 |
|
|
Reply to Criticism of New Classical Scholarship
A REPLY BY THE NEW CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP (N.C.S.) REGARDING THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BY THE ROMAN PISO FAMILY (By Roman Piso, 09/22/02)
PART III
(Continuing)
As I have been saying, this author has been making hasty claims a) because he has not taken the time to do any real scholarly research in this area, and b) because there is only a very limited amount of information about this on the Internet at this time and that seems to be his main source for what he thinks he knows about this. He quotes from the site of someone who is doing their own "outside" research about this and who is NOT an expert on this subject such as myself, saying;
"Here's another one of those types of claims: ""Around the end of the reign of Hadrian (after 135 CE) Julius Calpurnius Piso, the son of Arrius Piso, made a big mistake. He had just conquered the Jews at Masada, after which the Jews scattered to all corners of the earth. This was the infamous Diaspora. It was a stunning (if brutal) victory, and Julius wanted to make the most of it. He asked Hadrian to make his son successor to the Emperor, knowing full well that if Hadrian refused, Julius would be obliged to commit suicide. Hadrian refused.""
"There's quite the confusion here, since Masada was a last stand for the Jews in 73 AD, not in the time of Hadrian, and the "Diaspora" refers to Jews scattered among the nations even long before 70 AD. Not that it matters, because this "Julius" seems to be another invention of the Reuchlin consortium. There was indeed a "Julius Piso" who was mentioned in a letter of Pliny (see here) but he had nothing to do with the Jewish War. The Roman commander at Masada was named Silva (Josephus, War 7.8). We are told that this Julius also wrote the book of Revelation. Like Arrius, though, he is a phantom."
Again, the author has not bothered to make certain that his source was an official N.C.S. site. He just goes around the Internet looking for "whatever" he may find, regardless of the expertise of the researcher that he quotes or the validity of his statements; in fact, I am sure, actively looking for things which would paint the picture that he desires rather than being objective and thoughtful of his process. It is obvious that the author has drawn his conclusion that the N.C.S. is incorrect and he aims to embarrass anyone associated with it by deliberately trying to find mistakes made by people about this around the Internet.
But the fact of the matter is that individuals will do their own research in whatever area they may choose and many will make mistakes. They do the same thing when researching ancient history in the traditional way as well. That alone does not invalidate the research of those who are more expert, does it? No, nor should it.
Now, it is true that the person cited by the author is incorrect in his statement about the Diaspora occurring in 73 CE (AD). But the author is also incorrect in HIS statement about the Diaspora under Hadrian. Here is what Abelard Reuchlin says about this in his 'The True Authorship of the New Testament'; "Jesus, as a hen gathering her chickens in Matt. 23:37… And the term Gollus, for the dispersion (Diaspora) which he ultimately caused. It was only after the second destruction that the Jewish literature referred to both dispersions (Diaspora) as Gollus" (Ref. 'The True Authorship of the New Testament', Abelard Reuchlin, pg. 11-12). This leads us to the verge of discussing just HOW the authors of that time could refer to Arrius Piso without mentioning his real name; he was alluded to by using his many alias names which had their origin in his ancestry. He is referred to as "Gallus" or Gollus, because of his ancestral name of "Pollo/Pollio," which means "chicken." However, to explain this so that the reader will understand it as I do would take many cross-references to illustrate and is not possible without all of the related material; and that would require not just one book, but several.
Let it suffice here to make mention only of this with regards to Arrius Piso being "Gallus"; the second Diaspora was called "Gollus" by the Jews (I have also seen it referred to as "the Galuth"), because it was caused by Mr. Gallus - Arrius Piso. He is associated with a chicken for a number of reasons, (1) in the New Testament he is like a mother hen protecting her chicks (as Jesus), and (2) his ancestors on the Flavian side of his family derive from a family whose name was "Pollo" or "Pollio," which is "chicken." (3) One of his alias names was Cestius Gallus (the connection here is hinted at by Suetonius, as we will see when we read about him being mentioned as (4), Antonius Primus. Let's read the last part of Suetonius' 'The Twelve Caesars', about Vitellius again. This time, more of it. He says, "Vitellius died at the age of fifty-six; nor did his brother and son outlive him. The omen of the rooster at Vienne (noted above) had been interpreted as meaning that a Gaul would kill him - gallus is both a 'cock' and a 'Gaul'. This proved correct: the officer (official) who dispatched (killed) him was one Antonius Primus, a native of Toulouse, and his boyhood nickname had been Becco ('rooster's beak')." So here we see even Suetonius, referring to Antonius Primus as a "Gallus." This is the way in which they gave the truth about history and themselves in their works. By the way, Arrius Piso loved to use his 'Antonius' name. And the reason he did is because he was proud of his ancestry from Marcus Antonius (Marc Anthony) and Cleopatra! He was descended from a little known daughter of these two who was named Alexandra Chelios, and who was the twin sister of their son Alexander. This ancestry is shown in the genealogical charts of his family tree which are found in the book 'The Synthesis of Christianity'.
The author of the article also accuses the N.C.S. of following "numerology" saying "Also part of this package: numerology games" when in fact, that is NOT what the number code that is involved is. It was a "code" that was used on a daily basis. What the author has not considered is that it is well-known by scholars (even those of the O.C.S.) that the letters of ancient languages such as Latin, Greek and Hebrew were ALSO used as numbers. People at that time would use the letters of their alphabet as a kind of number shorthand. If, for instance, they were going to the market to buy things, they might use letters instead of the WORDS for numbers, as that would be much easier and quicker. Also, something not considered by the author of the article is the fact that there was a war going on at the time and people during times of war have long used codes of various types. A prime example of this are the codes which were used during WWII. Using codes, whether as numbers or anything else during a time of war is NOT "numerology." But the author does not want to admit that, because his aim is NOT the truth; but instead to paint in inaccurate picture of the New Classical Scholarship and of the Piso Project in general - even if he is so ignorant as to not even know what this is even called!
Also, in order to make the N.C.S. appear to be invalid, he does what I have seen so many others do before; he tries to make this appear to be a "conspiracy theory" - just as I had already mentioned above. He says, "Not a shred of documentation if offered for any of these claims, and if you wonder whether they care that Pontius (not Pontus) Pilate is regarded as a real person by Tacitus, we should note that Tacitus was thought to be in on this conspiracy as well." The fact of the matter is that, as said before, ALL of the authors of that time were royals who were pretending to be other people by using alias identities; and yes, this includes Tacitus. Tactius was actually Neratius Priscus. And even that name utilizes abbreviations as it is really "Ner(va) Atius (Balbus) Priscus." They used abbreviations in putting together some of the alias names that they used to create new ones, just as they used abbreviations on their coins.
The author of the article again shows that he is absolutely clueless about the N.C.S. He does not understand the first thing about any of the things which are understood by the N.C.S. Since this whole subject involves royals, and the descendants of those royals continued to use this same information down through history up until relatively recent times (as history goes), that means that they were in complete control of the language that we use during all of that time. It was a long process that eventually led to our having freedom of speech. And royals continued to rule in many parts of the world up until WWII. So, the truth about the creation of words in the English language in many cases can be seen as being derived from what we term "key words" in the ancient language. Remember, we (the N.C.S.) are the ones who discovered that ancient literature is composed of two 'languages' that exist parallel to each other: the common language and the royal language.
And as I have pointed out before, because scholars up to this point in time were unaware of the royal language, all of their research centered around the common language exclusively. So, the author makes this statement; "Hum again. "Kurios" (Lord) in Greek matched with "curious" in English? Does this remind you of a certain other nutcase who said that the things he said were true "regardless of etymology"? No surprise -- the same book is part of the Piso crowd's "recommended reading" list, along with Acharya S and Gerald Massey. We have been advised that "curious" comes from a word curiosus, which means "conscientious" and has no linguistic derivation from the Greek "kurios"."
And in his criticism of what he has read in what he has found on the Internet during his searches, the author of the critical article takes the time to comment upon something that is of such great importance as he says; "The proper title is actually "The Jewish War," and there are 7 books that have a chapter 8 in them." He is trying to make the person who uses the term "Wars of the Jews" look unscholarly by doing so. The truth of the matter is that different, but similar titles are used in different translations of the texts of Flavius Josephus. It depends upon the particular translated version. And again, the author of the article is incorrect. The actual title is "History of the Jewish War Against the Romans" (Ref. Josephus, 'The Jewish War', Loeb Classical Library Edition, Harvard University Press). The title that the author used is only the title that is given on the COVER of this work of Flavius Josephus; not the actual title of the work itself.
The author quotes and then gives his comments:
""We find 'the Egyptian' mentioned in Acts 21:38, and also in Josephus! The 'Egyptian' referred to was
Arrius Piso/Josephus, because Arrius Piso was also 'Philo of Alexandria' (in Egypt), and he is descended
from the 'Ptolemies' of Egypt, and because he is of Idumean (Edomite, i.e., 'Egyptian') descent. Not to
mention the fact that being a descendant of King David, he has the blood of the Egyptian Pharaohs in
him, because King Solomon (David's son), was married to a Pharaoh's daughter!""
"If you're tired of chasing the cuckoo around the clock of presumptions (i.e., Solomon had hundreds of foreign wives -- how do we conclude this descent???), you will be relieved to know as well, "In the N.T., Jesus is tempted to jump from the Temple in the exact same place that we find described in Josephus!" Described in Josephus...where? It isn't said. Just take their word for it, it's in there."
Well, as I have already explained, Arrius Piso actually was descended from the Ptolemies; this, via his ancestor Cleopatra! But as a royal, he had ancestry which did go back to the Pharaohs as well. But that is a minor point here. That information can be found elsewhere and eventually in upcoming books on the subject. But the fact of the matter is that the Bible was composed by ancient royals and the family line of those royals extended back to the author of Genesis. And that author, was a Pharaoh. He was Arrius Piso's ancestor. For those who understand genealogy, this is not as shocking or surprising as most people would think, as most royals have some common ancestry which is at least somewhat obvious. The fact of the matter is that as a general rule royals married close to their own immediate family lines; but did intermarry at times with other royal houses. So common ancestry is to be expected. After all, royals considered themselves to be of a different 'race' than the common people.
The author says, "Just take their word for it, it's in there." This is another way of saying that we are asking people to "believe" and take all that we say on "faith," just like religious people. The reason? Because as I have already stated, some people have made up their minds that people who cite the New Testament texts (or passages from the Bible) are 'flakes' because they feel that those texts are not valid because of how they appear on the surface. But WE, of the N.C.S. know that it is actually impossible to know the truth about the history of that time without the New Testament texts. It was created that way on purpose, as I have already stated. As for the place where 'Jesus' is tempted (in the story) to jump from the Temple (Matt. 4:5; Luke 4:9), that may be found in the Whiston translation of the works of Flavius Josephus (Book V, Chap. V, paragraph 5 & 6), pg. 555). No, we do NOT ask people to take our word for it. We let them know that IF they want to understand this that they should not expect to learn it overnight and that it will actually take some work and research on THEIR part. Once most people hear that, because they are lazy, they make excuses. Need I remind you that each and every person who learns about this after those of us who have done the actual hard work, will have it much easier than those of us who had to learn this all on our own with no help from anyone else? But still, people are too lazy! The author continues, saying;
"Acts, we are told, was written to advertise locations of Roman brothels. I'll just let you think about all of that. (One of their sources for this sort of thinking is one James Hannay -- a British chemist of the 19th century known for an experiment in which he artificially produced minute quantities of diamond. In other words, this is someone who as usual had no business drawing the conclusions he did. It is interesting to note that "Abelard" was a saint supposedly castrated for his tendency to lasciviousness!)."
[End of Part III]
Continue to: Reply Part IV
The Roman Piso Forum
NT Written by Child Molesters?
The Roman Piso Debate Forum
The Roman Piso Homepage
The Educational Articles Site
Send E-Mail to: pisochrist@yahooo.com
Copyright © 2002 ncsreply3. All Rights Reserved