maryhelena

Well, now - it seems that these interpretations of Daniel ch. 9 with a literal fulfillment re Agrippa II and the events of 70 ce are way off...It looks very much like Agrippa II survived the events of 70 ce - and went on to tell the tale in his new coins.....Agrippa II "cut off" in 70 ce? - dream on.....

The Herodian coins:

Judaea Capta for Titus
Judaea Capta for Vespasian
Judaea Capta for Domitian 81-96 ce

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/cat...2&pos=0&iop=10

Coins of Agrippa II feature human faces after 70 ce - something, seemingly, he did not do with his coins pre 70 ce.

stephan huller

What does this argument have to do with anything? I guess you are trying to tell me what Luther told the Jews in the Jews and Their Lies:

http://www.humanitas-international.o...uther-jews.htm

(do you finally see what I have been telling you? This tradition about Agrippa as the messiah is REAL. You could take a time machine back to any point in history and find Jews who maintained this position. It starts AT THE TIME OF AGRIPPA. Unlike the Jesus Christ tradition there is no 'mythical Agrippa' initially. There is a real man of flesh and blood who just happens to be the king of the Jews.

This is what THE messiah is supposed to be - the real king of the Jews. His court had a guy named Justus of Tiberias who wrote a REAL Jewish history (just like Josephus but now it disappeared). Even though he wrote that history and it disappeared we have an idea about some of its contents because Photius of Constantinople saw it in Constantinople in the ninth century.

The structure of the book seems to emphasize that Agrippa was the last king of the Jews. As Origen read a Jewish history which William Adler (a very, very smart scholar; I always like reading his stuff) notes emphasizes that Agrippa was the world ruler of Genesis 49:10.

The two concepts go together. In other words Genesis 49:10 is about the messiah appearing 'when the scepter is taken from (the nation of the Jews). This Jewish history also argued that Agrippa was the messiah of Daniel 9:26 (the messiah who was 'cut off' before the destruction of the Jewish temple)

With me so far?

Justus knew that Agrippa was a real human being. Justus knew that he wasn't 'killed' before the end of sacrifices in the temple and neither did Origen who read that Jewish history or the Jews and Christians who had access to texts and traditions based on the living witness of people like Justus or Origen or those who read their materials.

But ...

... of course there may have been OTHER texts that may have been written by OTHER Jews in the first century which expressed this same idea (that Marcus Agrippa was the messiah of the Jews) in different ways

However I don't want to get into the question of whether Marcus Agrippa himself wrote a document. The answer to your question is that THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT of the Jewish history - or at least the Jewish history which has come down to us associated with the name of 'Josephus' clearly was developed around the terminology of Daniel 9:26.

THIS IS WHY I SPENT ALL THAT TIME EXPLAINING TO YOU THE ORIGINAL HEBREW OF DANIEL!!!!!

You dismissed the linguistic arguments because you don't like to show your ignorance. BUT IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR UNDERSTANDING WHAT HAPPENED TO THE AGRIPPA TRADITION.

So let's go back and look at the original evidence which eventually got interpreted as 'Agrippa was KILLED and was no more'

'Cut off' in the original Hebrew of Daniel is yikkaret. The same term yikkaret can means 'cut off' OR 'was killed.' This is the fourth last Hebrew word in the sentence (I will highlight it for you so you can see it more clearly):

The last part of the phrase is 'he is no more' but this English concept can be explained in Hebrew in two different ways as I noted earlier. It is important to make the proper distinction:

Daniel has the second expression, not the first. The point is that what is represented here is the exact English equivalent of the Hebrew. I put both down for comparison.

The first expression is used of Enoch. “He walked with the angels (ha-Elohim). And he was not (he was not there any more); for God (Elohim) took him (had taken him)”. In Biblical Hebrew ואיננו (ve-enénnu) is the equivalent of ואינו (ve-enó).

The distinction is like this. The first means he she or it does not exist or does not exist any more. Of a person, it could mean he has died, but only if something is added. In the case of Enoch it means he was transported (to Heaven, not to America). If said of an empire, it would mean it no longer exists. The second means he is no longer present, he has vanished, he is off the scene. It does not mean he has died. His whereabouts might be well known, but he is not HERE or ACTING IN THIS CONTEXT.

What I am trying to explain to you is that the history of Josephus originally has Agrippa get 'cut off' from the Jewish rebels after making a plea for peace. He then 'disappears' from the narrative in order to reinforce the THEOLOGICAL notion that the messiah has been cut off and is no more.'

if you look at a particular 'branch' of the Josephus 'Jewish War' manuscript - the one which starts with the so-called Pseudo-Hegesippus (4th century) preserved in Latin and which represents our oldest surviving Josephus tradition (and later gets mutated into the Slavonic Josephus and the Hebrew Yosippon) you can see where the idea of Agrippa 'being killed' emerges BECAUSE HE SEEMS TO DISAPPEAR FROM THE NARRATIVE ALTOGETHER.

If you look at pseudo-Hegessipus for instance Agrippa 'disappears' at the death of Nero never to be seen again in the narrative. The last reference reads:

The point I am trying to explain to you is that the Jews eventually got a hold of this CHRISTIANIZED text of Josephus and developed this history even further by injecting MORE INHERITED THEOLOGY from Daniel (making Agrippa 'killed' just before the end of sacrifices under circumstances that are completely unhistorical) BUT THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THEY WERE DRAWING FROM OR EMBELLISHING BASED ON A TRADITIONAL INTEREST IN CONNECTING AGRIPPA TO DANIEL 9:26 WHICH GOES BACK TO THE TIME OF AGRIPPA.

We have the proof in Origen.

So once again the verb yikkaret does not mean he will die. Everyone says it does, but it does not. If the context allows AND DEMANDS IT, it can mean he will be killed, as the Peshitta translates it. But the meaning without preconceptions is that he will stop acting in his function. THIS VERB IS NOT NORMALLY USED OF PEOPLE. It is used of dynasties, for example. Its use in relation to a person is not normal. It is JARRING. The meaning can only be that he stops acting as Anointed Leader. The sentence says (over-translating) “The OFFICE of Anointed Leader will terminate. He will disappear from the scene”

So once again let's acknowledge how the Yosippon still preserves the original idea that Agrippa gets 'cut off' and disappears AND THEN MADE UP ALL THIS NONSENSE ABOUT VESPASIAN KILLING AGRIPPA LATER. The core text inherited from the Pseudo-Hegessipus is:

The parallel text from the Pseudo-Hegessipus (but from the fourth century) is:

In either case we have a reference to the same historical context - Marcus Agrippa is addressing the Jews and warning them that if they do not heed his words 'his association' with them will be 'cut off.' The narrative then ends with the narrator telling us that "saying this he wept, Beronice his sister also, for she herself was in the heights of Xystus."

Now you act like Martin Luther when he came upon these beliefs among the Jews and he wrote in his the Jews and Their Lies:

And then again later in a section which enumerates 'all the lies' of the contemporary Jews, the interpretation of Agrippa figures VERY prominently on the list:

The point is that I have just explained to you how this misunderstanding arose about Agrippa 'being killed' just before the temple. It came from a situation where (a) the Jews ALWAYS interpreted Daniel 9:26 as pertaining to Agrippa and (b) the conversion of the Khazars in Russia to Judaism led to the rediscovery of Josephus and the WRONG implication of the Hebrew yikkareth of Daniel 9:26 - i.e. 'and he was killed' (which incidentally is the way Christians read Daniel).

The discovery of Origen's reading of a Jewish history makes clear the proper context of these original Jewish interpretations of the historical events of the Jewish War UNDOUBTEDLY PROMOTED BY AGRIPPA'S HISTORICAL SECRETARY JUSTUS AS PROPAGANDA.

Agrippa was 'cut off' from the Jews because of their failure to recognize him as the messiah and heed his words. As a result they fell into the hands of the Romans and were slaughtered.

I doubt you will read all of this because you want to promote ideas that have no basis in history but this is the right explanation and one which is rooted in the proper linguistic interpretation of the material SKILLS WHICH ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO BE A REAL SCHOLAR OF HISTORICAL INFORMATION

maryhelena

So, Stephen, I take it that you do uphold the historical position i.e. that Agrippa II did not get killed, 'cut off', executed etc in 70 ce - but lived to tell the tale. Your confirmation would be welcome.

That's all I'm interested in re your posting here. All the rest of the meandering interpretations of Daniel ch.9 and Agrippa II - are immaterial - interpretations of Daniel ch. 9 are two a penny - and assuming that you have the 'true' interpretation - well, what can I say - keep dreaming....

stephan huller

What's the matter with you? Truth has no meaning to you. History as a never ending creative writing exercise? I just explained to you HOW the two traditions arose - (a) Agrippa 'being cut off' known to Justus presumably as he saw Agrippa every day in his role as Agrippa's secretary AFTER THE JEWISH WAR and (b) the much later misunderstanding of Agrippa 'being killed.' They both go back to the Hebrew word yikkareth which is the verb connected with the messiah in Daniel 9:26.

I find your attitude reflects a bad character trait - viz. someone who only wants to hear their own ideas. Creativity is important in scholarship but it has to be tempered by reality and the respect for those who knowledge is greater than your own. That's why I defer to a number of experts at this site whose knowledge is clearly greater than my own (Andrew Criddle for one). You should do the same

That doesn't mean that you have to accept the arguments of the authorities but you should respect the truth by at least coming up with arguments which are developed from a reasonable dialogue and rational thought.

A strange thing happens when you actually LISTEN to what people more knowledgeable than you are saying.

You learn something, you start making better arguments and ultimately you become more intelligent.

That's why I always so keen to hear what you have to say :wave:

maryhelena

Thank you for that clarification - that Agrippa II did not get killed re an interpretation of Daniel ch.9 and 70 ce.

As to your attempt at character assassination - out of line on a forum that seeks to uphold rational discussion....

stephan huller

Character assassination? You are not interested in the truth. It took three or four attempts for you to accept that Origen was using a Jewish source AND IT WAS WRITTEN PLAINLY ON THE PAGE. Then you got hung up on whether it was Agrippa I or Agrippa II (presumably because you have some presuppositions about the two figures).

It gets very frustrating when I spend an hour to type up an explanation to carry forward a rational debate and you just dismiss it without even reading what I am saying.

A conversation must earn the right to be called a 'rational discussion.' It is like what Mountbatten said about a successful marriage - that it takes the full engagement of two, and sometimes three people. (lol, funny but true story)

I feel my commitment to the conversation is proved by the time I take to answer your questions. If you ridicule and demean that effort, I will question your commitment to the rational dialogue

maryhelena

Unwarranted character assassination.

I don't think you will find, if you re-read my posts, that I said anything at all about Origen NOT using a Jewish source. I questioned your assumption that the Agrippa Origen found within his Jewish source, was the same Agrippa that Origen, a christian writer, had in mind. Had in mind when he attempted an interpretation of Daniel ch.9 related to the events of 70 ce. A time period relevant to Agrippa II and not to Agrippa I.

Two historical Agrippas allows for the possibility, a very strong possibility, that the Agrippa of the Jewish history was confused, by Origen, with the later Agrippa II. It is the later Agrippa, Agrippa II, that was of interest to christian writers re their interest in the events of 70 ce in connection with the gospel 'prophecies'.

"Presumably" - I have some "presuppositions" regarding Agrippa I and Agrippa II. Whatever my presuppositions might be are immaterial to the issue at hand - an issue that your theory rejects - the historical existence, supported by the Herodian coins, that there was two Agrippas.
Not so, re your commitment to the conversation being proved by the amount of time you spend in writing posts. Hours of effort are wasted if one is not listening to what the other party is saying and just keep repeating ones own theory. I do not ridicule and demean effort - I keep that for theories that are not supported by some historical evidence. As I am sure you do for mine. Theories are easy to come by - its the historical evidence to support them that is lacking. Without the historical backup ALL interpretations are tentative. Some will be more interesting than others - but lets not fool ourselves in thinking that our own theory is the final say on anything. I don't have a published blueprint re my theory - as you do for yours. Which does mean that I'm not in the position, as you are, of having to defend your published work. If it is 'truth' that we are after - then being on the defensive about ones published positions - is not going to be provide a sound framework for discussion.

stephan huller

There's something I am not getting here :banghead:

I am trying to understand what your hung up on. This must be the seventh post I have written to address the issue. What? What? What?

I brought forward two modern scholars who have read the passage and both say it was the Agrippa who ruled at the time of the destruction of the temple. William Adler isn't just some PhD he is a widely respected scholar. Montgomery was allowed to write the critical editor of Daniel for a series of commentaries on the books of the Bible.

These are people at a higher level than you and I AND they absolutely no reason to lie about which Agrippa was meant by Origen.

I brought forward THE REASON Adler and Montgomery identify Origen's Agrippa with 'Agrippa II' - (a) that this Agrippa was the last in the line of Jewish kings and (b) that this Agrippa ruled at the time of the destruction of the temple.

How? How? How? How? How? How on earth do you get this from their discussions of the material WHICH I CITED IN FULL:

Just give me a scenario how Agrippa I could be associated with Gen 49:10 and Dan 9:26. ANY ARGUMENT AT ALL. I don't care. Just make up something so that you can prove yourself the equal of Adler and Montgomery or instead of showing yourself for what you are - that is someone that can have evidence shown to them which contradicts their presuppositions and choose to ignore that evidence merely because they 'like their theory better.'

WHY DON'T YOU READ THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL BEFORE YOU THINK YOU KNOW MORE THAN THOSE WHO ACTUALLY SAW WHAT ORIGEN WROTE IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTEXT?

Maybe you have the Holy Spirit with you ...

maryhelena

Stephen - the Herodian coins reference two Agrippas. Agrippa I and Agrippa II. The theory that you propose rejects this historical evidence for two Agrippas. I have suggested, in regard to Origen, that because there are two historical Agrippas - that when Origen read his Jewish history - he took the Agrippa that was within the pages of that Jewish history - to be the same Agrippa that was alive around 70 ce. I have further suggested that Agrippa II would never, because of his Herodian bloodline - and the stigma of that bloodline re the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great with its deaths of innocent old and young - be considered a Jewish messiah figure.

I have now stated my rejection of your theory a number of times. I am finding your approach to this discussion to be increasingly unpleasant. So, for me, its time to let this acrimony cease. You have presented your theory re Agrippa II being the *REAL* Messiah - and I have said NO - that I find it lacking.

charles

Hi Mary Helena

I don't mean to get in the middle of this fight between the two of you but the question here has nothing to do with whether or not there were two Agrippas. The question is whether Agrippa I was ever identified with that passage in Daniel? Do you have any evidence to support your claims?