stephan huller

Well after discovering that people at this forum can consider themselves 'experts' on material they haven't even read, I don't feel any shame in developing a theoretical thread on how the THEOLOGY of Marcus Julius Agrippa as the viceroy of Jesus might have appeared in history.

I feel no shame in doing this as no one seems to have to know what they are talking about here to have an opinion AND besides - I want to demonstrate AT LEAST THEORETICALLY how a 'mythical Jesus' (or at least that's how the divine Jesus is referenced here) is fully compatible with a messianic tradition which incorporates Jesus into its milieu dating from the first century.

Of course people have to know SOMETHING about the Mosaic tradition out of which this new messianic tradition 'Christianity' developed. I know that most people don't have that knowledge, that they don't appreciate how the Jewish and Samaritans unfold quite rationally from their first principles but here goes anyway.

Look at the start of Deuteronomy 33. Moses became King upon the revelation and acceptance of the Torah.

No Torah, no King. No King, no Torah. No King, no nation. No Torah, no nation. No Torah, no Tamid. No Torah, no Mikdash.

Look at the end of the chapter.

Israel is saved by God. God is the Saviour. Moses is the means of salvation. The successor to Moses is the means of salvation.

Go back to the start.

It says Moses became King upon the unification of all the tribes of Israel. His successor is to unify the tribes.

What does the Yosippon (the Hebrew Josephus) say caused the destruction? At great length, it says it was the use of the Temple and the Torah by the Zealots for the aggrandisement of their Stalinist Godless utopia, and the aggrandisement of the sacred Party.

Agrippa wasn’t just killed, he was killed by malicious divisive slander fuelled by this Godless utopian vision. This is like what killed Jesus, only worse.

Come back to the question of Moses’s successor. This is to be Judah.

“And this is Judah’s”.(Deut 33:7) Judah was not a second Moses, and the person from Judah envisaged is not necessarily equal to Moses. This is because the Torah is still accessible.

This Torah is, however, imperfect. The perfected Torah or fully accessible Torah was brought by Agrippa, the second and greater Moses. Like Moses, he was Lawgiver, Priest, Prophet in the full degree, and King.

Jesus was, according to the Alexandrian conception the Logos, He remained Priest in the Heavenly Tabernacle. Agrippa’s status was like that of the King from Judah or Joseph and Priest not descended from Aaron mentioned in the Psalms. His existence was needed for the functioning of the earthly Tabernacle.

No Agrippa, no Temple service. His actual presence was needed on the day when the King read from the Torah.

Agrippa was the only King to have been commissioned by Jesus. No-one else from the tribe of Judah could have that status. Agrippa might not have been killed a week before the end of the Tamid, but his removal would have been enough. The presence of some other King descended from Judah would not have been enough because such a person could only function under the old Torah, and the old Torah had been superseded. No-one could be appointed by Agrippa because he was kept out of the way somehow. The sole person appointed by him, Monobaz, had been moved away and couldn’t appoint anyone.

If we go back to our discussion of Daniel I noted that after the word “will be cut off” (one word in Hebrew), there are two words, .ואין לו These words have two meanings. First, “he won’t have anything” or “he won’t have it” That means (a) he won’t have a designated successor, (b) he won’t function in the role of Anointed. Second, it means “he won’t be there any more”, meaning he will have gone away or vanished.

We can see how Monobaz could be called Agrippa’s son in this context. He was appointed to the role that would have been inherited by Agrippa’s son. As for saying they were both killed, this is for convenience, to avoid a long explanation. Besides, it’s true, since they were both made unable to function as the King in the Temple. This would have been done by stopping them from going back from Rome to Jerusalem. It might also have been made certain by some form of physical mutilation.

What has been described as the role of the King was carried out by Baba Rabba, the leader of the Samaritans in the fourth century. He, too, was stopped from functioning by being detained in the Roman capital.

I conclude that there was a form of Christianity incompatible with what later became the Catholic Church. In this form, Jesus the Priestly King of the Psalms. The Anointed King was Agrippa. While Agrippa was King the new Torah was compatible with the observances of the old Torah. He was the successor as Priestly King. Upon his death or disappearance without any successor, the Tamid service ended and the Temple was destroyed. The new and the old had become incompatible. The new wine had split the old wineskin.

I conclude that a form of Christianity and Judaism is argued for at length in the Yosippon, and that this is the purpose of the book. The purpose is well disguised. The reader is given signposts, but you have to take notice.

First, Agrippa states a lot of this at length in his speech, Titus gives more of it, and the anonymous author says the same at even greater length. Second, you have to work out how Monobaz could have been Agrippa’s son. The statement itself can’t be missed. (Though everyone passes over it, as the author knew they would). You have to work out how their absence from Jerusalem was equivalent to their death. (The author knew everyone pass over this too). Third, the connection between the death of Agrippa and the end of the Tamid and the destruction is explicit. The reader has to work out what the connection is, but the fact of the connection is utterly certain. Third, the identification of Agrippa with the Anointed of Daniel is not only explicit, but connected with the end of the Tamid.

The author belonged to a movement with a lot of members. There were the Priests that discontinued the Tamid service. There was the person that put the statement in the Tosefta about Monobaz being Agrippa’s son. The editor of the Sifre on Numbers agrees with the speeches by Agrippa and Titus. Everyone Jewish authority except Sa’adya accepts the position of Agrippa. (Maimonides avoids the question, but his silence tells a lot). This means a part of this structure must have been accepted by nearly everyone. Such agreement amongst Jews is unheard of.

Almost all early Christian authorities agree with the Jewish authorities. This is absolutely unheard of.

This almost unanimous Christian position and Jewish position is the relic of the religion differing from both later Judaism and later Christianity posited by you. It has survived because ON ITS OWN it seems innocuous. Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism accepts the impossibility of re-building the Temple except by Divine help and even then without the sacrifices. Maimonides says explicitly that the sacrifices have ended forever. The Samaritans agree with the Jews that the sacrifices have ended forever.

No explanation is given by Samaritans or Jews.

Transient

Blimey mate - I got indigestion trying to read that.
So what are you trying to say? That there was some dude called "Jesus" (Yahashua or whatever) who said the stuff attributed to him in the gospels - stuff like "I am the way the truth and the life - no man may come to the father but by me" or do you consider most of what is in the gospels to be fiction?

stephan huller

That Christianity doesn't have to be about Jesus. Mark could have been secretly writing about himself and his own messianic claims

Transient

Ah I get you. So could be anyone falsely claiming to be god on earth then.
Well wouldn't matter I guess cause it would still be fiction unless you subscribe to the theory that the god of the Jews is real - do you? (never seen you answer that question yet)

stephan huller

No I am saying Mark was writing about being the Messiah. Jesus was his God. That's the early Alexandrian understanding.

I am not a religious Jew so no I do not venerate whatever Jews understand to be God.

I respect tradition in the same way I give my seat to old ladies on the bus. Its a habit.

charles

I'm not interest in your personal beliefs. We can all believe what we want to believe. What I curious to find out is whether you are saying that Marcus Agrippa is 'Mark.' Is that what you are saying. It's hard to follow the argument.

stephan huller

Yes that is what I am suggesting through all of this. I have been trying to explain to people here that since Jesus is not responsible for any of the documents associated with Christianity it really doesn't matter if he was 'born of woman' (i.e. was a physical human being).

The question isn't 'what is Jesus all about.' But what does Mark want us to think about Jesus? How has the original author framed the experience for us?

To put it modern terms the gospel is a Fellini film rather than a serious documentary. Things are not what they appear to be. Everything is exaggerated, twisted - the perspective altered - and yes 'mythical.'

Before I get too far I should emphasize that the rabbinic tradition is already prepared for the idea that Ezra really wrote the Torah.

It has been taught: R. Jose said: Had Moses not preceded him, Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Torah for Israel.

As such - and this is key - the Torah IS NOT REALLY what it appears to be. I am a Jew that happens to come from a very mystically inclined tradition. The Torah DISGUISES itself as a story of what happened in the past but it is really a story of WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE - through allegory.

That's why Ezra's authorship is so important. It's the key to every thing. The real story - the hidden story that no one wants to let you in on - is that the Torah is really Ezra writing about what was happening in his own day (i.e. the return of Israel back to the land in the Persian period).

The point again is that you don't have to take my word for it. Look at the whole citation in the Babylonian Talmud:

It has been taught: R. Jose said: Had Moses not preceded him, Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Torah for Israel. Of Moses it is written, And Moses went up unto God, and of Ezra it is written, He, Ezra, went up from Babylon. As the going up of the former refers to the [receiving of the] Law, so does the going up of the latter. Concerning Moses, it is stated: And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments; and concerning Ezra, it is stated: For Ezra had prepared his heart to expound the law of the Lord [his God] to do it and to teach Israel statutes and judgments. And even though the Torah was not given through him, its writing was changed through him, as it is written: And the writing of the letter was written in the Aramaic character and interpreted into the Aramaic [tongue]. And again it is written, And they could not read the writing nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. Further, it is written: And he shall write the copy [mishneh] of this law, — in writing which was destined to be changed. Why is it called Ashshurith? — Because it came with them from Assyria.[BT Sanhedrin 21b - 221a]

I don't know what I have to do to explain matters to people. We're still too white in our interpretation of things here. It is like a referendum on 'whether we believe in God or not' or 'whether the things described in the gospel are literally true' and the like.

It's so stupid. These questions show that the critics are as stupid as the believers. You're swimming the same European fishbowl. You just don't get it and probably never will.

Ezra was a priest, he wasn't a king. He wrote the first Torah but the Torah to come would be written by the messiah.

But Jesus didn't write the gospel which was the second Torah. Mark did.

So in order to have this fit within the parameters set from the beginning. In order for this gospel to be taken seriously by anyone, Mark was ...

And before I give away the ending in the same way that the Torah isn't really about Moses but about Ezra, the gospel isn't about Jesus but the beloved disciple. The discovery of the Mar Saba document makes clear that the Alexandrian tradition originally held that Mark manufactured their liturgy. He was a messianic figure. Meyer has already suggested that Mark was the neaniskos in LGM 1.

I think he's right.

But it is in the later Alexandrian and Coptic tradition that you get the explicit confirmation that he was Christ.

The understanding is IMPLICIT in the Passio Petri Sancti when Pope Peter I (d 311 CE) is kneeling in the Martyrium of St. Mark and it is EXPLICIT in the writings of the great Coptic historian Severus Al'Ashmunein.

Just as Severus reminds us that the various Patriarchs of Alexandria "sat upon his episcopal throne, one after another, each of them succeeding his predecessor; and thus all were his representatives, and the shepherds of his flock, and his imitators in his faith in Christ.” Who is this Christ? As Severus again notes it might be Mark for he writes in his Homilies of St. Mark that "St. Mark the apostle and servant of Jesus Christ has appeared among all creatures like the mustard seed (which speaks the Gospel), which grows and becomes a huge tree, so that the birds come to rest on its branches and get away from his shadow, because, although our Lord Jesus Christ (may he be glorified!) have wanted to nominate himself for this comparison, however, can also apply the meaning to St. Mark, this shining light, for those who follow Christ are themselves Christs and other members of Christ." [Homily on St. Mark 1 p.7]

I don't think people at this site get it. All of you are fighting your European ancestors. You are railing that they corrupted the gospel, the writings of the New Testament and the Patristic writers.

I get that but it is inconsequential because you're not getting the GREATER CONTEXT.

The Torah isn't really about Moses and the ancient Israelites as much as it is a disguised story about Ezra, the people of his day and their hope for the coming of the royal messiah who would fully liberate them from foreign rule.

The gospel isn't as much about Jesus and whether he was the Christ as it is about the fulfillment of the original expectation started by Ezra. The Gospel of Jesus, the title of the book sets the stage for all that follows. Jesus is (secretly) announcing someone else as the messiah.

Who is this someone? He is the neaniskos, Mark, the author of the book.

No wonder Daniel 9:24 - 27 is at the heart of the Little Apocalypse. The history books that were being written in the period would make absolutely clear what Jesus was pointing to.

After all Marcus Agrippa had mandated the interpretation of Daniel 9:24 - 27 and so the same tradition is preserved in both Jewish and Christian sources. It all (secretly) pointed to him. He was the messiah and it doesn't matter one iota whether Jesus was 'real,' 'mythical' or a pizza pie.

The original gospel ends with Christ sitting enthroned IN THIS WORLD. Jesus died before the ending of the gospel.

Do the math.

I hope that answers your question.

Transient

But then, whilst it might be some Jewish tradition, it is nonetheless fiction, and as such not of much use to our daily lives - just useful for amusement I guess, to some at any rate.
Stuff was written to explain things that happened in a way that might bring hope to the people and also to keep them under control.
I do not find what the american indians believed about spirits very interesting at all, neither do I enjoy reading about the ridiculous traditions of the Australian aborigines.
I am interested in things that may help me in my daily life - I follow these discussions to try to balance my long indoctrination into christianity.
I am not interested in fiction much at all.

stephan huller

Well that's my take on Christianity. If I could liken it to an incident that happened to me when picking up my son three days ago. The teacher told me he and someone else got into a minor altercation. I kept asking my three year old what happened. The answers weren't entirely 'fictitious' - i.e. they weren't 'lies.' There seemed to be some true elements but it was impossible to form a clear idea about what actually happened.

Then I picked him up yesterday I asked the teacher if anything happened. No was the answer. She was with him all day and he was good as gold. All at once another boy shouted that there was a fight and everyone got shot and died.

That was a fiction.

I couldn't stop laughing but then all at once another boy came forward and hit me. Apparently all this talk about fighting got the best of him.

My point is that we should be careful throwing around terminology like 'fiction.' Even myth or mythos isn't exactly correct. It isn't a historia either. I think ainos (fable, story with encoded meaning) comes closest (although the gospel wasn't sung).

Read Gregory Nagy, Pindar's Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (or via: amazon.co.uk)

But it was also related to the historia.

The gospel of Mark functions especially like an ainos. 'Fiction' isn't quite accurate. There are true elements mixed with fabulous but buried within the whole narrative is an encoded message.

charles

What do the Samaritans say about the prophesy of Daniel?