Iskander

Rome won which war? And then they started offering the world a better civilization?

stephan huller

If you like theocracy so much I'd suggest moving to Tehran or Cairo soon.

maryhelena

I have no problem with that - I would just go a step further and link 'Paul' to Agrippa II. ie a late 'Paul'.

But that leave us with the little/big 'problem' of Agrippa I...

Agrippa II is way outside the gospel time frame - and it is that specific time frame that has to be address in any attempt at a reconstruction of early chrisitian history. Agrippa II, like 'Paul', is late to the party.

Early 'Paul' is, to my thinking Philo - and that time slot links Philo to the time Agrippa I.

Yes, Josephus has created a great storyline re Agrippa I - which does not have to be read as literal history. What does have to be taken as history is the Herodian coins that testify to the existence of Agrippa I and Agrippa II.

The Josephan story re Agrippa I is full of messianic symbolism - indicating that it is this figure that he viewed in this light. However, the Josephan messianic symbolism is lumbered with Josephan storytelling....the illogical story of this ne'er-do-well figure that is proclaimed King - proclaimed King by a Roman ruler who, by all accounts was a bit mad himself....

Interestingly, Slavonic Josephus relates that when Herod (Antipas) wanted a royal title that he went to Tiberius - who denied the request - and banished him - and gave his kingdom to Agrippa. ie Agrippa was made King under Tiberius - not as in the Antiquities story under Caligula/Gaius.

Josephus has, in Antiquities, Claudius/Gaius making Agrippa into a King - but along with that he has the whole Joseph in Egypt messianic story. Indicating that more is at foot here than a recording of historical fact.

Josephus says, in our present editions, that Philip the Tetrarch died in the 20th year of Tiberius. Earlier editions say the 22nd year of Tiberius. It is my theory that Philip did not die at that time - instead he became Agrippa I, under Tiberius. A new name, a new identity - and Josephus is free to create the Agrippa I messianic scenario that is now in Antiquities - and a whole new pseudo-historical biography.

Why? A messianic interest seems to have been the motive. Philip, as Agrippa I, eventually becoming King of Judea. Why the Agrippa I pseudo-historical story? Josephus, as a prophetic historian, was on his own mission here...

Josephus has used the Joseph story with his account of Agrippa I.

And the burial place and monument for a messianic figure?

Stephan, the mystery is not over whether there was only one Agrippa or two - the 'mystery' is over Agrippa I and the Josephan tall story over this historical figure. And as such, that 'mystery' leads to Philip the Tetrarch - in whose territory the gospel JC asked his disciples who do they say he is....

footnote: As to Philip having no son when he 'died' , ie prior to becoming Agrippa I - Slavonic Josephus says he had four children. The possibility is then that he had a son after he became Agrippa I.

stephan huller

- why? when was Agrippa born? I've never seen any compelling evidence to establish that. The feeling is that it must have been c. 29 CE but that's based on Josephus. Who knows who or what any of these people were.

see Broadie on the parallels with Mark (Marqe) http://books.google.com/books?id=zqF...page&q&f=false

Mary Helena I've heard most of this before and you don't seem to understand the concept of messiah. The connection in the rabbinic tradition and 'Agrippa' as the messiah of Daniel necessarily assumes that 'Agrippa' was alive in the period immediately leading up to 70 CE. It just doesn't work with a figure 'Agrippa I. Also Agrippa I doesn't fit with Genesis 49:10. He wasn't the last and if he had legitimacy then his son had legitimacy and if his son doesn't have legitimacy it doesn't make sense equating him with the anointed one in Daniel. Also Agrippa I was a friend of the Pharisees (if the stories are to be believed) and hostile to early Christianity. It just doesn't work.

What could possibly have been the basis to Agrippa I being likened to Moses or David for that matter? In Agrippa II's (= Marcus Julius Agrippa) case it is obvious - the destruction of Jerusalem = Ex. 32:27.

We don't even know what Agrippa I's given name was. He couldn't have been the founder of Christianity. Then where is his legacy as the messiah? The Jewish tradition identifies 'Agrippa' as a dualist heretic like Marcion. This can't be Agrippa I. Agrippa I was also married and had children. This conflicts with the portrait of 'Agrippa' in the rabbinic literature and with Mark. It's futile to develop any meaningful insight into Agrippa I.

I have a hard time even believing that there was an Agrippa I - a supposed 'Pharisaic Herodian' (recognizing that Christian authorities like certain Pharisees = Gamailiel). All there is Josephus and the numismatic evidence seen through a Josephan lens. But in any event this Agrippa has nothing messianic about him and certainly can't be the founder of Christianity and can't even be named Mark.

Agrippa I also can't be Marqe of the Samaritan tradition. The Samaritans were very favorable to the Herodians and don't mention a single ruler with hostility. They also have no knowledge of a Pharisaic Herodian named 'Agrippa.'

maryhelena

Cassius Dio stating that the domain of Agrippa of Palestine was extended by Claudius, around 41 c.e. If you are assuming that this is a reference to Agrippa II - then his birth must have been long before 29 c.e....
Stephan that is all interpretation - and other interpretations are possible. I don't think I misunderstand the concept of messiah. I am using that concept in relationship to rulership - not to carpenters from wherever. Josephus has used the Joseph model - a ruler under a ruler, client kings. A man of peace instead of a man of war...

And the gospel JC was not the founder of christianity either - that role went to "Paul', ie to someone who 'read' the historical realities through a prophetic lens. Yes, fine - Agrippa II as a dualist heretic - great...no children, great...The Agrippa I scenario is different. Traditions get mixed up. Schwartz says:

Josephus thought differently......

Bottom line, Stephan, is that we have the reality of the Herodian coins which testify to the historical existence of Agrippa I and Agrippa II.

Yes, the man who developed christian ideas was most probably Agrippa II - but like 'Paul' it was not all in his imagination. The history prior to 'Paul' was relevant - likewise, the history prior to Agrippa II is relevant. And that history includes the history of Agrippa I. The last King of Judea.

Stringbean

Did they end up on trash heaps or in the graveyard of the condemned?

Jews of the period practiced what was known as "Secondary Burial" often times depending on how many people you pissed off or your wealth there are a number of scenarios that could explain the lack of a corpse or corpse's. Popularity was A #1 back then.

The burial practice was where the body would be placed in a tomb (such as the mythical jesus was) and left to rot until the flesh came off the bones then they would bury the bones. If the individual was a crook or a no good scoundrel he could end up in a so called "graveyards of the condemned" or be thrown on a trash heap for the animals to eat.

http://www.facts4u.com/OffSite_Store...JewBuryLaw.htm

The Jews have or had an aversion for the dead which is why no graves or cemeteries would be located near human habitation. Not saying this is what happened to them but it could be considered possible.

stephan huller

The longer it is before 29 CE the better it is for the theory.

But it is not just being a king, the concept of the anointed one is rooted in Deuteronomy. The one to come is ultimately one like Moses. This is demonstrated over and over again by Meeks. He gets this quite right and it is essential to understand the whole concept. The messiah is only like David because David was like Moses. Moses is what is essential. Moses is at the core of the doctrine just like the Pentateuch is all that matters in the Writings. The rest are superfluous. In order to be the messiah you have to be like Moses.

Irrelevant see above. The Joseph thing isn't essential. Joseph presaged Moses. Moses is all that matters. Even Joshua the son of Nun is inferior to Moses.

But Agrippa I wasn't messianic. He's just a footnote in history. If he existed he goes unmentioned by historical writers from outside of Christianity. Agrippa II, his sister Berenice and their rule over the most important period in Jewish history EVER is fundamentally different. Learn Hebrew. Read the Yosippon. You will know that the rabbinic Agrippa the messiah is Agrippa II. There's no other way. Agrippa I goes unmentioned by everyone because he never existed and/or he was utterly insignificant. Agrippa II - the real Agrippa - is enigmatic. At worst he lived off the avails of the women in his family, used them to philosophize/speculate/engage in religious 'gnosticism.' At best he was the messiah, a thoroughly modern or 'urban' Moses

stephan huller

But Agrippa had piles and piles of money. Rich people don't end up buried in garbage dumps. The thought which coming in my mind is the Jewish saying 'may his bones be ground into dust.' Was his tomb demolished and his corpse ground up posthumously?

And here's the point. If you go to an old world mausoleum you see all these rich families and family members competing with one another in death for who has the most spectacular house. How could Agrippa have allowed himself to be out-classed by Herod the Great? How could Herod have had the biggest mausoleum in Judea and Agrippa gets buried next to a beggar?

maryhelena

Stephan, methinks your limiting the messianic concept here. Yes, Moses is important as a model etc. So too is David and so too is Joseph. The messianic concept should not be so narrowly defined to restrict it to just one model. Indeed, no one man is going to reflect all three concepts - but is that not what we have in the gospel JC; a composite figure.

History, which is where we should be at before we start with our interpretations - is important.

Three messiah figures?

1) Antigonus - the warrior King like David.
2) Philip the Tetrarch/Agrippa I - the wise Joseph like King
3) Agrippa II - the Moses like figure. For the Christians.........the prophet of the new covenant.

And the link between them all? Hasmonean blood.

(and for that link - it's back to my old thread:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=289319)

Agrippa I - Agrippa the Great who ruled over more territory than even Herod the Great - a footnote in history - no way, no way.

stephan huller

This is the central problem with many 'mythicists.' They don't understand Judaism. Moses is the end all and be all of Judaism and Samaritanism. If you can't grasp the significance of the person of Moses - both as a mythical and historical concept - all three monotheistic religions will never make sense to you.

The problem is that you haven't read enough of the literature associated with Judaism, Samaritanism, early Christianity and Islam. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, all I can do is recommend to you the classic works of Wayne Meeks on the subject. Even though there are many points of disagreement between myself and Professor Meeks he 'hits it from the front and the back' - to quote the modern American expression - when it comes to the messianic concept.

I don't want this to digress into one of our typical engagements. Just there is nothing more fundamental that the person of Moses to the messianic conception. We can disagree about whether or not Agrippa was the messiah or was really held to be the messiah but the significance of Moses to the messianic question is beyond question to Samaritanism, Judaism, Christianity and early Islam.

Yes there are COMPLIMENTARY theories and traditions. This or that debe will say the messiah will be named this or that. But these are extraneous. Moses is THE MAN as the Samaritans say. He is the man of God, the friend of God, God as man, the apostle, the prophet - indeed all the titles of Mohammed come from literature and tradition associated with Moses for good reason. Moses is God. All the myths about Enoch and Jacob mystically ending up becoming God are mythical presages for the historical appearance of Moses and the establishment of the nation of Israel. The same applies for Joseph.

If we want to establish the 'mythical' basis to Christianity all talk about Dionysus and pagan god is secondary and ultimately inconsequential. Look instead to the symbolism associated with Moses. The letters of Moses name are re-scrambled as 'the name of God.' Moses is king, high priest and prophet to Philo. He lived to the mystical number 120 (which equals the 12 tribes of Israel). Joshua is accorded 110 because he is 'one short' of Moses's glory. I could go on and on but I am afraid it would fall on deaf ears because I happen to be Jewish (you know the argument 'because I am Jewish' I am supposedly 'limited' to the 'myths' of my tradition).

So I will instead cite the critical passage from the Acts of Archelaus to give some historical context but there are countless others in the Patristic, rabbinic literature and the early hadiths. This is only the most explicit. Some historical context. When Mani the Paraclete comes to the (Marcionite) communities of Osroene the argument that is ultimately used to defeat him is that he cannot be the expected Paraclete/messiah WITHIN CHRISTIANITY because he isn't enough like Moses. Notice there is no reference to Davidic lineage, Joseph etc. because it simply doesn't matter. It isn't essential. What is essential is that the Christ is to be 'like Moses' (Deuteronomy 18:18)

In any event there are no less than seventy five references to this conception in the Acts of Archelaus. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0616.htm. Here is only the most explicit exchange: