Truth About The Crucifixion — Page 232
May be that Bishop Kune of Edessa, trying to raise the prestige of the Christian community by this pious falsehood had it written according to a local tradition about some negotiations that had taken place between Damascus and Edessa on behalf of Jesus. The letter does not boast of any splendid success. Its point is only an unaccepted invitation. I feel this modesty to be strong evidence in favour of the historicity of such negotiations. The third place where Jesus could have hope of a kind reception was the kingdom of Adiabene. The Jewish proselytes, the well known and esteemed king Izates and his mother Helene sat on the throne. Both are historically well documented. The historian could now confidently answer the question of Fritz Buri which was the historical basis of the belief in Jesus coming back, in his Parusy, and why it was not realised. It would be as follows: Jesus had lost his political campaign in Palestine for the throne of Jerusalem. Being the grandson of Herod the Great and having inherited the right to the throne, he hoped to be able to institute the Kingdom of God on earth without any help of swords or daggers from the Zealots. Therefore, he resolved to gather the lost sheep of Israel and at the same time to preach his own teaching abroad. He meant to maintain the law of Moses without the Mosaic claim of the Jewish monopoly of salvation. But the sorry political developments in Palestine, ending with the cruel first war of the Jews against Rome frustrated his plan. This hindered him from “coming back” and join his followers in Palestine. This is why his Parusy could not take place. III The third point of my paper concerns the medieval legend of the "Travelling Jew" or the "Errant Jew," Ahasverus or Buttadeo. 224