions at the site.

What inscriptions?

>> 5) The progression of Judas into Addai does not follow
>> any established etymology.

This is not my invention, the venerable theologian Joseph Thayer suggest this. You cannot criticise me for quoting a respected theologian.

And I have to say I have great sympathy for this suggestion because there is an established progression from Judas to Theudas to Thaddaeus – and then the various versions of The Doctrine of Addai often confuse the disciples Thaddaeus and Addai. Whether through literary progression or textural confusion, Thaddaeus and Addai become intimately intwined. And so it would have been very easy for a devious author like Josephus, who deals in Roman propaganda as much as real history, to coin the term “Sons of Addai” (Adiabene).

Posted by Unknown to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Steve Caruso has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

“  If that is true, then why does Innodata not know about it? Google for innodata.com  Innodata are Apple’s preferred epub supplier, and it was Innodata who used jpeg images in the book, for both Hebrew and Greek words, instead of type-fonts.

And even if you used the feature you talk about, if it exists, would it also work on Kindle? I very much doubt it. And since Kindle sells 10x the number of books, they rule the industry at present.

I already addressed this fully: You were the one who mentioned iBooks, which does support Unicode ePub. Third Generation Kindles fully support Unicode and additional fonts, too (this would make it the case since 2010). It sounds like your vendor is either not up to spec, or is publishing for the lowest common denominator and not versioning properly for recent systems. It’s uncommon, but not unheard of, for Apple to blunder like this (in fact it is becoming more common since we have lost Steve Jobs, rest his soul). This is why hiring an editor who is e-book savvy is imperative when publishing on the platform.

If they gave you an unqualified “no” and charged you money for it, requesting a refund is the only appropriate course of action.

These features are both in Apple and Amazon’s own tech specs. Those you can look up easily on your own time.

But the bottom line here, is that this Greek font business is yet another baseless criticism, and yet Verenna refuses to withdraw it even after being advised of his error.   ”
…

I can only go on what a professional company says. Indeed, they are Apple iBooks’ preferred supplier. How can one challenge that?

I challenge it openly as a professional, myself. They are not the authority on this manner they are simply a vendor. Apple doesn’t endorse them over any other vendor on their list. If a vendor doesn’t follow their customer’s own specs, what else can be said other than they are wrong, categorically?

Also, it is not “baseless criticism.” If you are not only author but editor and publisher getting it correct falls squarely upon your shoulders. It is this attention to detail that is *essential* for any kind of publication and what peer review and the traditional publishing process seeks to ensure.

If you couldn’t get it printed in Hebrew or Greek, then the accepted practice is to default to a common transliteration scheme, of which there are several.

To use the wrong script or wrong letter forms in a publication, one might as well submit a paper to an SBL session in l337 $3@k.

I’m sorry, there is no real flex when it comes to responsibility here.

Now on to the conspiracies:

In reality, I have conflated two pairs of different kings, and if Verenna had read the book he would have known that. The kings are:

a. King Abgarus V of Edessa is King Monobazus of Adiabene.
b. King Manu VI of Edessa is King Izas of Adiabene.

Which Monobazus? There was more than one.

Who are you referring to as “Izas”? Izates? If so, which Izates?

The reality is that the coin of King Izas-Manu (i.e.: King Jesus-EmManuel) is too rough to demonstrate the Crown of Thorns

It has not been established that this crown is made of any particular material outside of conjecture.

I ask you – why do you think that Josephus Flavius never mentions King Abgarus, King Manu, […]

Again, which Abgar?

Which “Manu”? Monobaz? Which one?

[T]his not only represents a Parthian pronunciation of basileus,

How?

it also neatly covers up what the name means, except for a select few of Josephus’ confidants.

Again we’re back at conspiracy. 🙂

And the rest of what you say here is more of same.

Posted by Steve Caruso to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Steve Caruso has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

On to the points I asked you to address:

Likewise, there is no obvious relation between Yakob and James, and yet we know that they are the same name. If you did not have the intermediate forms, how would you know that Yakob was James?

Actually, we do. Yakov and James are related thusly:

יעקוב – /ya’-qov/ (Hebrew/Aramaic). The initial name. It means transliterated into:

Ἰάκωβος – /ya-kô-bas (Greek); ע dropped due to it lacking in Greek, -ος ending due to Greek nominative grammar. Transliterated into:

Iacobus – /yah-ko-bus/ (Latin); it split here heading towards the French Jacques /zhaq/, however to get to “James” we must follow a prolific LAtin variant:

Iacomus – /ya-kã-mus/ (late Latin); the B nasalized into M lightening the second vowel which stopped next as:

Iames /yeimz/ later, James /zheimz/ – (French); the the C elided and then dropped due to how Old French into later French constructed syllables. The J in later French stopped sounding like Y and took on the sound /zh/. From here we go finally to:

James /dzeimz/ (English) – Direct transliteration, but different pronunciation as in English of the time J was pronounced /dz/, A in that position in a syllable was pronounced /ey/ after the Vowel Shift, and final S when voiced becomes /z/.

Each and every form along the way here is attested in extant manuscripts and their inter-relation is listed in each era via cognates and other means of cross-identification.

Do you have this paper trail for your perturbations with hundreds of examples? 🙂

In reality Yeshua is not the original form of Jesus’ name, because Jesus was not a Judaic Jew.

Follow this with me:

ישוע /ye-shu-a’/ – (Aramaic). Meaning “He will save.” Cognate to the Hebrew יהושע /ye-ho-shu-a/ meaning “YHWH will save.” Where the Hebrew forms of many Jewish names are theophoric (specifically Yahwistic) Aramaic forms of these names are not. This was transliterated as:

Ἰησοῦς /yê-sus/ – (Greek). What happened here? Greek cannot express ש /sh/, so it became σ /s/. Greek cannot express ע /`/ within this portion of a word (sometimes χ was used, but it wouldn’t work here with how the vowels fall) so it was dropped. The long ו was represented with the diphthong ου /u/, and the nominative ending -ς /-s/ was added. This then became:

Iesus /yê-sus/ – (Latin). A direct transliteration from the Greek. Each letter equivalent (except for the dropping of ο as in Latin the same sound is merely represented by u; to use /ou/ would give a glided diphthong). It sounds the same. From here it became:

Iesus /yê-sus/ and later Jesus /yê-sus/ – (German). Sounds the same as in Latin and Greek. J in German takes on the sound /y/. From here it landed as:

Iesus /yê-zus/ and later Jesus /dzi-zus/ – (English). Identical spelling, completely different rules of pronunciation. The phonetic value of J settled as /dz/ in English. E in this position within a syllable and word goes from /ê/ to /i/. Finally S becomes voices as /z/ when stuck between vowels.

If, as you contend, we’re starting from “Izas” then we start with the Persian ایزد‎ /i-zad/.

What did that turn into in Greek?

Ἰζάτης /i-za-tês/ – The د was transcribed as τ which is common (as opposed to θ which is commonly used to transcribe softer dentals). Plus the nominative ending -ης /-ês/.

Ἰζάτης /Izates/ bears no resemblance (superficial or etymological) to Ἰησοῦς /Iesous/. Even if you were to shorten it to Ἰζάς /Izas/ it would look even further from Ἰησοῦς /Iesous/.

What about in Hebrew and Aramaic? We find in Bereshit Rabba that Izates is referred to as זוטוס /zotus/ (I’ll even perhaps give זוטיס /zotes/). Not even close.

Jesus is only is confusable with Izates when working from selective English transliteration and no euphemism or other device can bridge this wide gap.

Case closed.

Posted by Steve Caruso to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Steve Caruso has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

That is the whole point of biblical enquiry, to test the possibilities.

Yet you’re not testing your hypotheses, you’re speculating. 🙂

Sorry, you don’t seem to fully understand Judaic pesher.

Imagine I’m saying this in my best Mandy Patinkin fake Spanish accent: I’m not sure that word means what you think it means.

I honestly believe at this point that you’re falling victim to what some English-speaking Yeshiva students call “sod it all” (as in Pardes, but pronounced like the British slang 🙂 ). It’s the practice of chasing windmills by reading between the lines.

“Em-Manu-El” doesn’t break the word down along its constituent parts. Josephus, as an Aramaic-speaking Jew, wouldn’t think this way.

עמנואל /immanuel/ is made up of עמנו /imanu/ “with us” and אל /el/ “God.”

“Sh-Almah-Th” is also another horrid breakdown that doesn’t work that way. Let’s put this name into Hebrew characters to show how the sounds break down:

שלמת /shalmath/ = a permutation of “peace”
עלמה /’almah/ = “virgin”

Your convenient, well-tailored English transliteration adds in additional etymological letters that were pronounced in Josephus’ day and would make your “hidden meaning” not work.

“Virgin” needs an ע /ayin/ at the beginning of it and an extra ה /he/ at the end. These two letters don’t occur in “Shalmath” or any permutation. This is an “Edenic-esque” conflation that has no business in academic discourse. It’s loose association with no indication of original intent outside unbridled speculation.

What’s worse is that all of this is moot as her name on her own tomb was צרה or ܨܪܐ.

Case closed here.

So Josephus’ cover story worked, and nobody realised that Adia-Bene (Sons of Addai) referred to Edessa.

Repeat after me “Adia-Bene” does not mean “Sons of Addai.” It doesn’t work in Greek. It doesn’t work in Aramaic. It doesn’t work in Hebrew.

You’re flopping letters like an Edenicist, playing with the transliterations to the point that they no longer resemble or represent the words you claim are playing upon one another in the first place. It’s a game of phonetic loose-association and the rules are taken from a game of Calvinball.

What inscriptions?

In Arbela. Look’em up.

This is not my invention, the venerable theologian Joseph Thayer suggest this. You cannot criticise me for quoting a respected theologian.

Yes I can certainly criticize you for making an argument to authority about a man who has been dead for over 100 years. Where Thayer’s work is classical, it is outdated in many respects and in modern times just a step above making arguments from Strong’s Numbers. The field has grown quite a bit in his absence, but that’s my humble opinion. 🙂

Saying that יהודה = תדי = אדי is unjustifiable. Saying that there may be a shared surname is more plausible. However, given how many Judases there were in the first century, you’re going to have a hard time arguing anything beyond that.

Anyroads, more on this later. It is getting late.

Peace,
-Steve

Posted by Steve Caruso to The Aramaic Blog at April 7, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Unknown has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

>> Actually, we do. Yakov and James are related.
>> Each and every form along the way here is attested
>> in extant manuscripts

Yes, we know that, and I told you that. But what if the intermediate forms were not known, what of the similarity between Yabob and James then?

>> The Aramaic Yeshua “He will save.” Cognate to the
>> Hebrew יהושע /ye-ho-shu-a/ meaning “YHWH will save.”

Err, I told you Jesus was not a Judaic Jew, and so you start investigating his name with the Aramaic form ! You need to know who Jesus was first. His family were Egyptian (which is why he was called the Egyptian False Prophet and went to Egypt for his education). And yet he came from Parthia, along with the family of Queen Thea Muse Ourania. So why do you start the investigation with an Aramaic name ?!

>> Even if you were to shorten it to Ἰζάς /Izas/ it would look
>> even further from Ἰησοῦς /Iesous/.

If you cannot see the similarity between the Parthian Izas, the Edessan Izad, the Arabic Issa and the Greek Iesous, I am sorry, but it is there. And why did you choose to leave out the Arabic version from your progressions?

>> Case closed.

Only if you start from the wrong location and the wrong language.

>> Who are you referring to as “Izas”? Izates?
>> If so, which Izates?

Yes, Josephus does call Izates, Izas. As to which one is which, Josephus himself is confused, as he appears to mix father and son on occasions. I have sorted this out by calling them by their most used names first, thus:
King Monobazus-Izas is the elder (King Abgarus)
King Izas-Monobazus is the son (King Manu)

>> It has not been established that this Crown of Thorns
>> is made of any particular material outside of conjecture.

Precisely, which is why we have historical research and enquiry, to try and explain such mysteries. In my estimation this Crown of Thorns is a copy of the Delphi Omphalos, and thus the ‘thorns’ on it would be the flaming feathers of the Phoenix.

We know that Edessa, Palmyra and Emperor Elagabalus all venerated sacred omphalos stones, so it is entirely possible that the monarchy wore a copy of that omphalos as a crown.

>> Again, which Abgar? Which “Manu”?
>> Monobaz? Which one?

I thought that would be obvious to someone of your understanding (especially as you have reviewed my book … ).

This is a 1st century saga, thus we start with Abgarus au Kama V. (AD 14 – 50) Then King Manu-Izas V (AD 50 – 57) (James). Then King Izas-Manu VI (AD 57 – 70) (Jesus).

The reason that Manu VI abdicated in AD 70, is that Josephus says that Izas was in Jerusalem in AD 70 as the city fell, and he was taken to Rome by Titus. A new monarch would be required in Edessa, and that is exactly what happened.

Ralph Ellis

.

Posted by Unknown to The Aramaic Blog at April 8, 2013 at 1:24 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

>> This represents a Parthian pronunciation of basileus,
>> How?

Ask the Parthians – their Greek was terrible. Take a look at some of the Parthian coins, and try and decipher them. You cannot, because they had forgotten most of their Greek. And their pronunciation was even worse than their spelling.

>> Sorry, you don’t seem to fully understand Judaic pesher.

I think it is you that has a problem understanding pesher, as you clearly demonstrated when in a previous post you stated: “I must also ask that you do not make any appeals to conspiracies like ‘a few initiates’ “. Sorry, but ‘initiates’ and ‘conspiracies’ was the whole basis of pesher (along with prophesy). I know this is only a Wiki quote, but here it is anyway:

Quote:
The writers of pesharim believe that scripture is written in two levels, the surface for ordinary readers with limited knowledge, the concealed one for specialists with higher knowledge.

The ‘specialists with higher knowledge’ were the ‘initiates’, the higher degrees of Nazarene creed. If you have managed to read the N.T. without noticing the stages of initiation to higher degrees, you have missed a big part of the story.

Thus the “Emmanuel Pesher” in Math 1:23 achieves both of these goals. It quotes Isa 7:14 and uses this as a prophesy (that was left unfulfilled !), and it also contains hidden meaning for the initiated.

>> “Em-Manu-El” doesn’t break the word down along
>> its constituent parts.

I’m afraid it does. The Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius – Hebrew Aramaic English Lexicon says:

Quote:
… from ‘eem’ and ‘el’ with a pronominal suffix inserted.

The ‘pronominal suffix’ mentioned here is “Manu”.

>> “Sh-Almah-Th” is also another horrid breakdown that
>> doesn’t work that way. Let’s put this name into Hebrew
>> characters to show how the sounds break down:

You still don’t appear to understand how pesher works.
The gospel author (Josephus?) had to trawl the entire Tanakh looking for similar names. Do you think he is going to find the name ‘Shalmath’ and ‘Manu’ in the Tanakh?? Of course not. But he did find a single verse that mentioned both Almah and Im-Manuel. Now that was a bit of a miracle in itself, without applying every jot and tittle of Aramaic syntax as well !!

>> Case closed here.
Only if you ignore the pesher methodology.

>> What inscriptions?
>> In Arbela. Look’em up.

Citations please. You should know better than to make bald sweeping statements like this. And you are ignoring the fact that Queen Helena of Adiabene was living in Edessa. How is Adiabene related to Arbela, when its monarchy is documented as living in Edessa? Please explain.

.

Posted by Unknown to The Aramaic Blog at April 8, 2013 at 1:28 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

I also note that you have conceded that I did not conflate four kings, and that my usage of a better-quality 3rd century coin was justified.

What you are saying here, is that the entire review by Thomas Verenna was baseless and flawed.

Now can you see why authors get a bit miffed when a so-called reviewer decides to do a ‘hatchet-job’ on a book without having the common courtesy to read the book, and without having the common decency to correct any errors that he may have made in the review.

And you wonder why so many people have questioned Thomas Verenna’s paternity?

.

Posted by Unknown to The Aramaic Blog at April 8, 2013 at 1:35 AM

Steve Caruso has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

Yes, we know that, and I told you that. But what if the intermediate forms were not known, what of the similarity between Yabob and James then?

Moot point.

We *do* have the paper trail, otherwise we wouldn’t equate them.

I told you Jesus was not a Judaic Jew

You tell me a lot of things, but have yet to actually back it up. It’s an assertion without backing.

I have shown you the progression of the name Jesus from its original form to how we have it today. Your conjecture doesn’t even make it past the established transliteration into Greek.

If you cannot see the similarity between the Parthian Izas, the Edessan Izad, the Arabic Issa and the Greek Iesous, I am sorry, but it is there.

Then show me the paper trail.

List each form chronologically between languages and explain each individual phonetic, phonemic, and morphological change citing known shifts.

Just reading off a transliteration and saying “they sound similar” or “they look similar” is not enough.

It’s like believing that a good German friend of yours is trying to poison you when they merely say they want to “give you a little gift” as a token of their appreciation.

And why did you choose to leave out the Arabic version from your progressions?

Think about it for a moment: Why would I not include a Classical Arabic form as an integral step for an early first millennium name progression here? It’ll come to you. 🙂

As to which one is which, Josephus himself is confused

If you believe that he was confused, how can you disentangle them? What are the criteria?

I have no words to express how I felt when I read this other than I fear that any common ground that you do have with historical research, its methodology, and limits has fallen out.

(especially as you have reviewed my book … ).

See above. I addressed some rather glaring errors in the free portion of your materials. This wasn’t a formal review by any stretch of the imagination.

If you want a full review that can be arranged. Ball’s in your court on that one.

Plenty are in fine Greek that can be deciphered.

Plenty of them weren’t in Greek. Parthian is an Indo-Iranian language 🙂

I know this is only a Wiki quote, but here it is anyway

Do not debate with me with wiki quotes. If you are learned in this field, you should be beyond wiki quotes at this point. Cite primary and secondary sources, synthesize, and argue them. (Remember that Wikipedia isn’t considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, but a tertiary source at best.)

I also repeat: I’m seeing more of the “sod it all” (Pardes) principle at work here. 🙂

Without compelling evidence, this is simply assertive speculation.

Posted by Steve Caruso to The Aramaic Blog at April 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Steve Caruso has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

I’m afraid it does. The Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius – Hebrew Aramaic English Lexicon says:

Quote:
… from ‘eem’ and ‘el’ with a pronominal suffix inserted.

The ‘pronominal suffix’ mentioned here is “Manu”.

No, the pronominal suffix is נו /-(a)nu/ not not מנו /manu/. The ם is inseparable from עם. There are only two “m”s in the English transliteration.

עמנואל /immanuel/ – “God with us”

עם /im/ – with
נו /-(a)nu/ – us
אל /el/ – God

This is first-year Hebrew 101 material. Perhaps even remedial Hebrew.

Only if you ignore the pesher methodology.

You have not outlined a methodology.

I also note that you have conceded […]

Unequivocally, no.

When I concede something, I prefix it with “I concede that…” or otherwise make it obvious that I stand corrected.

As such, I have not made any of the concessions you claim I have.

“And you wonder why so many people have questioned Thomas Verenna’s paternity?”

That comment has no place here. I did ask for civility.

You call into question professionalism, when you are not a professional, yourself, and take part in the precise behaviors that you complain against, additionally smearing someone’s reputation in Bad Faith. I have no further tolerance for it.

With that said, you are not welcome to post here anymore until you offer Tom a formal Good Faith apology for calling him a “fraud,” a “retard,” and (whether obliquely or not) a bastard.

That’s it.

Peace,
-Steve

Posted by Steve Caruso to The Aramaic Blog at April 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Unknown has left a new comment on your post “King Jesus of Edessa by Ralph Ellis — Er.. What?“:

>> If you are learned in this field, you should be beyond
>> wiki quotes at this point. Cite primary and secondary sources,
>> synthesize, and argue them.

Ha, says the man who will still not cite any sources for the inscriptions in Arbela.

And thanks for the ban, which simply means you are on the same level as Verenna – unable to sustain an argument, and censoring comments when the water gets too hot.

Thanks for the short sparing session, though. You have clearly demonstrated to me how little academics know about this subject.

.

Posted by Unknown to The Aramaic Blog at April 8, 2013 at 12:33 PM

(And after this, Ellis was banned for obvious reasons.)

All of the above text is:

Reproduction of these comments elsewhere without prior written consent of the copyright holder is prohibited.

The Thing That is Steve

The thoughts and quirks of Steve Caruso and the antics of his family.

Copyrighted Material Stolen by Ralph Ellis

Published Material in Question Follows:

Copyright © Steve Caruso 2013-2014

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Published Material in Question Follows:

Copyright © Steve Caruso 2013-2014

Share this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply