The Battle to Establish the Eternal Religion
The Kamsa’s of the 1st century certainly did employ the services of many Putanas to diminish the effect of the appearance of the Truth. As Srila Bhaktisiddhanta warns us, they did not lose one moment in their efforts. Not only did they employ lexicographical interpreters, or word jugglers, but at that point in time they had the license to use hit men who carried out their savage attacks with impunity, or rather, with the full support and blessings even, of the governing officials. We will explore the many methods used to destroy and confuse the truth about persons and events in this early Western era, but before we do let’s complete the background picture by introducing in some detail the main figures of this era—Jesus, and his brother—the factual protagonist of this history—James. Understanding the roles of both will provide an exceptional contrast to the efforts of the Kamsas to destroy this manifestation of truth, and will highlight the true nature of the antagonist, the agent of Kamsa, who opposes James on almost every issue. I ask my reader to be prepared now to hear a history that likely varies widely from the commonly accepted identities and roles of these two personalities. This shouldn’t be surprising, after all, our subject here is the amendments to theology and history as occasioned by the Kamsas and Putanas through the ages. The history that comes to us has, after all, been interpreted by so many and with such a variety of motives and agendas that we hardly know an objective truth, and attempts to reconstruct that truth are challenged by the Putanas at every step. Of course, that is the evidence that will be put before you in the pages to come. Religious historians have, over the past century and a half, made many efforts to determine the genuine facts of religious history by attempting to separate the historical Jesus from the deified Christ of faith. This is not nearly as easy as it sounds. Both Eisenman and Schoeps detail how within the canonical literature there has been deliberate omission and obfuscation of information, personalities are merged into one, or the activities of a single individual have been parsed to several others, and some events have been entirely neglected or told from a particularly biased point of view[1]. These redactions have been done early on, mostly before 200 AD, but even prior to 100 AD, and others added where necessary along the 2,000 years hence. Polemics have been launched to discredit concepts of truth that the established church sought to contain. This is the course that can be expected when authority is arrogated to make unauthorized changes to scriptures and their history. In the case of Christianity this has led to a confusing morass that only the most intrepid dare venture into. Beyond the entangled history, Kamsa’s academic hounds are ever watchful for anyone who comes close to exposing the truth, launching their vociferous attack to defend illusion. As the reader has already observed, there are at least four authors that we draw from who have pursued this search with some degree of success. (And I will have more to report on the challenges they endure when explaining the efforts of the lexicographical interpreters to confound these realities.) Eisenman expresses his exasperation with all of this in his opening remarks to James: “Unfortunately, the facts themselves are shrouded in mystery and overwhelmed by a veneer of retrospective theology and polemics that frustrates any attempt to get at the real events underlying them. . . Questions not only emerge concerning Jesus’ existence itself, at least as far as the character so confidently portrayed in Scripture, but also regarding the appropriateness of the teaching attributed to him. . . Where the man ‘Jesus’ is concerned we have mainly the remains of Hellenistic romance and mythologizing to go on, often with a clear polemicizing or dissembling intent . . . Where the Gospels are concerned, whatever can be said with any certainty about Jesus is largely presented in the framework of supernatural story-telling.”[2] Schoeps also finds that the establishment academics are looking in the wrong places and at the wrong things, and making interpretations according to their way of seeing the world instead of seeing it in its own time: “The New Testament exegetes[3] pursue with great ingenuity a task which is suspect and in reality futile. In spite of 150 years of modern critical research, they have seldom correctly perceived the weak role played by Judaism in the ancient world and the slight significance the object of their study had for its contemporaries. For the most part, they look back at Christian beginnings from a point of view derived from a later period and thus read into the earlier situation standards which are actually foreign to it.”[4] These accounts offer evidence of Kamsa’s Putanas: facts overwhelmed by a veneer of retrospective (backward looking) theology and polemics; exegetes who pursue with ingenuity a task which is suspect and read into an earlier situation standards that are foreign to it. For the time being therefore, let’s let go of whatever fixed notions we have regarding the personalities of Jesus and James, and attempt to see them afresh in the context in which they lived as revealed to us by their contemporaries in the Scrolls, and the detective work of Eisenman and Schoeps. Who was Jesus then? Historically speaking that is a difficult question to answer. The canonical texts do little good since from Paul we can learn only two facts regarding the historical Jesus. 1) that he was crucified at some unspecified date, and 2) that he had a number of brothers, one of whom was called James.[5] As mentioned above, to the extent that we can know James, we can also know Jesus, at least in terms of what his practices may have been, which is to say a lot. Our other recourse to Jesus is to understand him not by who he is said to be, but rather by what he did. And for our story, that, is the evidence of significance. There we turn to Schoeps. To understand who he was in his times let us first set the scene by going back to 1st century Palestine. We will then learn of Jesus and his brother James un-interpreted and directly from their contemporaries, instead of by ill-motivated Putanas. As we noted in our opening remarks about the Essenes, first century Palestine was a hotbed of political activity. Roman forces had occupied the area since before 60 B.C., and not without resistance. There were local skirmishes and guerilla attacks, and sometimes full-scale warfare carried out by members of the Zealots and Sacarii (translated: assassins) and others, who, although numbering among the Essenes in terms of beliefs, earned these appellations most probably by their militant activity. Galilee was ruled by non-Jewish Arabian puppet-kings (dynasty of Herod Antipas: the Herodian kings) who maintained their power by the use of force. But Judea—the spiritual and secular capital—“was rendered subject to direct Roman rule, administered by a Roman procurator based at Caesarea. The Roman regime was brutal and autocratic. When it assumed direct control of Judea, more than three thousand rebels were summarily crucified—a punishment reserved exclusively for political crimes. The temple was plundered and defiled. Heavy taxation was imposed. Torture was so frequently employed that many of the populace committed suicide. This state of affairs was not improved by Pontius Pilate, who presided as procurator from A.D. 26 to 36. In contrast to the biblical portraits of him, existing records indicate that Pilate was a cruel and corrupt man who not only perpetuated, but intensified the abuses of his predecessor.”[6] The Ebionites of this time held what would be called an apocalyptic-eschatological perspective: a belief in a final battle that pitted the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness,[7] led by the Messiah and the Heavenly Host. As mentioned above they were of the opinion that the forces of evil, Rashas in Hebrew[8] (is there a connection here with the word rakshashas?), or as we might translate that particular word, the demons, had control of the earth, and that there would be a 1,000 year period in the future in which the Archangel of Christ would rule the earth. They also believed that they were on the verge of that future. The Jewish Christian Movement was militant, nationalistic, revolutionary, xenophobic and messianic in character. It was actually rooted in distant Old Testament times before 1,000 B.C. that coalesced during the events of the 2nd century B.C. with the Maccabees.[9] Quashed from exercising authority by the Roman conquest about 63 B.C. it fermented underground, exploding with the events of the 1st century, and taking on a new momentum. At the core of the movement lay the question of dynastic legitimacy of both the ruling house and the priesthood. Of the two, the greater concern was for the priesthood—and an authentic spiritual leadership.[10] In Old Testament times the people of Israel are governed by two parallel lines of Messiahs: one who presides over spiritual affairs and descends from the tribe of Levi. The other presides over secular affairs through the lineage of David to the Tribe of Judah. We see reflected here the equivalent arrangement of rule by the combined efforts of brahmanas and ksatriyas, and this historical social arrangement was likely not lost on the people of the time who may have been much closer to it than we can realize. For the Ebionites, the puppet-king Herod, and his Wicked Priest Ananas, were both illegitimate and they sought to remove them both, and the Roman occupation to boot, and then to install legitimate heirs to the priesthood and throne. They were on the lookout for the Messiah. Jesus, The Messiah Jesus was regarded as the Messiah, a descendent from the house of David, the king that ruled Palestine some 1,000 years prior, and as such held a legitimate claim to the rule of Palestine. The inscription posted above his head on the cross reading “King of the Jews” might not at all have been in mockery as is commonly portrayed, but rather a triumphant boast of conquest. However that may be, in our times the word Messiah has taken on connotations of divine or savior, and this is not without reason. The Greek word for Messiah is Christ or Christos, and both terms simply meant “the anointed one,”[11] as it was the custom to install kings in a ceremony in which they were anointed with oil. David, when he was anointed king became a “Messiah” or a “Christ,” as was every subsequent Jewish king. Of course, the Vedic understanding of king is ksatriya, whose prerogatives derived solely from his being a qualified representative of God properly leading the people through progressive spiritual and social development. Thus the divine right of kings, and the divine import of the word Messiah. In preparing for his demonstration of assuming his rightful position as the Messiah, and King of Judea, Jesus was also anointed, indicating his assumption of the rightful position of his heritage. Was he a Messiah whose purpose was the overthrow of the occupation, or a Messiah whose purpose it was to bring spiritual salvation? A military commander Jesus was not, at least that intention had not manifest before he was crucified. He had by that point assumed no militant leadership thus the frustrating prophecy that a ruler of the house of David would once again rise to lead the people to salvation (and the hoped-for freedom from the yoke of the Romans).[12] But as mentioned the more important aspect of prophetic fulfillment was a Messiah who, as a bona fide prophet, would fulfill the Law. What was of the greatest importance for them was that the “Eternal Law,” which had been given to Adam at the time of the Creation, renewed by Moses, would again be renewed to eternal validity. That was the prophecy that Jesus was to fulfill.[13] He appears to the Ebionites in what is our understanding of an acarya, shaktavesha avatar even,[14] who is qualified to discern the truth and to reestablish it: “absolute knowledge requiring no external mediation marks the True Prophet and exalts him above all men. He knows all things that have been, that are, and that are yet to be. This foreknowledge (pro-gnosis) enabled Jesus to predict the destruction of the Temple and the events which accompanied it, while the predictions of the literary prophets by no means all came true.”[15] So significant is this concept of Jesus as the person who was qualified to understand the false pericopes of the Old Testament, replacing them with proper understanding to restore it as a bona fide and potent scripture, that Schoeps covers it repeatedly—no less than six times! His development of the Ebionite perception of Jesus and the Law has so many parallels for us today that it is useful to quote Schoeps extensively on this point. ISKCON observers will find that much, if not most, of what follows in this quote can be directly applied to the changes made to their sacred scriptures—Srila Prabhupada’s books—and whatever may not directly apply will otherwise bear a strong parallel to recent events. “The eternal law was inscribed by God’s hand on the world at the Creation as the first teaching delivered to mankind. It was known to Adam and revealed anew to Moses. The scribes and Pharisees were originally the legitimate incumbents of the seat of Moses, the true experts in the law, the initiated who possessed the knowledge (gnosis) with which to distinguish between the true and the false in the Scriptures. Interpretations were given along with the law when it was revealed; these were obscured only through false precepts of the devil. The scribes and Pharisees betrayed their calling by allowing it to become increasingly obscured through errors, [and by their negligence threw] away the key of the Kingdom which had been entrusted to them, the key which opens the gate to eternal life, and so made access impossible for those who wanted to enter. For this reason Jesus arose from the “seat of Moses” and restored “that which was hidden from times immemorial (ta ap’ aionos en krypto) to the worthy [Jesus’ immediate disciples]” through his proclamation.[16] They are now the experts with respect to “the good basis of the Scriptures.” The standard for the proclamation of Jesus is the distinction between what is genuine and what is false in the law. For the Ebionites, therefore, to believe in Jesus means to be instructed by him concerning the law and to obtain the “knowledge of the secrets,” i.e., “the more secret understanding of the law,” of which Christ [the anointed one, the acarya] is the sole expositor. The idea that the scribes and Pharisees, the official bearers of the oral tradition, had forgotten parts of the true teaching while a later teacher could restore them appears at first sight very peculiar and unique, but it has parallels in the rabbinic literature.[17] The Kerygmata Petrou unequivocally rejects the idea of a natural religion without a historical revelation. “The real Ebionite accomplishment consisted, therefore, in the attempt to reform the Jewish law...and in their internalization of the Old Testament law. On the one hand they wanted to purge it of falsifications, and on the other hand, they wanted to renew both the letter and the spirit of the Law, with the clear intention of expressing the will of God as the ultimate purpose behind the scriptures. This treatment of the law was based on the assumption that some passages in the Torah were not as original as others and were in fact later falsifications. False pericopes are contained in the genuine “tradition of Moses” because God’s will was consigned to oblivion by means of evil instruction, erroneous interpretation, and many other causes. Thus, it was charged, the forefathers were responsible for the fact that the revelation had not been transmitted without falsification; because the law had been lost, the revelation had become burdened in later editions with additions which were contrary to God’s will. In keeping with this, Epiphanius also reports that the Ebionites acknowledged only certain parts of the Pentateuch.”[18] The commission of Jesus, to reestablish the principles of religion at that time and place, is not disharmonious with the Vaishnava siddhanta. Srila Prabhupada supports the notion that select persons can do this: “[Lord Krishna] descends to reclaim the fallen souls and to reestablish codes of religion which are directly enacted by Him. Except for God, no one can establish the principles of religion. Either He or a suitable person empowered by Him can dictate the codes of religion.”[19] (emphasis mine) One other significant point must now be added, and that is that what Jesus was doing was not merely reinterpreting aspects of the Law allegorically, but was excising them wholesale. In the context of the times this was shocking, for in so doing they were breaking another Jewish law of denying a fundamental teaching of Judaism. This carries with it a heavy price according to the established dogma—denial of any part in eternal life to those who reject the heavenly origin of the Torah.[20] In the person Jesus therefore we have a challenge to the entire Jewish establishment of his day. His rejection of significant sections of the Torah and their replacement with others passages meant “to fulfill the Law” was in no doubt a great challenge to the falsity that had covered the truth in that era. Jesus was qualified because as a saktyāvesa-avatāra he was empowered by the Lord for this task. We know that he passed through India, studying at the temple in Puri, and there to have castigated the brahmanas for their exclusivity and ill-treatment of the sūdras. Other evidence places him as far as Tibet where chronicles still extant describe his staying and teaching there. The still extant Bhavishya Mahapurana recounts Jesus’ return to Kashmir after the crucifixion, the place where his tomb remains to this day. (Please see Appendix C for excerpts of the pertinent section of the Bhavishya Mahapurana.) In his position as Prophet (acarya) he was acting to re-establish, for that time and place, the principles of religion. He demanded that his followers exhibit the lawful way of life,[21] and from the evidence we may surmise that the strictly followed regimen wrought a genuine spiritual potency. This would make him a target of the establishment Jews, and a possible bid for the throne of Judea, would make him a target of the political powers, the Romans. James the Righteous One According to Eisenman “James is not only the key to unlocking a whole series of obfuscations in the history of the early church, he is also the missing link between the Judaism of his day, however this is defined, and Christianity.”[22] James is thus a pivotal character in the entire story, and one whom we must not overlook. The disciples said to Jesus: ‘We know that you will depart from us. Who is he who shall be our leader?’ Jesus said to them: ‘In the place where you are, go to James the Righteous One, for whose sake Heaven and Earth came into existence.” [23] James was thus not only the brother of Jesus[24], but was declared by Jesus as his successor as the ‘Head’ or ‘Bishop’ of the ‘Jerusalem Church’ and thus the whole of Christianity.[25] His stature as a spiritual leader was without question and he was renowned for his purity and extreme penance. Schoeps provides this understanding of James: “As far as we can tell, James the brother of Jesus, by disposition a mediator, was the guarantee of the church’s unity; with his death the era of schisms began. The second and third generations idealized the person of James the Righteous and projected their own ideal upon this universally revered figure in order to invest him with full authority as their champion. The Jewish Christian legends, reported by Hegesippus and preserved by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (2.23.6), made him a vegetarian, a teetotaler, and an ascetic, in accordance with their own style of life; they claimed that he prayed so long in the temple for the forgiveness of the sins of his people that his knees became calloused like those of a camel. Because of this excess in intercession he seems to have been honored as a kind of paraclete and to have received the honorary titles ho dikaios (“the Righteous”) kai oblias.” [26] For his part, Jerome, in his Lives, writes of James: “This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great Holiness and reputation among the people that the destruction of Jerusalem was believed to have occurred on account of his death”; and in a Commentary on Galatians 1:19: that “so holy was James that the people zealously tried to touch the fringes of his garment”.[27] James is said to wear only linen, and to have never worn wool or any clothing originating from animals. Interestingly he wears the clothing that was the prerogative of the temple priests, thus giving us some indication of what can only be understood as a legitimate birth rite to attend to Temple functions. As the heir to Jesus’ mission, Bishop James stood at the head of the church’s hierarchy. According to the Letter of Peter which introduces the Clementines, he ordained some 72 teachers, issuing letters of accreditation indicating who had been approved and was “fit and faithful for the preaching of the word of Christ.” Holding the highest office and teaching authority he would require even Peter and the other apostles to submit annual reports of their preaching activity.[28] The foregoing acknowledges James as also being an acarya of the Jewish Christians. It was he who would approve of every preacher’s understanding and discourse, and it was he who provided the litmus test of authoritative teachings. Homilies (11.35) tells us: “Our lord and prophet, who has sent us, declared to us that the Evil One, having disputed with him for forty days, but failing to prevail against him, promised that he would send Apostles from among his subjects to deceive them. Therefore, above all, remember to shun any apostle, teacher or prophet who does not accurately compare his teaching with James...the brother of our Lord...and this, even if he comes to you with recommendations.” Where the Nag Hammadi texts have first and second person accounts of James, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not refer to him by name. However, they repeatedly refer to a Teacher of Righteousness. Eisenman demonstrates through twenty pages of painstaking detail the similarities between this teacher and James, concluding them to be one and the same.[29] This accounting of his character and ascribed appellations, of The Just or The Righteous, proposes James as having a position something akin to Maharaja Yudhistira who was the righteous son of religion personified. James was considered to be holy from his mother’s womb.[30] Such was the high position that he commanded in that culture. As the leader of the early church in Jerusalem, James thus represents a faction of Jews who, like the Qumran community, are ‘zealous for the Law.’ These would include the Zealots, Sacarii, Ebionites, Zadokites, and the like as explained above. These were known to be determined to follow the Law in exacting measure. The faction he leads is understandably hostile towards the Pharisee priesthood and the Temple High Priest Ananas, who, although without qualification, were appointed by Herod, and who betrayed their nation and their religion by concluding an accord with the Roman administration and its Herodian puppet-kings. The Temple priest at this time is the brother-in-law of Herod. These Pharisees, branded as “seekers of smooth things,” transgressed the Law by among other things, allowing “unclean” foreigners into the Temple, and accepting gifts from foreigners. So intense was the hostility generated that James arrogates to himself the priestly functions which Ananas has compromised. On at least one occasion he dons the miter of the high priest and enters the inner sanctum of the temple, the Holy of Holies, and conducts the rituals himself.[31] Eisenman describes him in this episode as a sort of “opposition priest” who will dutifully and properly carry out the prescribed temple functions, even where Ananas and his staff abuse their position and continually violate temple protocols kowtowing to the rulers. The Qumran documents describe James as having two adversaries, who although unnamed, are identified by their activities. One is referred to as the “Wicked Priest” and understood to be the High Priest Ananas mentioned above, who is responsible for James’ death. The other a “treacherous,” “self-willed, often rebellious and argumentative individual with the Movement,” also referred to in Qumran writings as “the Liar,” “Man of Lying/Pourer out of Lying,” who “speaks derogatorily about the Law in the midst of the whole congregation,” “leads many astray”/”tires out many with a worthless service”—the very opposite of the Righteous Teacher’s proper “justifying” activity of “making many righteous” by showing a “zeal for the Law.”[32] This adversary within the Movement provides no end of grief for James, and James takes him to task several times for his errant ways. We will deal with this individual in detail in the next chapter. Not only is James the spiritual leader, but as leader of the Jewish Christians (comprising the Zealots, Sacarii, Essenes, Ebionites, Nazoreans, etc.,) he also sits squarely in the center of the ‘opposition alliance’ involved in and precipitating the uprising against the Roman occupation. James thus occupies the most significant seat in leading what was a significant Movement that had an extensive following in early Palestine.[33] James, like Jesus, died at the hands of the established powers of the time. Jesus by the political powers, James some 30 years later, by the ecclesiastical. Hegesippus tells us that the ‘Scribes and Pharisees’ decide to do away with James in order to effect some control over the people—so that the people ‘will be frightened and not believe him.’ They would proclaim that ‘even the Righteous one has gone astray,’ and justify their actions by invoking a quote from the Old Testament, Isaiah 3:10. Isaiah (many of whose prophecies were not fulfilled) had prophesied the death of the ‘Righteous One,’ so in murdering James, they would fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy bringing him credit. Eusebius goes on to describe the death of James in the following manner: "So they went up and threw down the Righteous one. They said to each other ‘let us stone James the Righteous’, and began to stone him, as in spite of his fall he was still alive . . . While they pelted him with stones . . . [a member of a particular priestly family] called out: ‘Stop! What are you doing . .‘ Then one of them, a fuller, took the club which he used to beat clothes, and brought it down on the head of the Righteous one. Such was his martyrdom."[34] James’ murder was so egregious that it precipitated a revolt. The whole of Judea rose up to avenge his death, wherein Ananas is quickly killed as a pro-Roman collaborator. This riot turns into a full-blown rebellion and as it gains momentum, Vespasian leads Rome’s forces. The pitched battle requires Rome to bring in tens-of-thousands of troops. Apparently they decided to rid themselves of the troubles endemic there, resulting in a full-scale war. We might even conjecture that they even saw this as an opportunity to eradicate most evidence of the Jewish Christians, to eliminate the competition to Christianity which was now developing into a movement of its own ‘overseas’ in Greece. In any case, Jerusalem is sacked and the Temple destroyed in 70 A.D. The war culminates with the fall of the Masada fortress in 73 A.D. In the process it is decreed that no Jews could enter Jerusalem, and thus many Jews fled to the hinterlands of Palestine. Many Ebionites paying heed to the prophecy of Jesus who foretold of the destruction of the Temple, fled to Syria prior to invasion. As it turns out, Eisenman considers James to be an extremely pivotal character in understanding not only the events of the time, but Christianity as well. Why? Because there is so little direct information about Jesus. Fortunately however, there is a great deal of evidence and information about James, by which we can understand Jesus and his movement, for, in Eisenman’s conclusive words: “who and whatever James was, so was Jesus.”[35] We have covered who James and Jesus were, their purpose, and their movement. Now understanding what it was, we again ask, how did it become what it is? The Jesus that the Christian world knows today is far removed from the more human Jesus recounted here, as Eisenman unambiguously spells it out: “the historical James is almost diametrically opposed to the Jesus of Scripture and our ordinary understanding of him . . . and the situation is for the most part just the opposite of what most people think it is or consider to be true”.[36] Such a historical evolution of thought—bringing people to accept as truth the very opposite of the true history—cannot have happened without the intervention of other agents. That of course has been the work of the Kamsas and Putanas after they saw the light of Truth shining brightly in first-century Palestine, and this becomes the subject of the next chapter. [How we got here from there provides the information we need that will help us to understand how ISKCON got to its present condition from its heyday, and to chart its possible trajectory into the future. Footnotes: [1] Eisenman, James, see for example: pgs. xviii, xxvi, 99, 143, 198-9. There are virtually dozens of such confusions with practically every personality of the New Testament. Eisenman’s conclusion is that these are neither accidental nor benign mistakes. In Schoeps see p. 38-9. [2] Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, p. xxii [3] Exegetes: those who studies and interprets texts, especially religious writings [4] Schoeps, Jewish Christianity p. 1-2 [5] Eisenman, James, p. xxiii [6] p.324 Holy Blood, Holy Grail Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, 1983 Dell Publishing, NY [7] from the Dead Sea “War Scroll”, Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, p. xxi, 417 [8] It would seem that the etymology of this word must bring it surprisingly close to, if not directly related, to the Sanskrit “rakshasha”. [9] From the Qumran Scrolls, Eisenman, MZCQ, p. 15;also 32-43 where he explains Maccabees as Zadokites [10] The Dead Sea Scroll Deception, p. 200 [11] Christos is derived from Krista, or Krishna; Room Conversation with Father Emmanuel, a Benedictine Monk – June 22, 1974, Germany: Father Emmanuel: Yes, Christ, Krista, Kristos, who is Christ by oil. Anointed. Christos, Christ, means anointed. It’s the same word. It’s the same form. Christo and Kristos in Greek is the same word, anointed. Prabhupada: Oh, I see. This Christo is the broken version of Krishna. The following is from a Morning Walk Converstaion -- October 26, 1975, Mauritius: Prabhupada: In Sanskrit philology there are vargas—ka-varga, ca-varga, öa-varga, ta-varga and pa-varga;—five vargas. So Kåñëa is in the öa-varga. Öa, öha, òa, òha, ëa. So Krishna, it can be replaced by öa also (Krista). [12] A uniquely different version of Josephus written in ‘Old Russian’ was discovered in Russia in 1261. It portrays a Jesus who is described as human being (i.e., not divine), a political revolutionary and as a “king who did not reign.”. It should be noted that like the Gospels the works of Josephus have been edited to various degrees. Cited in Holy Blood, Holy Grail p. 377 [13] It is interesting to see the parallel of the Absolute Truth being conveyed to the first created being, and that Truth being conveyed via disciplic succession. This begs the parallel of the Bhagavad-gita: evam paramparā-prāptam, imam rājarsayo vishnu sa kāleneha mahatā, yogo nastau parantapa Bg. 4.2 - This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost. Jesus has come as a bona fide Prophet (our concept of acarya) to reestablish the principles of religion. [14] “Lord Jesus Christ, he is saktyāvesa-avatāra” lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 5.5.3 -- Vrndävana, October 25, 1976; there are many other such references from Srila Prabhupada. [15] i.e., Jesus as a militant leader. Schoeps, p. 88 [16] “Seat of Moses” refers to the office of teaching the oral tradition in the succession which goes back to Moses. [17] Schoeps, p. 80-81. For further details see Schoeps’ Theologie, p. 154. The parallels here to the lessons of our day are incomparable! I suspect that the equivalent of this has been written by followers of Srila Prabhupada many times over by now. [18] Schoeps, p. 76 [19] Srīmad Bhāgavatam 1.3.43 [20] Ibid., p. 95, also p. 91: “Prophets who see falsehood and prophesy deceit” shall be excluded from the register of the house of Israel, in accordance with Ezekiel 13:9. [21] Schoeps, p. 114 [22] Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, p. xvii [23] Gospel of Thomas, 12, Nag Hammadi Codices; his appointment as successor of Jesus is also confirmed in Recognitions of the Pseudo-Clementines, which tell us: "The Assembly of the Lord, which was constituted in Jerusalem, was most plentifully multiplied and grew, being governed with the most Righteous ordinances by James," (Recognitions of Clement 1.43); and again by Epiphanius of Caesarea (260-340 CE), Archbishop under Constantine, in his Ecclesiastical History, 2nd Book, 1st chapter (2.23): “James, who was surnamed the Just by the Forefathers on account of his superlative virtue, was the first to have been elected to the Office of Bishop of the Jerusalem Church”. [24] Matthew 13.55 [25] Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, p. xviii [26] Schoeps, p. 20. In his notes of this quote Schoeps writes: “The obscure word oblias was probably badly coined by Hegesippus to represent shaliach (“apostle”). The later Ebionites probably distinguished James from all other apostles by calling him “the righteous apostle” and giving him precedence over the others.” It is interesting that the schisms began after James’ death, and not after the death of Jesus. As we have seen, Jesus authorizes James to be the head of his church upon his departure, which James governs for some 30 years before his death. He can be understood by his deeds and passing as a genuine acarya in their line, in that we understand that chaos prevails in the mission upon the departure of the acarya. [27] The similarity here with the touching of the feet of a pure devotee is undeniable. [28] Schoeps, p. 39 [29] Eisenman, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, p. 332-351 There is some conjecture that the Teacher of Righteousness is not mentioned by name as an attempt to minimize hostilities with the established powers. In a similar way, two other major figures associated with the established powers are identified only by their activities rather than by name. [30] Eisenman, James, the Brother of Jesus, p. 258 [31] Ibid., p. 307, 310-13. [32] Eisenman, James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher, p. 112-3, MZCQ, p. 7, and elsewhere. [33] Eisenman, James, p. xix [34] Eusebius, The History of the Church, 2,23 [35] Eisenman, James, p. 963 [36] Ibid., p. xxxi and xxxiii |
