stephan huller

Gee I wonder why Christians would want to cut Agrippa down to size. All you would have to do is talk to Jews from a few generations ago to learn the answer:

The Jews who came after him [Josephus], were willing to supply this defect. They have forged to us an Agrippa descended of Herod, whom the Romans, fay they, put to death a little before the destruction of Jerusalem; and they will have it, that this Agrippa, Christ by his title of king, is the Christ spoken of in Daniel . a fresh proof of their blindness! For besides that this Agrippa can neither be the righteous, nor the holy One, nor the end of the prophecies such as the Christ, whom Daniel pointed out in that place, must have been; besides that the murder of that Agrippa , in which the Jews had no hand, could not be the cause of their desolation, as the death of Daniel's Christ was to be; what the Jews say on this head is all a fable That Agrippa descended of Herod was ever on the side of the Romans: he was always well treated by their emperors, and reigned in a canton of Judea a long time after the taking of Jerusalem as Josephus and other contemporaries attest.
Thus all that the Jews devise to elude the prophecies, serves but to confute them. They themselves do not rely upon so gross fictions, and their best defence consists in that law, which they enacted, to compute no more the days of the Messiah.[Bousset An Universal History p. 261]

[R. Joseph Crooll, a Jewish teacher of Hebrew at Cambridge] first objects to the common rendering of the text 'the Messiah shall be cut off yet not for himself' [Dan 9:26] The Hebrew for the last section is ve-en lo and this our opponent, for very obvious purposes translates 'and not to him' instead of 'yet not for himself' that is, continues he, 'he shall have no successor.' He then proceeds to tell us who this Messiah is of whom it is thus pretended to be asserted that he shall have no successor; and our English readers will be somewhat surprised at finding, that, on the interpretation of the present writer, 'the messiah here alluded to, instead of being our Savior is Agrippa.'
'And this messiah,' says Mr. Crooll 'that was to be cut off was king Agrippa; and so it happened that in the last week, he and his son Monves were slain by the order of Titus.' [Kippis, Godwin The New Annual Register 1815 p. 371]
For though Jews, in opposition to Christians, say that the Messiah mentioned in the 25th verse is Cyrus, and that the Messiah mentioned in the 26th verse means King Agrippa, it is clear that the Messiah spoken of in the 25th verse, is the same Messiah mentioned in the 26th Verse ; the connexion is not in the least broken, nor is there a second person mentioned before the latter part of the 26th verse, when the Roman Emperor is introduced, who is only called prince, and not MESSIAH or ANOINTED. Surely if the petty King Agrippa was worthy of the title anointed, because he was a king, the Emperor of Rome had as great a right to such an appellation. But they say, 'the king was the Lord's anointed,' as David says with regard to Saul, Sam i, 26, 29 for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed. The kings of the Jews were not more the anointed of the Lord after the Babylonish captivity, than the idolatrous kings were the anointed of the Lord, neither can the Messiah of the 25th verse be applied to Cyrus ... nor can the Jews to this day make the Messiah of the 26th verse — shall Messiah be cut off- — apply to King Agrippa, who is said to have been put to death by Vespasian, about four years before the destruction of the temple; for it is evident from the account given by their own historian, Josephus, that he lived many years after the destruction of Jerusalem [Classical Journal, 1822, On the True Age of Christ at the Crucifixion, and the Fulfillment of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel p. 170]
As for the marked expression 'and not for himself' [Daniel 9:26 KJV] Mr. [David] Levi gives a very singular interpretation of it indeed. "Agrippa," fays he, " was put to death by Vespasian about four year* before the destruction of the temple: as was also his son: which is shewn by the words and not to him, ie there shall be no more of him: for since his death, there has been no more kingly power in the Jewish nation to this day' [Letters to the Jews by Joseph Priestly 1787 p. 66]

Jewish writers would have Herod Agrippa intended by the Messiah that was to be cut off, who they say was the last king of the Jews [A collection of sermons and tracts Volume 3 By John Gill 1778 p 338]

the Jews applied it (i.e. 'the prince Dan 9:25) to Herod Agrippa, who was slain shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem [A homiletical commentary on the book of Daniel By Thomas Robinson 1882 p. 197]

Your celebrated Rabbi [Abraham ben] Isaac [a sixteenth century Karaite] in his celebrated treatise entitled the Bulwark of the Faith, says, that the seventy weeks of Daniel are a period of four hundred and ninety years, to be reckoned from the worrd of God to Jeremiah concerning the return from the Babylonish Captivity, or from the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar to its destruction by Titus. He also says, that Messiah, the prince, in the former part of the prophecy means Cyrus, who is called the Messiah, or the anointed, by Isaiah; and that by the Messiah who is to " be cut off," in the latter part of the prophecy is meant the last king of the jews, or Agrippa the younger, who is said by a spurious Josephus (never quoted by any writer before the twelfth century) to have been killed by Vespasian before the taking of the city.[The Theological and Miscellaneous Works of Joseph Priestly Vol 20 1780 p. 242]

Hitler's wiping out of six million Jews changed Judaism. I have said this time and again. When my German Jewish mother and her family meet other people Jews from Poland, Russia, the Ukraine and the like we still call them khazarim. They have as much of Abraham's DNA as some lost tribe in the Amazon. I can provide testimony after testimony from the third, fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries - from the Jews themselves as well Gentiles coming into contact with Jews - that says that Marcus Agrippa was at one time considered to be the real messiah.

The whole structure of the Yosippon - the Hebrew text of Josephus - is based around the idea that Agrippa was the messiah and the Jews blew it because they turned their back on him and he went away.

And yet the structure of all versions of Josephus's account of the Jewish War still demonstrate the truth in spite of the editorial efforts of Europeans.

The bottom line is that the Europeans wanted Jesus as the messiah, a nice, passive, apolitical Jew rather than something dangerous to the European hegemony.

maryhelena

No, I don't think Josephus was an idiot. I think he was a very clever man. But, as you might know from other posts of mine, I have previously asked the question - was Josephus a historical figure. I don't believe he was. I think 'Josephus' is a pen name, a pseudonym. There really is only one historical figure that had the wherewithal to do what Josephus has done ie re-write the Herodian family tree; the Herodian history as it relates to the NT timeline. A re-writing that has enabled the NT storyline, especially the gospel storyline, to maintain a veneer of historicity, a pseudo-history - by the simple device, decoy, of re-arranging Herodian history. Thus, curtailing any historical investigation into early christian origins.

The historical figure using the 'Josephus' pseudonym? Marcus Julius Agrippa, Agrippa II.

maryhelena

Perhaps the 'Jews blew it' because Agrippa II was never a king ruling over Judea. If Agrippa II was viewed in some circles as a messiah figure - then those circles most probably were not 'the Jews'. More likely a mixed bag of people from within the areas of his territory - the previous territory of Philip the Tetrarch, with its capital at Caesarea Philippi. And probably Alexandria if that is where the young son of Philip went prior to Agrippa I becoming King of the Jews - and it's to Alexandria that Agrippa I went on his way back from Rome to take up his rulership in Jerusalem.

Actually, whatever the intrigue re Agrippa II and messianic ideas - its his parentage which is the question I raised in the OP. Because that parentage is itself a key to how he would be viewed in both a secular messianic sense - and more importantly, in a spiritual sense, a spiritual interpretation that would be linked to his father, Philip the Tetrarch. A historical figure that has been the inspiration for the creation of the gospel mythological Jesus storyline.

stephan huller

Agrippa was a descendant of the Hasmonaeans (through Herod's wife Mariamne) and thus of the bloodline of David which is key.

Mariamne was the daughter of the Hasmonean Alexander, a son of Aristobulus II., who was conquered and put to flight by Herod's father, Antipater. Her mother was Alexandra, daughter of the reigning prince Hyrcanus II. When Herod, at that time tetrarch, entered Jerusalem in triumph in 42 B.C., Alexandra sought to bring about the marriage of her daughter to him, hoping thus to avoid the ruin of her house (Josephus, "Ant." xiv. 12, § 1; idem, "B. J." i. 12, § 3). Mariamne bore him three sons, Alexander, Aristobulus, and one who died young, and two daughters, Salampsio and Cypros.

The existing texts of Josephus make Aristobulus Agrippa's GRANDFATHER. They claim that there were TWO Agrippas thereafter. But I don't believe it. The deaths of Alexander and Aristobulus make no sense as Herod would have wanted to keep his two male heirs through the Hasmonaeans alive.

The Coptic tradition makes St. Mark the son of Aristobulus and Salome. That's what I think Agrippa's lineage was. It is possible that Jewish law would have been interpreted in such a way as Philip was obliged to take over Salome after his brother's death. I can explain that if you want.

To those who do not want to acknowledge that some mischief has been perpetrated with regards to the texts of Josephus take the story of the manner of Mariamne's death from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The queen ruled the king completely. This was made manifest when Alexandra insisted that her son, Mariamne's brother, should be made high priest. On the advice of Dellius, the friend of Antony—who wished to give the latter's passion another direction—she sent pictures of her two beautiful children to the Egyptian queen, Cleopatra. Antony had, in fact, designs on the youthful Aristobulus; and since Mariamne also asked the favor of the king, he found himself obliged to make the youth high priest (35 B.C.; "Ant." xv. 2, § 6; "B. J." i. 22, § 3), although, in reality, only to kill him on a suitable occasion. When, later, Herod was obliged to justify before Antony at Laodicea the killing of Aristobulus, he placed Mariamne under the protection of Joseph, his brother-in-law, commanding him to kill her in case he (Herod) should not return alive. As Joseph had occasion to associate a good deal with Mariamne in connection with governmental affairs, he good-naturedly told her of the boundless love the king felt for her and of the secret instructions which Herod had given him. A false report of Herod's death being circulated, Mariamne sought refuge with the Roman legions. Herod, however, was dismissed with the favor of Antony. On his return Salome accused Mariamne of adultery with Joseph. Herod at first would not believe the charge; but it chanced that the queen reproached him for the secret commission he had entrusted to Joseph, and this convinced Herod of the criminality of Joseph and Mariamne. In his anger he caused Joseph to be put to death immediately, and he would have similarly disposed of Mariamne had not his love for her been greater than his anger. He, however, threw Alexandra into prison (34 B.C.) as the instigator of the scandal ("Ant." xv. 3, §§ 5-9; "B. J." i. 22, §§ 4-5).

Falsely Accused by Salome.

In the spring of the year 30, Herod visited Augustus in Rhodes. He left Mariamne and her mother under the protection of a certain Joseph and of the Iturean Sohemus. Again he commanded that his wife should be killed in the event of his death. The king had hoped to find love on his return; instead he found himself hated and avoided. The king's mother and sister found him ready to listen to their slanders. Salome told him that Mariamne sought to poison him. Thereupon the king questioned Mariamne's favorite eunuch, who said he knew nothing of the poison, but that the queen was offended because of what Sohemus had told her in regard to his secret instructions. Sohemus met the same fate as had Herod's brother-in-law,and Herod caused Mariamne to be accused before a tribunal composed of his friends, which pronounced sentence of death. The king and some of the judges did not wish to hasten the execution, desiring merely to put Mariamne in prison; but Salome represented that the people might raise a disturbance and seek to release Mariamne, and the latter was consequently led to death. During the entire route to the place of execution her own mother, Alexandra, desiring to rehabilitate herself in Herod's eyes, reviled her, accusing her of adultery and of ingratitude toward Herod. Mariamne answered not a word, and died calm and composed ("Ant." xv. 6, § 5; 7, § 6), being about twenty-eight years of age (29 B.C.).

Discrepancy in the Sources.

The fact that Mariamne was twice accused under similar circumstances of adultery with the regent, makes it probable that Josephus' account contains some inaccuracies, the more so as the second account is wholly lacking in "B. J." (Destinon, "Di Quellen des Josephus," p. 113). The second account, however, can not be a simple repetition on the part of Josephus of the first, since Josephus himself, in relating the second incident, refers to the first ("Ant." xv. 7, § 1). It is remarkable that Josephus mentions Joseph the second time without any further particulars (ib. 6, § 5), which looks, it is true, as though he had before him two parallel accounts which he tried to combine in this way. According to "B. J.," Mariamne was put to death in the first case—that is, in the year 34. But this is impossible, since she could not have borne five children between the years 37 and 34.

Yet scholars try and rescue the narrative and explain away the impossibility (including the Jewish Encyclopedia) because Josephus is all we have.

I do not think that Alexander and Aristobulus were ever killed by Herod. I think the original story might have had him mistreat his sons but no murder actually occurred. Don't forget that Alexander is 'rediscovered' later in the narrative and then the account (but it is made to be a 'fake' Alexander).

My guess is that the Coptic legend that St. Mark was related to Philo is what is at stake here. Alexander and Aristobulus were brothers. If Alexander lives and goes to Alexandria, then he is Philo's brother Alexander the Alabarch. But that's another story.

Remember I have written that Marcus Julius Agrippa (commonly called Agrippa II) was the historical figure called St. Mark by the Copts.

Josephus writes the name Μαριάμη, adding the inflectional ending to Μαριάμ (= ), the Septuagint form of the name. In some editions of Josephus Μαριάμμη stood with double "μ"; this was dissimilated to "mn" in the Middle Ages, and the name has so remained (S. Pape-Benseler, "Wörterbuch der Griechischen Eigennamen," 3d ed. 1870, s.v.).

maryhelena

Yes, Agrippa II was a descendant from the Hasmonean line. Whether that line runs through Agrippa I, or through his sister Herodias, is the subject of the OP.

Whether or not Herod the Great killed his two sons from the Hasmonean Mariamne is actually a side issue. It does not reflect upon the parentage of Agrippa II. With three Hasmonean heirs, in Agrippa I and the two sons of Alexander, Alexander and Tigranes, he had no need to worry about not having a Hasmonean heir. And with Alexander and Tigranes giving up their Jewish heritage (a strong indication that their father was not alive - their mother, Glaphyra, returned, with her children, to her father, King Archelaus of Cappadocia) leaving the Hasmonean line, in relationship to Herodian rule, in the Aristobulus line. A line that runs not simply from Agrippa I but also from Herodias - especially since, with her marriage to Philip, that it would be her son that would be higher on any Hasmonean/Herodian dynasty log. In contrast, Agrippa II, if his mother was the wife of Agrippa I, Cypros, at best a distant relative - would not have the same heritage factor as he would have as a son of Herodias and Philip.

stephan huller

Hi Mary Helena

Or both. The Herods intermarried so he could theoretically have blood from the line of David from both sides.

Well it does reflect on the parentage, maybe not the ancestry from long ago, but it does affect the parentage. The Jews make Agrippa the son of Aristobulus, the Europeans/Christians the son of another person named Agrippa. Aristobulus was likely also named Agrippa so the question is whether Agrippa is Herod's son or his grandson.

Who knows how true that is. Look at the Frankists and their 'conversion to Christianity' or the Dönmeh and their 'conversion to Islam.' Look at Clement, Origen and the Alexandrian traditions 'conversion' to the Roman-based Church. Oops ...

Who knows what any of that really means.

I say it is impossible to put Humpty Dumpty back together. You either accept what the Europeans make Josephus say or what the Jews say. One or the other.

maryhelena

The issue is Agrippa I or his sister Herodias - Agrippa II is either the son of one or the other - not both....
Stephen - lets be more specific here. When we want to refer to Agrippa, lets say which Agrippa we are referring to. Agrippa I or Agrippa II. Otherwise this discussion is going around in circles! If you don't want there to be an Agrippa I and an Agrippa II then perhaps you need to set out your reasons for doing so. Surely, in this case there are Herodian coins at hand that relate to this two figures. One of these figures was a King of the Jews, ruling Judea, Agrippa I, and the other figure, Agrippa II ruled the territory of Philip the Tetrarch - and did not rule Judea. Tigranes V of Armenia

But your trying very hard re your own take on Agrippa II and messianic speculation around this figure...

The objective, surely, is to unravel Herodian history. You, from the point of view of messianic speculation re Agrippa II - and myself from a perspective of unraveling the gospel storyline re the mythological Jesus figure. Perhaps the two approaches can proceed without either of us having to choose between either a Jewish or a Christian mindset - after all, it's history we are after, not, at least from my side, any theological biases. So let the historical cookie crumble where ever it might - and lets not rule out any perspective that might be fruitful for historical research into Herodian history.

stephan huller

I am Jewish so we have traditionally only accepted one Agrippa. If there errors in Josephus's chronology why should we take seriously any of it beyond a statement belief of 'one tradition.' 'One tradition' says there was a Herodias the sister of Agrippa I. There is no independent confirmation of any of this as I would charge it was the Catholics who preserves THIS VERSION of Josephus's histories (this is not the original) to support the claims of the gospel.

Where is this research going? I don't get it if Josephus is corrupt.

maryhelena

I just looked at the online Jewish Encyclopedia - and it has the 'normal' history re Agrippa I and Agrippa II. Do you have an online link where I could get an understanding of a Jewish position re there being only one Agrippa and not two?

Yes, it's the gospel storyline, a storyline that contains references to Herodian figures, that necessitates that one try and find some historical data re these figures. Josephus being a prime source - albeit a source that itself has to be questioned. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater might prove to be unfortunate....at least for any attempt at recovering early christian origins.

Indeed, from a Jewish perspective there is less need to confront Josephus in the same degree that a christian NT historian would. So, yes, Josephus is first and foremost a christian problem; a problem re investigating the early origins of christianity.

So where is all this going - wherever it can go in order to remove the Josephan roadblock to uncovering the early origins of christianity.

maryhelena

I just had a look at a book I mention in the OP. On Amazon look inside:

So, Stephen, what historians support your view that there was only one Agrippa?