Freethought & Rationalism Archive

avi · 07-12-2010, 09:03 PM

Field Marshall Kutuzov was the real life general in charge of the army that defeated Napolean's invasion of Russia in 1805.

That's history.

Of interest to this thread, however, is the fact that Kutuzov is also a character in Count Leo Tolstoy's famous novel, War and Peace.

In other words, works of fiction can incorporate real people.

We all know of "interpolations" of the writings of Josephus.
Further, Stephan has written:

Quote:

This is again impossible to explain if Josephus wrote the material from beginning to end (which he certainly didn't). It's a hodge podge of interpretations because its a hodge podge of authors and narratives.

Who are the witnesses to the existence of Josephus? We are confident about Vesalius, and his son, Titus. Right? They both became emperors of the Roman empire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

It was while in Rome, and under Flavian patronage, that Josephus wrote all of his known works.

Which document, attests to the existence of Josephus?

Is it not a little bit strange that a native Aramaic speaking Palestinian Jew, living in Latin speaking Rome, would acquire proficiency, in "old" age, i.e. in his 40's (old for that era) in Greek?

Anyone on the forum begin to learn Greek in his late 40's, and subsequently attain proficiency adequate to write theological arguments in Greek?

Hypothesis:

Josephus is a fake. He is a character in a novel. His existence, associated with Field Marshall Kutuzov (ok, Titus!), a real person, is enacted to provide credibility to "his" writings.

Perhaps there exists a document somewhere, (not Eusebius, please!) which attests to the reality of Josephus' existence......

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It would appear that "Wars of the Jews" was translated into Greek.

Agreed. But, is this simply some colorful storytelling, or is Josephus a real person? If some of his writings are suspect, then, how do we know which components of "his" authorship are genuine, and which are fake? How do we establish his claim to have written "Wars of the Jews", in any language?

avi

Toto · 07-12-2010, 09:32 PM

Josephus is mentioned by Porphyry. There is a picture of a bust that might be him here.

Don't get carried away with thinking every historical character is fictional. Someone wrote Josephus' autobiography, and there seems to be a personality that comes through, and none of the usual indications of pure fiction. Obviously, the author of that autobiography lied a lot, but that's normal.

If we had an autobiography of Jesus, the case for mythicism would be much, much weaker.

stephan huller · 07-12-2010, 10:32 PM

And don't forget we have TWO different identifications of WHO Josephus is. The Christian texts say he is Joseph son of Matthias but the Jews themselves say he is Joseph ben Gorion (יוסף בן גוריון). This is interesting in itself and in my opinion blows out of the water the idea that Josephus was invented. The point is that no matter how corrupt the text of Josephus they all go back to some notion that there was this guy named 'Joseph' who was a leader of the revolt who end up surviving the holocaust that was the recapture of Jerusalem and even ended up writing of defense of his actions during the war.

The situation with Josephus is very complicated. For instance it is always said that because the surviving narratives have Josephus profess his 'love' for Agrippa and claims that Agrippa loved Josephus that this is the historical reality.

But just think about it for a minute. Vita clearly has Josephus on the defensive. The title is a misnomer. It clearly developed out of a defense of his actions during the war. There seem to be real issues that come up over and over again here AND IN THE RABBINIC LITERATURE TOO.

Did he steal corn that belonged to the crown? Did he attack a carriage associated with Agrippa? Did he cause damage to Agrippa's property?

I don't buy the claims that Agrippa and Josephus were friends. First of all, Justus and Josephus HATED one another and Justus was Agrippa's secretary. It seems hard for even to conceive of Agrippa could have been well disposed toward Josephus. First of all it was Tiberius who redeemed Josephus just as Berenice redeemed Justus. Josephus does his best to attack Justus's character in his description of the war but let's just stop and think for a moment - who was Josephus fighting against?

Josephus develops this ridiculous defense that all hell had broken loose and he was just 'holding the fort' until Agrippa came back. I don't buy it. I think Agrippa wanted Josephus dead.

We know so little about the period it is difficult to know WHEN Vita was written but it is definitively the closest thing to an authentic text from Josephus own hand. There is one point in the narrative where Justus seems to be sitting across from Josephus as the former revolutionary defends himself against Justus's charges.

The ending of Vita where Josephus says the bit about how much Agrippa loves him and how Justus was sent packing because of forgery seems to me to be a later addition. I also think people have misread Photius's entry for Justus in his Bibliotheca. It reads:

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.

The narrative is ambiguous. There are a series of 'he' references after the initial discussion of Justus

He (Justus) came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he (Justus) took his name. He (Justus) 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 (Agrippa) kingdom, which was bestowed upon him (Agrippa) by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian.

And then the next line

He died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends.

scholars take to be a reference to Agrippa

He (Agrippa) died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends.

But the next line clearly continues to talk about Justus not Agrippa and moreover the subject of the entry is Justus rather than Agrippa (see below). I read this as:

He (Justus) died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends.

The title of the book does not reference 'the end' of the line of kings which is what one might expect if the author outlived the last king of the Jews. I think it is only a natural reference to Justus's death in the third year of Trajan which would imply that Agrippa outlived his biographer (after all the subject of his book are the kings of the Jews)

We have a lead weight found in the neighborhood of Tiberias mentions his forty-third regnal year (i.e., 97/98) which is pretty close to third year of Trajan. No one knows what happened to Agrippa but I think it was Justus that died in 100 CE. I suspect that Vita dated to the period of Titus's rule when Berenice and Agrippa managed to kill the revolutionary who had been protected by Vespasian's decree. I think later editors added all the biographical details which make people think he lived as long as Justus and Agrippa. But once you start saying 'this is forged' and 'this was added later' without any proof it is difficult task do carry this out effectively.

maryhelena · 07-13-2010, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Maybe its the nerves associated with flying but it seems to me that your last post was (a) an attempt to offer another interpretation of the numerous explanations of Daniel in Josephus's history:

Quote:

But is that not what prophetic interpretations are about - they move with the territory. Consequently, different prophetic interpretations from Josephus are a mark of his willingness to move with the times and not a reflection upon his ability to record history. Josephus is not *just* a historian - to limit him is to limit our understanding and appreciation of his work.

Immediately followed by an acknowledgement that you didn't know what you are talking about:

Again here's the post in its entirety:

The first part offers a different explanation than my argument that someone other than Josephus wrote at least some of the passages which connect Daniel 9:24 - 27 to (a) the time of the Maccabees (b) Herod and (c) the destruction of the temple:

Immediately followed by an acknowledgement that you really don't have a clue about what the original references I am talking about look like, what they say or how this shows that more than one author must have written them:

Quote:

(I was hoping you had the relevant references to hand...)

When I land tomorrow I will try to track down the source on Google Books. But please, stop trying to offer explanations before actually seeing the material ...

Oh, come off it, Stephen. I have not offered any interpretation of Daniel in my previous posts on this thread. And making accussations that I don't know what I am talking about re an interpretation of Daniel that I did not make - is bizarre.

I know that you have your own interpretations re Daniel ch.9 and King Agrippa - well and good. However, interpretations, as I wrote, are anyone's game - applied whenever and wherever. Obviously, because of your own particular interpretation of Daniel. ch 9 - and what that interpretation requires in order to accommodate King Agrippa being viewed as a Jewish messiah figure - your views on the writings of Josephus need to be considered in that light.

OK - so I will offer one argument against your interpretation - an interpretation re the implausibility of it. King Agrippa, acknowledged by historians, was a son of Herod the Great. A descendant through the hasmonean bloodline of Mariamne I. In other words - King Agrippa is a Hasmonean/Herodian. However, here is the real issue. The implausibility of the Jews ever considering a son of Herod the Great as a messiah figure. Herod the Great is a conqueror, a nobody conqueror, who laid siege to Jerusalem and killed thousands of innocent Jewish people, young and old. Herod the Great, unlike Cyrus, cannot be viewed in any shape or form, as a liberator of the Jewish people. As his son, King Agrippa would not be able to remove that stigma resulting from that association. Consequently, any interpretation of Daniel ch.9 that relates to any son of Herod the Great being accepted as a Jewish messiah figure is, to be blunt, ridiculous.

Christianity with its emphasis upon spiritual interpretations would have no issues here re a half Jewish messiah figure - all are one in Christ. Not to say that is what Christianity did re a half Jew - just stating it as an argument re Christianity being more able to handle a half Jewish messiah figure - a son of Herod the Great - than Judaism would. Thus your position that King Agrippa was viewed as a Jewish messiah figure betrays the roots of this contention - it could only have arisen in a Jewish/Christian context and not in a wholly Jewish context.

So, Stephen, if King Agrippa was viewed as a messiah figure by Jews ie not Jewish Christians - then the question does arise as to how this could possibly be so. Perhaps the Jewish people at that time knew something about King Agrippa that allowed them to make the messianic connection. The only possible way out of this, for a Jewish perspective, is the possibility that King Agrippa was not a son of Herod the Great - that King Agrippa the Great was a 'true' Jew - a full blood Hasmonean Jew.

Absurd? Depends upon how one reads Josephus.

mountainman · 07-13-2010, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Irenaeus makes more sense than the Eusebius conspiracy ...

The reliance of scholars upon Irenaeus and Eusebius in matters of the dating of the recently discovered Gnostic gJudas speaks for itself.

maryhelena · 07-13-2010, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Field Marshall Kutuzov was the real life general in charge of the army that defeated Napolean's invasion of Russia in 1805.

That's history.

Of interest to this thread, however, is the fact that Kutuzov is also a character in Count Leo Tolstoy's famous novel, War and Peace.

In other words, works of fiction can incorporate real people.

We all know of "interpolations" of the writings of Josephus.
Further, Stephan has written:

Quote:

This is again impossible to explain if Josephus wrote the material from beginning to end (which he certainly didn't). It's a hodge podge of interpretations because its a hodge podge of authors and narratives.

Who are the witnesses to the existence of Josephus? We are confident about Vesalius, and his son, Titus. Right? They both became emperors of the Roman empire.

Which document, attests to the existence of Josephus?

Is it not a little bit strange that a native Aramaic speaking Palestinian Jew, living in Latin speaking Rome, would acquire proficiency, in "old" age, i.e. in his 40's (old for that era) in Greek?

Anyone on the forum begin to learn Greek in his late 40's, and subsequently attain proficiency adequate to write theological arguments in Greek?

Hypothesis:

Josephus is a fake. He is a character in a novel. His existence, associated with Field Marshall Kutuzov (ok, Titus!), a real person, is enacted to provide credibility to "his" writings.

Perhaps there exists a document somewhere, (not Eusebius, please!) which attests to the reality of Josephus' existence......

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It would appear that "Wars of the Jews" was translated into Greek.

Agreed. But, is this simply some colorful storytelling, or is Josephus a real person? If some of his writings are suspect, then, how do we know which components of "his" authorship are genuine, and which are fake? How do we establish his claim to have written "Wars of the Jews", in any language?

avi

The simple answer would be that 'Josephus' is a pen name - a pseudonym. Thus, it's not a case of there being a historical person named Josephus - but that the name 'Josephus' is the name that the author of Antiquities etc has given to his writings. An assumed 'third party' through which an author tells his tale. Thus more able to mix up the facts of history with a prophetic interpretation of those facts. Reality and illusion. History and a 'salvation' history. Which really, when all is said and done - is what one finds within the pages of the OT.

avi · 07-13-2010, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Josephus is mentioned by Porphyry.

Toto, thank you for your reply.

As I understand it, Porphyry was born more than one and a third centuries after "Josephus'" death.

That would be analogous to my mentioning Nikola Tesla, as if I knew something about his life.

What would be helpful here, in this thread, is a list of the documents, the ones actually extant, not third party docs, written by either Josephus or Porphyry, since you cite him as a witness to Josephus, 135 years after the latter's death.

To read arguments over interpretations of what Josephus did or did not intend to explain about early Christianity, seems to me futile, absent such a thorough scrutiny of the actual documents.

I simply cannot accept, notwithstanding his criticisms of Christianity, an attestation of Josephus' supposed historicality by "Porphyry", whose own compositions, so far as I can establish, are fragmentary at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The simple answer would be that 'Josephus' is a pen name - a pseudonym. Thus, it's not a case of there being a historical person named Josephus - but that the name 'Josephus' is the name that the author of Antiquities etc has given to his writings. An assumed 'third party' through which an author tells his tale. Thus more able to mix up the facts of history with a prophetic interpretation of those facts. Reality and illusion. History and a 'salvation' history. Which really, when all is said and done - is what one finds within the pages of the OT.

Thank you for this thoughtful reply to my question of the credibility of "Josephus". I don't know if a pen name represents the "simplest" answer to the question of authorship of writings attributed to "Josephus". I would have thought that "Josephus" could well be another character in the yarn.

avi

maryhelena · 07-13-2010, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Josephus is mentioned by Porphyry.

Toto, thank you for your reply.

As I understand it, Porphyry was born more than one and a third centuries after "Josephus'" death.

That would be analogous to my mentioning Nikola Tesla, as if I knew something about his life.

What would be helpful here, in this thread, is a list of the documents, the ones actually extant, not third party docs, written by either Josephus or Porphyry, since you cite him as a witness to Josephus, 135 years after the latter's death.

To read arguments over interpretations of what Josephus did or did not intend to explain about early Christianity, seems to me futile, absent such a thorough scrutiny of the actual documents.

I simply cannot accept, notwithstanding his criticisms of Christianity, an attestation of Josephus' supposed historicality by "Porphyry", whose own compositions, so far as I can establish, are fragmentary at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The simple answer would be that 'Josephus' is a pen name - a pseudonym. Thus, it's not a case of there being a historical person named Josephus - but that the name 'Josephus' is the name that the author of Antiquities etc has given to his writings. An assumed 'third party' through which an author tells his tale. Thus more able to mix up the facts of history with a prophetic interpretation of those facts. Reality and illusion. History and a 'salvation' history. Which really, when all is said and done - is what one finds within the pages of the OT.

Thank you for this thoughtful reply to my question of the credibility of "Josephus". I don't know if a pen name represents the "simplest" answer to the question of authorship of writings attributed to "Josephus". I would have thought that "Josephus" could well be another character in the yarn.

avi

Quite, 'Josephus' is another character in the yarn - but naming the author of the literature by the name of a character within it - is, tantamount to being a pen name, pseudonym, for the actual author. So, outside of Antiquities etc, 'Josephus' did not exist. But someone using the pen name of 'Josephus' did exist. Someone who had the wherewithal to re-write Hasmonean/Herodian history - and get away with it. Sounds like an inside job to me...

All the more so when it is apparent that the history of Justus of Tiberius (seemingly secretary to Agrippa II) went missing - after it got published after the death of Agrippa II. 'Josephus' and his re-write of history - or to be charitable, his interpretation of history - had friends in high places....

mountainman · 07-13-2010, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I simply cannot accept, notwithstanding his criticisms of Christianity, an attestation of Josephus' supposed historicality by "Porphyry", whose own compositions, so far as I can establish, are fragmentary at best.

G'Day avi,

I have taken this list from another list Testimonium Flavianum - A chronological summary of its Censure

The list originally refered to the "early christian writers etc" who failed to mention the TF.
However it discloses who was aware of Josephus ....
I have bolded some definite "runners" ....

0093: Eusebius cites Josephus Flavius - 20 book "Antiquity of the Jews"; Major ref to Jesus in Antiquities 18.3.3; with 20.9.1 (Minor Ref))

0160: Eusebius cites Justin Martyr who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF.
0160: Eusebius cites Pseudo-Justin who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF. (are these two authors distinct?)

0179: Eusebius cites Melito of Sardis - no mention of the TF
0180: Eusebius cites Theophilus Bishop of Antioch - no mention of the TF.
0190: Eusebius cites Irenaeus, saint and compiler of the New Testament, has not a word about the TF.

0200: Eusebius cites Clement of Alexandria, influential Greek theologian, prolific writer, head of the Alexandrian school - nothing about the TF.
0220: Eusebius cites Julius Africanus, a prominent chronographer from Emmaus - is silent about the TF.
0220: Eusebius cites Tertullian, early literary apologist/polemicist against unorthodox heresy - is silent about the TF.
0220: Eusebius cites Hippolytus (170-235), saint and martyr, nothing about the TF.

0230: Eusebius cites Origen (185-254), no mention of the TF and specifically states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."

0250: Eusebius cites Minucius Felix, lawyer and Christian convert - no mention of the TF.
0270: Eusebius cites Anatolius (230-c. 270/280) - no mention of TF.
0290: Jerome cites Methodius of Olympus - comprehensive philosophical education, important theologian; prolific author - no Ref.

So it may be that Justin, Pseudo-Justin and Origen also say stuff about Josephus.
However avi, having said this, behind all these "authors" is Eusebius (or Pseudo-Eusebius

).
And you may know my opinion about this "researcher".

It may well be a productive exercise to contemplate the historicity or otherwise (ie: null historicity) of certain alleged "historical authors" (Jesus was the author of the Agbar correspondence wasn't he?).

Good questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Josephus is mentioned by Porphyry.

Porphyry's books were obviously in the hands of the christians (before they were burnt).
We can rest assured that Porphyry was one of the twelve disciples of Plotinus and that
he preserved the "Enneads" of Plotinus, and other works including Euclid. But my bet is
that much of what remains of Porphyry's polemical insults against Christianity were simply
forged by Eusebius, so that the gangster Constantine could justifiably burn the works of
Porphyry, which at that time c.312 CE represented the most recent plateau of the lineage
of neoplatonic / neopythagorean thought. The later 4th century conception of the Holy
Trinity for example was "borrowed" more or less from the philosophical principles of Plotinus.

avi · 07-13-2010, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The later 4th century conception of the Holy Trinity for example was "borrowed" more or less from the philosophical principles of Plotinus.

Thank you Pete. Well done.

Some would argue that trinitarianism is derived from the even earlier Greek philosopher of distinction: Plato

On the other hand, we do encounter this in Matthew 28:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by King James Version:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

πορευθεντεϲ μαθητευϲατε πα τα τα εθνη βαπτι
ζοντεϲ αυτουϲ · ειϲ το ονομα του πρϲ και του ϋϊου
και του αγιου πνϲ ˙ Codex Sinaiticus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hort&Westcott

poreuqenteV oun maqhteusate panta ta eqnh baptizonteV autouV eiV to onoma tou patroV kai tou uiou kai tou agiou pneumatoV

avi

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

07-12-2010, 09:32 PM	#22
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Josephus is mentioned by Porphyry. There is a picture of a bust that might be him here. Don't get carried away with thinking every historical character is fictional. Someone wrote Josephus' autobiography, and there seems to be a personality that comes through, and none of the usual indications of pure fiction. Obviously, the author of that autobiography lied a lot, but that's normal. If we had an autobiography of Jesus, the case for mythicism would be much, much weaker.

07-12-2010, 10:32 PM	#23
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And don't forget we have TWO different identifications of WHO Josephus is. The Christian texts say he is Joseph son of Matthias but the Jews themselves say he is Joseph ben Gorion (יוסף בן גוריון). This is interesting in itself and in my opinion blows out of the water the idea that Josephus was invented. The point is that no matter how corrupt the text of Josephus they all go back to some notion that there was this guy named 'Joseph' who was a leader of the revolt who end up surviving the holocaust that was the recapture of Jerusalem and even ended up writing of defense of his actions during the war. The situation with Josephus is very complicated. For instance it is always said that because the surviving narratives have Josephus profess his 'love' for Agrippa and claims that Agrippa loved Josephus that this is the historical reality. But just think about it for a minute. Vita clearly has Josephus on the defensive. The title is a misnomer. It clearly developed out of a defense of his actions during the war. There seem to be real issues that come up over and over again here AND IN THE RABBINIC LITERATURE TOO. Did he steal corn that belonged to the crown? Did he attack a carriage associated with Agrippa? Did he cause damage to Agrippa's property? I don't buy the claims that Agrippa and Josephus were friends. First of all, Justus and Josephus HATED one another and Justus was Agrippa's secretary. It seems hard for even to conceive of Agrippa could have been well disposed toward Josephus. First of all it was Tiberius who redeemed Josephus just as Berenice redeemed Justus. Josephus does his best to attack Justus's character in his description of the war but let's just stop and think for a moment - who was Josephus fighting against? Josephus develops this ridiculous defense that all hell had broken loose and he was just 'holding the fort' until Agrippa came back. I don't buy it. I think Agrippa wanted Josephus dead. We know so little about the period it is difficult to know WHEN Vita was written but it is definitively the closest thing to an authentic text from Josephus own hand. There is one point in the narrative where Justus seems to be sitting across from Josephus as the former revolutionary defends himself against Justus's charges. The ending of Vita where Josephus says the bit about how much Agrippa loves him and how Justus was sent packing because of forgery seems to me to be a later addition. I also think people have misread Photius's entry for Justus in his Bibliotheca. It reads: 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. The narrative is ambiguous. There are a series of 'he' references after the initial discussion of Justus He (Justus) came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he (Justus) took his name. He (Justus) 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 (Agrippa) kingdom, which was bestowed upon him (Agrippa) by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. And then the next line He died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. scholars take to be a reference to Agrippa He (Agrippa) died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. But the next line clearly continues to talk about Justus not Agrippa and moreover the subject of the entry is Justus rather than Agrippa (see below). I read this as: He (Justus) died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. The title of the book does not reference 'the end' of the line of kings which is what one might expect if the author outlived the last king of the Jews. I think it is only a natural reference to Justus's death in the third year of Trajan which would imply that Agrippa outlived his biographer (after all the subject of his book are the kings of the Jews) We have a lead weight found in the neighborhood of Tiberias mentions his forty-third regnal year (i.e., 97/98) which is pretty close to third year of Trajan. No one knows what happened to Agrippa but I think it was Justus that died in 100 CE. I suspect that Vita dated to the period of Titus's rule when Berenice and Agrippa managed to kill the revolutionary who had been protected by Vespasian's decree. I think later editors added all the biographical details which make people think he lived as long as Justus and Agrippa. But once you start saying 'this is forged' and 'this was added later' without any proof it is difficult task do carry this out effectively.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.