Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 09-28-2012, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

What is the subject? I don't know where you get the idea that I am arguing that Marcus Julius Agrippa is Marcion.

Quote:

But now that we are on the subject. In my book I argued that IF Jesus's crucifixion was the same year as the dismissal of Pilate and his trial before the senate (as we read in the Christian pseudepigrapha) then even by the standards of Josephus, Agrippa could have been a witness to the crucifixion.

Indeed in that book I argued that Agrippa was Mark and that he wrote the gospel from the point of view that he was the prisoner freed in exchange for Jesus.

So, Mark = Marcus Julius Agrippa (II)

And Marcion? Well, if he did not exist - St Mark had to fill the empty spot!

Quote:

Marcion Was a Heretic Invented in the Third Century to Gloss Over the Controversies Associated with St Mark in Second Century Palestine

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...-in-third.html

The bottom line for me, my friends, is that we can be fairly certain that Justin never wrote an Against Marcion, nor did Irenaeus - despite what the testimony of the present edition of Against Heresies has to say about that. Noe we have Jerome admitting that a great many spurious texts were written in the name of Modestus, thus cast doubt on the 'Against Marcion' associated with the writer. Why is it so unlikely given the forgery, manipulating and editing associated with the Against Heresies tradition that a third century editor was trying to prove that a great number of third century witnesses knew about the existence of a fictitious 'Marcion' the head of the Marcionites?

So, Marcion did not exist - and this OP wants to debate how old he was???

Goodness me - just where is aa when we need him?

stephan huller · 09-28-2012, 02:31 PM

Quote:

You'll be happy to know I'm strongly considering using a self-ban to get me the hell away from this pleasant waste of time and back to the writing I'm supposed to be doing while recovering from my illness.

No I won't be happy knowing that you are not doing well. I really wish you get better soon, Duke. Nothing is so serious about any of this that I should wish someone bad health. Get better soon. You're a smart guy with a great interest in a variety of subjects. The world needs more people like you.

Maryhelena on the other hand ...

Duke Leto · 09-28-2012, 03:09 PM

While I have not revised my opinions of your scholarship, I do appreciate the sincere concern you have expressed.

While my problems are personal and I do not wish to discuss them in detail, they are not life threatening, just debilitating and preventing me from working in normal blue and white collar environments. It's more of a financial irritant then anything else, especially since, as you may be aware, the American Social Safety Net compares to that of Canada in much the same way having your eyes gouged out with white hot, acid covered sporks compares to LASIK surgery.

I'm receiving some federal and state aid and getting a modicum of financial assistance from people who care about me. The most worrisome thing is that I've had to abandon my HIPAA plan, so even if I succeed with this writing idea I'm going to be unable to get medical insurance until the full activation of Obamacare in January of 2014. At least it now seems about as likely that Romney will win as my writing the next Twilight. (Too many big words, for one thing.)

Seriously though, if you need to worry about someone's health, my cat really seems to need it right now. He's 15 1/2 and showing signs of kidney failure, and I don't have any cash to spare for conventional vets and "Aid to Families with Dependent Cats" does not actually exist. If it is renal failure then it's unlikely veterinary science can help him, it's just a question of what I can do to make him comfortable and when things have gotten far enough along that it's "time".

As I said, my infraction habit has already limited my access, so a self-ban may be appropriate for that reason alone, and I have a program locking me out of the most distracting sites, but I need to actually turn it on.

Oh well.

andrewcriddle · 09-30-2012, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is important to note that while Eusebius knows the "Agrippa the son of Agrippa" story his version of Josephus agrees with the Latin text insofar as it identifies Agrippa the son of Agrippa as being appointed king of the Jews:

Quote:

Now while Claudius was still reigning, it came to pass that so great a fac-tion and tumult broke out at Jerusalem during the feast of the Passover, that, of those Jews alone who were forcibly crushed together around the exits from the temple, thirty thousand perished, trampled to death by one another. So the feast proved an occasion of grief to the people as a whole, and of lamentation to every house. These are the very words em¬ployed by Josephus. But Claudius appointed Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, king of the Jews; and sent Felix as procurator of the whole district of Samaria and Galilee, and of Peraea, as it is called, as well

It's not so simple to sort out WTF was going on. The question is why is this so confusing? It shouldn't be this weird.

Hi Stephan

I may be misunderstanding your argument but all this seems based on the standard text of the jewish war book 2 chapter 12

Quote:

NOW after the death of Herod, king of Chalcis, Claudius set Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, over his uncle's kingdom, while Cumanus took upon him the office of procurator of the rest, which was a Roman province, and therein he succeeded Alexander; under which Cureanus began the troubles, and the Jews' ruin came on; for when the multitude were come together to Jerusalem, to the feast of unleavened bread, and a Roman cohort stood over the cloisters of the temple, (for they always were armed, and kept guard at the festivals, to prevent any innovation which the multitude thus gathered together might make,) one of the soldiers pulled back his garment, and cowering down after an indecent manner, turned his breech to the Jews, and spake such words as you might expect upon such a posture. At this the whole multitude had indignation, and made a clamor to Cumanus, that he would punish the soldier; while the rasher part of the youth, and such as were naturally the most tumultuous, fell to fighting, and caught up stones, and threw them at the soldiers. Upon which Cumanus was afraid lest all the people should make an assault upon him, and sent to call for more armed men, who, when they came in great numbers into the cloisters, the Jews were in a very great consternation; and being beaten out of the temple, they ran into the city; and the violence with which they crowded to get out was so great, that they trod upon each other, and squeezed one another, till ten thousand of them were killed, insomuch that this feast became the cause of mourning to the whole nation, and every family lamented their own relations.
.................................................. ..........................................
After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea, and removed Agrippa from Chalcis unto a greater kingdom; for he gave him the tetrarchy which had belonged to Philip, which contained Batanae, Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis: he added to it the kingdom of Lysanias, and that province [Abilene] which Varus had governed. But Claudius himself, when he had administered the government thirteen years, eight months, and twenty days, died, and left Nero to be his successor in the empire, whom he had adopted by his Wife Agrippina's delusions, in order to be his successor, although he had a son of his own, whose name was Britannicus, by Messalina his former wife, and a daughter whose name was Octavia, whom he had married to Nero; he had also another daughter by Petina, whose name was Antonia.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 09-30-2012, 12:38 PM

It has been an eternity almost since I even thought about these things but it would seem to my ears that Eusebius's text has Agrippa installed as king of the Jews whereas our received text of Josephus denies that he ever ruled in Judea. In other words, it is our text which inserts the idea that Agrippa inherited Chalcis. The same thing is implied by the Latin text of Jewish Wars:

Quote:

The supporter of whom Herodias, seeing Agrippa to have had much influence with Caesar, drove him to go to Rome, where he should win over the favor of the emperor to himself, putting before him the affront of idleness, because shunning work, while he stayed at home, he allowed indignities to be brought forward against himself. For since from being a private citizen Agrippa had been made a king, how much more therefore should Caesar not hesitate that he should confer a kingdom upon him who had already long been a tetrarch. And so by no means sustaining the reproaches of his wife, he proceeded to Rome, while he was seeking the friendship of Gaius, impugned by Agrippa he lost even the tetrarchy, which he had received from Julius Augustus, and going into exile in Spain together with his wife Herodias he died from grief of mind. Tiberius having died also Gaius succeeded, who, [p. 141] wishing himself as the ruler both to be seen as and to be called a god, gave causes to the Jews of a very serious rebellion, and lest he should destroy the empire with a quick end, made a quicker end of the nation of the Jews. For not only did he not call his men back from illegal acts, but he even threatened those sent into Judaea with the ultimate punishment, unless they accomplished with their arms everything against justice and the dictates of religion. Agrippa was very powerful in his state, but while he wished to encircle Jerusalem with a great wall, so that it would become impregnable to the Romans---for he foresaw its imminent destruction---prevented by death he left the task unfinished. Nor did he exercise less power while Claudius was ruling, because he was also in the midst of his own beginnings, since with Gaius having been killed he had been thrust by the soldiers into the rule of the empire, the senate resisting him from weariness of the royal power, he sent Agrippa as his deputy, with whom as negotiator the promise of moderation having been given, an accommodation having been begun, a peace is agreed upon. In place of Agrippa the father Agrippa his son is substituted as king by Claudius Caesar.

The plain reading of this material is also that Agrippa was immediately crowned 'king of the Jews' in Judea. For some reason there is an attempt by one of the texts - I think Antiquities from memory - which creates this artificial idea that he was king of the Jews without actually having authority in Judea. I think this was deliberately crafted to undermine the messianic argument again. So too with his descent from David.

And I remember reading the Greek text of Antiquities and noting that here it is Herod of Chalcis who marries Agrippa's sister Berenice - "He bestowed on his brother Herod, who was also his son-in-law, by marrying Bernice, the kingdom of Chalcis." In Antiquities 19 "He also made a league with this Agrippa, confirmed by oaths, in the middle of the forum, in the city of Rome: he also took away from Antiochus that kingdom which he was possessed of, but gave him a certain part of Cilicia and Commagena: he also set Alexander Lysimachus, the alabarch, at liberty, who had been his old friend, and steward to his mother Antonia, but had been imprisoned by Caius, whose son [Marcus] married Bernice, the daughter of Agrippa. But when Marcus, Alexander's son, was dead, who had married her when she was a virgin, Agrippa gave her in marriage to his brother Herod, and begged for him of Claudius the kingdom of Chalcis." In other words there is a Marcus Alexander who marries Berenice and then Berenice goes to marry Herod of Chalcis, then Herod of Chalcis has authority over the religious affairs of Jerusalem and then "after the death of Herod, king of Chalcis, Claudius set Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, over his uncle's kingdom."

Yet this is plainly contradicted what is said in the original accounts. Agrippa simply took over from his father in Judea. Why is this long detour created? Why is Berenice never acknowledged to have been married to her brother but the incest with her uncle is acknowledged? There is something strange going on here. It is possible to quibble with the idea that the rabbinic tradition is correct in positing only one Agrippa but at the very least the Christian tradition doesn't allow Agrippa to be king of Judea for a deliberate (anti-Jewish) purpose. Already then Christians and Jews must have been debating who the real messiah was (as they were in Europe in the medieval period) and Agrippa was disqualified by editorial omissions.

It is also worth nothing that the late Coptic Pope Shenouda III is the source for my identification of the Mark married to Berenice in Josephus as St Mark.

maryhelena · 09-30-2012, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

<snip>
It is possible to quibble with the idea that the rabbinic tradition is correct in positing only one Agrippa

So, what is it Stephan - are you giving up on your one Agrippa theory now?

Quote:

Agrippa First: The Last King of Judaea: Daniel R Schwartz (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Pages 158 and 159

Many problems beset those who would use rabbinic literature for historical purposes in general, and regarding Agrippa in particular.
..no one should expect to find in rabbinic literature what we find in Josephus and Philo: Jewish perspectives on Agrippa more or less contemporary with him....

....Rabbinic literature speaks not infrequently of “King Agrippa” but does not specify father or son. Do all traditions refer to the same one? If so, which one? Or do some traditions refer to one and some to the other? If so, which should be assigned to whom? Or should we prefer to assume that the lack of rabbinic concern to identify the king indicates that the fact that there had once been two Kings Agrippa has been forgotten.....

The problem is quite a difficult one, and we have no unambiguous solution to offer.

<snip>

Quote:

...but at the very least the Christian tradition doesn't allow Agrippa to be king of Judea for a deliberate (anti-Jewish) purpose.

Really? Or is it just your theory that requires that Agrippa II be the Jewish Messiah figure - and hence, needs to have been made King of Judea?

Here is a list of Roman prefects and procurators in Judea. Notice that the list has no Roman prefect or procurator during the time when Agrippa I is understood to have been appointed King of Judea. i.e. 41 -44 c.e. During the time of Agrippa II, Roman procurators were in Judea. Indication, surely, that Agrippa II was not made King of Judea.

[T2]

List of Hasmonean and Herodian rulers

The Administration of Judaea (AD 6–135)

Roman Prefects

Coponius 6–9
Marcus Ambivulus 9–12
Annius Rufus 12–15
Valerius Gratus 15–26
Pontius Pilate 26–36
Marcellus 36–37
Marullus 37–41

Roman Procurators

Cuspius Fadus 44–46
Tiberius Julius Alexander 46–48
Ventidius Cumanus 48–52
Marcus Antonius Felix 52–60
Porcius Festus 60–62
Lucceius Albinus 62–64
Gessius Florus 64–66
Marcus Antonius Julianus 66–70 (dates uncertain)

[/T2]

stephan huller · 09-30-2012, 03:05 PM

I happen to have glanced at mh's comments before signing in. It is not a theory that Jews juxtaposed Agrippa as the messiah against the Christian claims about Jesus. Just read John Calvin, Abarbanel, Nachmanides and the earliest Jewish authorities from the period. The question is how far the tradition went back. The answer is clearly that at least part of the shared tradition shows up in Clement and Origen. The only problem is what to do about Josephus

stephan huller · 09-30-2012, 03:10 PM

There are a number of examples of Roman procurators working side by side with ancient royal lines. The example of Edessa immediately comes to mind:

http://books.google.com/books?id=69Y...edessa&f=false

And what is the evidence for the authority of this list outside of Josephus. There are indications that the Roman knights ruled Judea for a period. My suspicion is that Agrippa after having the kingdom of his father given to him by Claudius had many of his powers stripped but he still retained his religious authority (= to select the high priest). Also it is important to note that the after the bar Kochba revolt the Patriarchate was established where - according to Origen - the Jews saw the figure as a continuation of the royal line of David (i.e. that the line was never broken). This implies at least that Agrippa was the link in the chain from the time of Herod through to the age of Judah the prince (whose name is not without significance).

In other words, Agrippa the king =====> Judah the prince. Also the idea of a royal figure who worked within the framework of Imperial rule must have been established before Judah likely as early as Agrippa.

Moreover Josephus, the rabbinic literature makes clear that Agrippa and Berenice had a Jerusalem residence very close to the temple. He clearly took on the same powers as the Patriarch (Nasi).

stephan huller · 09-30-2012, 04:17 PM

I just went through the Slavonic text. Again it agrees with the Latin version of Jewish War. No mention of Agrippa going to Chalcis. Why on earth would this version of the tradition have 'erased' Agrippa NOT BEING made king of the Jews? The implications of the alternative text (Hegesippus is much, much older than the Slavonic text) seems to have been that he was made king of the Jews agreeing in principle (unless I am missing something) with Eusebius's text.

stephan huller · 09-30-2012, 04:34 PM

Indeed I was just rereading the Slavonic and the Latin text over and over again. The assumption is the same. Agrippa I builds the walls of Jerusalem. Agrippa II takes over Judea from his father and nothing more is said. Then the narrative assumes this is the way things remained until the start of the Jewish War. Here is the first reference to Agrippa after the death of Agrippa I:

Quote:

And »the start of the war occurred" in his time. and it was now that the war opened, in the in the twelfth year of Nero's reign and twelfth year of the principate of Nero, and the seventeenth year of Agrippa's. (p. 279)

Nero's reign started in 54 CE. Five years earlier would be 49 CE as the start for Agrippa II's rule as king of the Jews. The implication is more complicated than most would like to admit for the Slavonic text as noted says that Agrippa I had no children. Agrippa is again referenced in common material from Jewish War 2.15:

Quote:

Florus acted as no governor before him. He arrested 100 men of high rank. had them shamefully flogged in front of the court and crucified. For. even if those men were Jews by birth. [all the same] Roman rank had been conferred on them by Caesar. King Agnppa was not there at the time but had gone to Alexandria to celebrate with Alexander, to whom Nero had entrusted Egypt. *But his sister Bernice.* who happened to be there saw Florus' iniquities and was sorely grief-stricken. And she sent her officials and bodyguards to him. begging him to cease the slaughter. But he, ignoring both the great numbers of those killed and the high birth of the suppliants. (p. 285)

The Greek text also preserves the 'seventeenth year' of Agrippa reference. The Latin text is more straightforward. After the reference to John the Baptist we read the following about Agrippa II:

Quote:

Agrippa was very powerful in his state, but while he wished to encircle Jerusalem with a great wall, so that it would become impregnable to the Romans---for he foresaw its imminent destruction---prevented by death he left the task unfinished. Nor did he exercise less power while Claudius was ruling, because he was also in the midst of his own beginnings, since with Gaius having been killed he had been thrust by the soldiers into the rule of the empire, the senate resisting him from weariness of the royal power, he sent Agrippa as his deputy, with whom as negotiator the promise of moderation having been given, an accommodation having been begun, a peace is agreed upon. In place of Agrippa the father Agrippa his son is substituted as king by Claudius Caesar.

VI. Claudius himself also, three and ten years having passed, died, he gave Nero to the Roman empire as its ruler having been captured by the persuasions of his wife Agrippina, who was so powerful through trickeries, that she rendered Britannicus the son of the emperor designated as the successor by the law of nature without share in the rule. Whose art soon displeased her, because as long as born from her he was deferent, she denied him the leadership, unaware that exalted by his supreme power he did not acknowledge his mother and would pervert the reward of (her) assistance into her destruction. Likewise however he held Octavia the daughter of Claudius in marriage, the son-in-law was preferred to the son in topsy-turvy order, the mischiefs of the state preponderated, to which is owed the parricide, the sacrilegious man, the incestuous man, so that in him crimes, not any merits of good conduct, ruled. Under such an emperor, whether from consideration of his morals or scorn of his indolence or because he was preparing a final destruction for the Jews the protection of the supreme god having been withdrawn because of their severe sacrilege, there broke out into great riots, brigandage, conflicts because of their haughtiness, whom for twenty years Eleazarus the leader of the robbers oppressively plundered, finally however captured by Felix, who was in charge of Judaea, and sent to Rome he suffered severe punishment. Not thus even were the people disheartened by the number killed of those inhabiting Judaea, but in Jerusalem itself another kind of brigands sprang forth, who were called dagger-men. Not indeed hidden in secret, nor in nocturnal darkness lying in ambush for those going about without any guard, but in the light of day and in the middle of the city and a crowd of people, they strike whomsoever they had approached closely, carrying short swords in their hands, mingling in a crowd of people, where they pierce someone adhering close, the unsuspecting victim falls with a hidden wound, and death prevents an outcry. The corpse is in view but the assassin escaped notice, and if anyone had been alarmed by another's wound, happening closer to himself, he was a part of those struck down. Thus from the fear of the danger or the dissembling of the crime the assassin is not caught. So great was the speed of the ambushers and the skill of concealing themselves. The priest Ionathes is killed, many were added daily, the fear of the living was greater than the calamity of those killed. As if to a battle, each one came forth daily, the situation was worse however, because an enemy is foreseen, an assassin was hidden. Death before the eyes, fear in the mind. No one believed that he would return, nor was trust bestowed upon friends while the assassin was feared. By which the majority were terrified, indeed those innocent of the crime of brigandage or the companionship of assassins, although unhurt by the band, the less resolute purposely repaired to the desert. But while they are taking counsel with themselves, they aroused fear of a separation, from which at first a suspicion of war against the Romans, then a hatred blazed up. Alarmed by this the governor of the province, cavalry and a foot column having been sent, engendered a slaughter.

VII. Also an Egyptian false prophet instructed in the magic arts arrived, he boasted himself with the prophetic spirit to pronounce heavenly prophecies; he joined almost thirty thousand Jews to himself and assembling them at Mount Olive he invaded Jerusalem with frequent assaults, so that even he accused the Roman guards, who spread tshemselves before Jerusalem lest anything should be provoked by the people. When indeed this arrogance was suppressed, just as in a sick body another part was gravely inflamed. For many openly cried out that they should separate from the Romans, that liberty should be preferred to servitude and the food which was lacking to those who had gone out into the fields was sought by force.

VIII. Finally in the city Caesarea a serious riot broke out between the Jews and gentiles, the Jews claiming to themselves possession of the entire city as founded by the Jew Herod, the gentiles resisting that the founder was indeed a Jew, but he had made it known with the name of Caesar, and in fact had constructed temples within it and had set up statues and from that it was to be seen that it had been transferred more to the use of gentiles. The strife of these controversies turned into bands, because the leaders of the Jews were not able to restrain their people who were dedicated to rebellion and regarded the gentiles with taunts, if they thought it should be conceded to them by the Jews. And so they aroused Felix, so that while he wished passionately to restrain the mob of each party that was not quieting down, he decided upon arms when he was unable otherwise. To whom Festus succeeded, who very many brigands having been seized gave the by no means small number to the ultimate destruction. Albinus also the same power having been entrusted to him by the Romans let pass no type of wickedness, a flagrant of plunder, so that he who did not give money was dragged off in chains although blameless, he who gave even though guilty was set free. Avarice give birth to arrogance, so that he presented himself a tyrant to the poor, their agent to the rich. Likewise however as he went past the wickedness of his predecessors, so by his successor Florus as it were lazy and sluggish in shameful acts but passed by and left behind last in a long interval, so that in comparison with those worse, he was considered honest. And those who at first had complained as having been ruined, afterwards longed for Festus as a good judge. For he stripped individuals, Florus laid waste to cities, the most polluted in indecencies, the cruelest in barbarity, disquieting everything with arms and sowing battles from battles, who implored did not pardon and glutted did not spare. In the sight of Berinice, who the sister of Agrippa the king had come to the temple for the sake of religion, he raged against the people with the harshest slaughter, having judged that it should not be granted to one praying, although he saw him paying attention to his religion, standing with bare feet, and he considered him with contempt who was praying. From this to Agrippa the king both she herself wrote and the people of the Jews directed a prayer beseeching help for liberty. To whom returning from Egypt very many ran to meet on the road more than sixty stadia from the city of Jerusalem and led about through the city while they proved the justness of their complaints, they began to insist that he should send ambassadors to Nero. In truth he felt the pain of the citizens seeing however that the attempts of war against the Romans should be moved with profound prudence, lest hatred for himself and a very great danger to the people should be brought forth, to the people collected together, in that place, which next to the temple and separated by a bridge was called Xystus, he delivered a speech of this type.

One could argue that the death of Agrippa was as late as 49 CE. The speech here which follows is the equivalent of Daniel 9:26 (= the messiah shall be no more). After the speech Agrippa withdraws from the Israelites (and the narrative) and the fate of the Jews is sealed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-28-2012, 03:09 PM	#33
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	While I have not revised my opinions of your scholarship, I do appreciate the sincere concern you have expressed. While my problems are personal and I do not wish to discuss them in detail, they are not life threatening, just debilitating and preventing me from working in normal blue and white collar environments. It's more of a financial irritant then anything else, especially since, as you may be aware, the American Social Safety Net compares to that of Canada in much the same way having your eyes gouged out with white hot, acid covered sporks compares to LASIK surgery. I'm receiving some federal and state aid and getting a modicum of financial assistance from people who care about me. The most worrisome thing is that I've had to abandon my HIPAA plan, so even if I succeed with this writing idea I'm going to be unable to get medical insurance until the full activation of Obamacare in January of 2014. At least it now seems about as likely that Romney will win as my writing the next Twilight. (Too many big words, for one thing.) Seriously though, if you need to worry about someone's health, my cat really seems to need it right now. He's 15 1/2 and showing signs of kidney failure, and I don't have any cash to spare for conventional vets and "Aid to Families with Dependent Cats" does not actually exist. If it is renal failure then it's unlikely veterinary science can help him, it's just a question of what I can do to make him comfortable and when things have gotten far enough along that it's "time". As I said, my infraction habit has already limited my access, so a self-ban may be appropriate for that reason alone, and I have a program locking me out of the most distracting sites, but I need to actually turn it on. Oh well.

09-30-2012, 03:05 PM	#37
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I happen to have glanced at mh's comments before signing in. It is not a theory that Jews juxtaposed Agrippa as the messiah against the Christian claims about Jesus. Just read John Calvin, Abarbanel, Nachmanides and the earliest Jewish authorities from the period. The question is how far the tradition went back. The answer is clearly that at least part of the shared tradition shows up in Clement and Origen. The only problem is what to do about Josephus

09-30-2012, 03:10 PM	#38
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	There are a number of examples of Roman procurators working side by side with ancient royal lines. The example of Edessa immediately comes to mind: http://books.google.com/books?id=69Y...edessa&f=false And what is the evidence for the authority of this list outside of Josephus. There are indications that the Roman knights ruled Judea for a period. My suspicion is that Agrippa after having the kingdom of his father given to him by Claudius had many of his powers stripped but he still retained his religious authority (= to select the high priest). Also it is important to note that the after the bar Kochba revolt the Patriarchate was established where - according to Origen - the Jews saw the figure as a continuation of the royal line of David (i.e. that the line was never broken). This implies at least that Agrippa was the link in the chain from the time of Herod through to the age of Judah the prince (whose name is not without significance). In other words, Agrippa the king =====> Judah the prince. Also the idea of a royal figure who worked within the framework of Imperial rule must have been established before Judah likely as early as Agrippa. Moreover Josephus, the rabbinic literature makes clear that Agrippa and Berenice had a Jerusalem residence very close to the temple. He clearly took on the same powers as the Patriarch (Nasi).

09-30-2012, 04:17 PM	#39
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I just went through the Slavonic text. Again it agrees with the Latin version of Jewish War. No mention of Agrippa going to Chalcis. Why on earth would this version of the tradition have 'erased' Agrippa NOT BEING made king of the Jews? The implications of the alternative text (Hegesippus is much, much older than the Slavonic text) seems to have been that he was made king of the Jews agreeing in principle (unless I am missing something) with Eusebius's text.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.