Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duke Leto · 09-28-2012, 09:13 AM

And Stephan ignores a citation he explicitly asked for. Par for the course.

stephan huller · 09-28-2012, 09:19 AM

When did Agrippa die? The Wikipedia article:

Quote:

According to Photius, Agrippa died, childless, at the age of seventy, in the third year of the reign of Trajan, that is, 100,[5] but statements of historian Josephus, in addition to the contemporary epigraphy from his kingdom, cast this date into serious doubt. The modern scholarly consensus holds that he died before 93/94.[1] He was the last prince of the house of the Herods.

The original passage from Photius:

Quote:

Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias. He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus' style is very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him. His father was a Jew named Pistus; Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed. He was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go free. It is said that the history which he wrote is in great part fictitious, especially where he describes the Judaeo-Roman war and the capture of Jerusalem.

I agree that the 'he' here being referenced is not Agrippa but Justin the subject of the entry in Photius. We do however have physical evidence which dates the end of Agrippa's reign to 96 CE or thereabouts. His death is an open question. What is certain is that despite being a ruler for longer than Herod (almost sixty years) there are no surviving monuments to this Jewish monarch described as the messiah in reports dating within a century or so of his death.

He was supposedly a friend of Rome like Herod the Great. How is this explained?

stephan huller · 09-28-2012, 09:21 AM

Quote:

And Stephan ignores a citation he explicitly asked for

I did not take issue with Josephus referencing dates where Agrippa's age is mentioned but rather no birth date is actually given. Scholars reconstruct the date for Agrippa I's death by means of Acts. I knew that you were going to be so desperate as to do the same. So in fact we have no 'birth date' only a claim that Agrippa was seventeen and Berenice sixteen at the time of the death of Agrippa I.

stephan huller · 09-28-2012, 09:34 AM

And, consistent with my arguments here at the forum, the Antiquities account represents an incredible expansion of the original account in Jewish War - the only text which can be argued to actually go back or be faithful to the original Aramaic hypomnema of a first century Josephus.

In that account we see that the reference to Agrippa the son of Agrippa is extraordinarily vague and comes as part of a reference to a fictitious event in the gospels:

Quote:

Then the former provoked threw John [the Baptist] into prison. And not much later he killed the just man and immovable executor of divine law. For not only as a preacher of the gospel had he blamed the incest of the brother's marriage bed, but even as an executor of the law he censured the transgressor of the law who had taken by force the wife of a living brother, especially having seed of him. Aroused by this the hatred and retribution of almost all Jews was hastened against Herodes. 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, 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.

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.

The implication of this account is that Agrippa inherited the throne in Judea in 41 CE. If Agrippa was seventeen, twenty or even thirty in 41 CE he would still have been incredibly old by 100 CE by ancient standards (76 - 90 CE) and we are not even certain that he died yet.

stephan huller · 09-28-2012, 09:44 AM

The account in the Slavonic text is equally fascinating:

Quote:

And Agrippa speedily acquired wealth untold. And at Jerusalem he immediately began to build walls of such a height and thickness as never before. If he had completed them in his own lifetime the Romans could by no means have taken Jerusalem. But before finishing his work he himself died at Caesarea having no son.

stephan huller · 09-28-2012, 09:51 AM

The question then is whether the Greek text was 'corrected' by all other known variants of the narrative or was there an ur-text which either (a) identified two unrelated Agrippas or (b) an original account where there was one Agrippa.

tanya · 09-28-2012, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Men who want to live longer would need a very painful remedy.

I wish to sound a note of caution about this inference.

First: both males and females possess androgens, secreted by the adrenal glands, located bilaterally, just superior to the kidneys. Second: Males over the age of 40-70 (variable) lose a significant component of their testicular function, hence, castration would not necessarily lead to a significant reduction in testosterone production, if anything, it might stimulate the adrenal glands to synthesize more.

Third, in order to draw any sort of reasonable conclusions, the proper test paradigm would need to be implemented. A cohort of castrated Korean men, is not a proper design.

Fourth, for all we know, those women, who live to become centenarians, have a larger than typical supply of androgen circulating, due to adrenal gland secretion.

Finally, though it is not often appreciated, both males and females possess estrogen. It could well be the case, I don't know the answer, and am not sure that anyone does, but, it is conceivable that it is estrogen level, not testosterone level, that determines life span: i.e. males with an increased level of estrogen die sooner, than men with a lower level. Point is, in such a scenario, castration would have a negative effect on longevity.

You have too few data points to draw any conclusions.

stephan huller · 09-28-2012, 09:56 AM

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.

maryhelena · 09-28-2012, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The account in the Slavonic text is equally fascinating:

Quote:

And Agrippa speedily acquired wealth untold. And at Jerusalem he immediately began to build walls of such a height and thickness as never before. If he had completed them in his own lifetime the Romans could by no means have taken Jerusalem. But before finishing his work he himself died at Caesarea having no son.

Quote:

Josephus’ Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (or via: amazon.co.uk) H. Leeming (editor) K. Leeming (editor)

Page 273

And then he sent Felix
to govern and rule
the remainder he gave to
*Agrippa, son of Agrippa,
whose father had died while he was little”*

Page 480

But he did not finish the work,
fearing that Claudius would think
he had started the great works
with insurrection in mind.
But they could never have taken this city,
if Agrippa had finished the walls
as he had begun.
For he built (them) with stones

Page 481 has no preview...
-----------------------------
Page 270 Jewish War - from the same book.

After the death of Herod, sovereign of
Chalcis, Claudius presented his kingdom
to his nephew Agrippa, son of Agrippa.

Quote:

Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors:
Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke

Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Jonathan Marshall (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Page 167/168

An inscription in Si’a thanks Agrippa II, and recognizes Agrippa I as friend of Caesar, pious, and friend of Rome (OGIS 419)

“To the great king Agrippa, friend of Caesar, pious and friend of Romans,
the son of the great king Agrippa, friend of Caesar, pious and friend of Romans,
Apharus, a freedman and his son dedicate (this).....”

Not of course to forget those troublesome Herodian coins.....

(google book view available for the Marshall book. - actually, both books are available on google book view...)

stephan huller · 09-28-2012, 10:46 AM

i have marymaryquitecontrary on ignore so if anyone thinks what she is saying is important let me know

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

09-28-2012, 09:13 AM	#11
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	And Stephan ignores a citation he explicitly asked for. Par for the course.

09-28-2012, 09:51 AM	#16
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The question then is whether the Greek text was 'corrected' by all other known variants of the narrative or was there an ur-text which either (a) identified two unrelated Agrippas or (b) an original account where there was one Agrippa.

09-28-2012, 10:46 AM	#20
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	i have marymaryquitecontrary on ignore so if anyone thinks what she is saying is important let me know

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.