Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 07-09-2010, 12:23 PM

The Herodian history of the NT timeline that has been recorded by Josephus is not above question. Particularly in regard to the life of Philip the Tetrarch. The gospels of Mark and Matthew state that Philip was married to Herodias. Josephus says it was Salome, the daughter of Herodias that was married to Philip.

Quote:

Josephus Antiquites book 18, ch.5

But Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husband's brother by the father's side, he was tetrarch of Galilee , her daughter Salome was married to Philip, the son of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis; and as he died childless, Aristobulus, the son of Herod, the brother of Agrippa, married her; they had three sons, Herod, Agrippa, and Aristobulus;

Josephus Antiquities book.18, ch.4, on the death of Philip the Tetrarch.

He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp. His principality Tiberius took, (for he left no sons behind him,) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave order that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrac

Nikos Kokkinos has questioned Josephus on this marriage of Salome to Philip. His position is that Josephus is in error here and that it was Herodias that was married to Philip.

Quote:

Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter
in the Death of John the Baptizer:
A (Christian) Theological Strategy?
JBL, Volume 125, No.2
Ross Kraemer

Josephus and the Gospel writers provide different names for the husband whom Herodias left to marry Antipas. Josephus says quite clearly that Herodias left Antipas’s own brother, another son of Herod the Great and Mariamme, who was also named Herod, while Mark and Matthew say that the prior husband was named Philip. All manuscripts of Mark and most of the major ancient witnesses for Matthew attribute the name of Philip to the brother of Herod Antipas.

Major witnesses to Luke also lack the name of Philip. Various explanations have been proposed for this apparent discrepancy. Scholars seeking to harmonize Josephus and the Gospels have sometimes postulated a person known both as Herod and as Philip. Others have taken Mark’s ascription of the name Philip to be erroneous and an indication that the entire account is improbable. Although he seems to have no a priori commitment to the reliability of the Gospels, Kokkinos accepts the Markan claim that Herodias’s husband prior to Antipas was named Philip, but thinks this Philip was not the otherwise unattested “Herod Philip” but rather the well-attested Philip the
Tetrarch.

Slavonic Josephus states that Herodias was married to Philip - and that Philip had four children.

Quote:

Josephus' Jewish war and its Slavonic version
(or via: amazon.co.uk)

And when he had spoken thus, Philip passed
away by evening and his domain was given to
Agrippa. And his wife Herodias was taken by
Herod, his brother.......
.......”for you are not raising seed for your brother but
satisfying your carnal lust and committing
adultery, since there are 4 children of his own”.

After his death in 33 ce (Kokkinos) Philip’ territory became part of the province of Syria - but with the tributes from it collected and laid up in that tetrarch. Within a few years Philip’ territory was given to Agrippa I. At his death in 44 ce, his son was deemed to be too young to rule. Later, in 48 ce the son of Agrippa I was given the principality of Chalcis. In 53 ce he was deprived of this rule and given the tetrarchy of Philip.

Two interesting points here. 1 Herod of Chalcis had three son, two by Berenice (daughter of Agrippa I) and yet the son of Agrippa I was deemed to be the one to rule this territory (albeit for a relatively short time). 2. The son of Agrippa I never inherited the whole of the kingdom of Agrippa I (he was never king of Judea). All he inherited was the tetrarchy of Philip.

Agrippa I had a coin minted in the second year of his rule (37/38 ce). A coin that depicts a young Agrippa II - son of the king - riding a horse. If there is any symbolism here in regard to the horse - then it could indicate a relationship with Philip. The name ‘Philip’ being a lover or friend of horses.

Quote:

Agrippa First: The Last King of Judaea: Daniel R Schwartz (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Page 56

3. In an inscription found in the Auranitis, formerly part of Philip’s territory, one of “lord King Agrippa’s” subjects celebrates his “return”. As this Agrippa’s father’s name is not given (which would have been expected if Agrippa II were meant) and as we have no record of any particularly note-worthy “return” of Agrippa II, it seems likely that this inscription refers to Agrippa I - who has now returned from prison to monarchy:

A return from prison deemed a cause of celebration? Hardly. If however, Agrippa II is the son of Philip - then his “return” to Philip’ territory as its new ruler would be a cause of celebration. Philip being a ruler that was greatly esteemed.

As is evident, on the death of Philip, there was no continuation by any heir. If, at such time, Philip’ son was very young then a period of rule from Syria would be on the cards. Leaving the tributes from within the territory being collected for a later “return” of Philip’ heir. Possibly, since Philip’ son is also the son of Herodias, sister of Agrippa I, and with the Herodian/Hasmonean bloodline in view, Agrippa I took over the raising of this child. Philip’ son would be a grandson of Herod the Great - thus higher on the inheritance log than the sons of Herod of Chalice (re that territory going first to Agrippa II) - or, for that matter, of any sons of Agrippa I, if he had any sons.

Recently, in another thread, a quote was made from John Malalas:.

Quote:

In his grief King Herod, the son of Philip, came from Judea, and a certain wealthy woman, living in the city of Paneas, called Bernice, approached him, wishing to set up a statue to Jesus, for she had been healed by him. As she did not dare to do this without imperial permission, she addressed a petition to King Herod, asking to set up a golden statue to the Saviour Christ in that city.

Another quote that raises questions re the paternity of Agrippa II is this one:
Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs "

Quote:

My lord Caesar, what do you care for a twopenny-halfpenny Jew like Agrippa?... I accuse them of wishing to stir up the entire world... They are not of the same nature as the Alexandrians, but live rather after the fashion of the Egyptian... I am neither a slave nor a girl-musician's son but gymnasiarch of the glorious city of Alexandria, but you [Agrippa] are the cast-off son of the Jewess Salome!

The wife of Agrippa I, and the mother of Agrippa II, according to Josephus was named Cypros. (Herodias was the granddaughter of a Salome - so possibly could have had both names....)

If Agrippa II is the son of Philip the Tetrarch when would he likely to have been born. There is a coin minted by Philip in the 34th year of his reign with the inscription “of Philip the Tetrarch, Founder”. In 30/31 ce Philip rebuilt the village of Bethsaida and renamed it Bethsaida Julius.

Quote:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20769141

Nikos Kokkinos

The Foundation of Bethsaida-Julias by Philip the Tetrarch

Josephus (Ant. 18.27) explicitly names Julia 'the daughter' of Augustus, distinguished from Livia/Julia 'the wife', as the person to whom the town of Bethsaida was dedicated. This must have taken place by 2 BCE when Julia was banished, denounced for multiple adulteries. The numismatist A. Kindler suggested that Josephus may be wrong and that Livia/Julia the wife would lie behind this dedication dated to 30/31 CE. Following Kindler, the archaeologists and theologians currently operating at etTell-identified by them as the site of Bethsaida-Julias-have produced many papers accusing Josephus of error.

Perhaps its neither - and Philip renamed Bethsaida to Bethsaida Julius in honour of the birth of his own son - Marcus Julius Agrippa. Thus, Philip not the ‘founder’ of a place but the ‘founder’ of his own dynasty through the birth of his son and heir.

Conflicting opinions re the paternity of Agrippa II. Was he the son of Philip the Tetrarch?

(one thing the above argument does do is clear Agrippa II from the rumours re an incestuous relationship with his ‘sister’ Berenice. )

stephan huller · 07-09-2010, 12:43 PM

I have an interest in Agrippa. I won't get too deeply into it but the bottom line is that something is wrong with Josephus's accounts of the Herodian family tree. The use of Josephus by the canonical authors is suspicious too. The Christian employment and preservation of Josephus as a 'second tier' text of the canon (usually bundled with Ignatius, Clement of Rome) smells fishy to me too. Then there is the Testimonium Flavianum.

The real issue for me is that the rabbinic literature only knows of one Agrippa not two. I know that there are lots of stupid biographies in the rabbinic literature (the story that Nero was a proselyte stands out http://www.jstor.org/pss/1453470) but there are certainly others.

But why don't the Jews act as if there is just one Agrippa? Why do they preserve traditions that he was the messiah? Why does Alexandrian Christian exegesis agree with the rabbinic sources insofar as Agrippa being the messiah of Daniel 9:26? Is the 'Jewish history' that Origen cites as confirming Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel a variant text of Josephus or the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, Agrippa's secretary? The last answer seems right. But as I have pointed out many times elsewhere if you actually look at the structure Josephus's narrative (forget about the whatever changes might have been made by Christian editors) the account of the destruction perfectly fits the standard Jewish and Alexandrian exegesis where Agrippa is 'cut off' after attempting to get the Jews to give up their revolt in its early stages and then he 'disappears' from the narrative basically, confirming the Hebrew of Daniel 9:24 - 27.

There seems to be a prevalent absence of understanding amongst historians and even in some reference works over the process of transmission of the material making up the Rabbinic texts. What many say about the codification of Rabbinic works in the 3rd c. is misleading enough to be false:

(a) The Mishnah is not the model to be applied generally, because by definition it is the product of the formation of a consensus on practice.

(b) The halachic midrashim are a different matter. (One from the school of Ishmael and one from the school of ‘Akiva on each of Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy, making eight books. Ishmael and Akiva are each near the last in line of heads of each academy). These were built up in writing generation by generation. Whatever is dated by attribution to a person was in writing from that time. This is not to deny that there must have been a final selection and editing from a vast mass of written material.

(c) Something similar but not the same could be said of the various products of the various academies that went into the Mishnah. I think for example of the tractate Middot, on the details of structure and dimensions of the Jerusalem Temple. This comes in whole from one known academy.

(d) The same with modifications can be said of Bereshit Rabba on Genesis, Vayyikra Rabba on Leviticus, and Echah Rabba on Lamentations. Much of their content can be dated to the mid 2nd c. with some parts being dateable as older and some later. Anonymous material is admittedly often undateable.

(e) Material from the time of the Tanna’im in either Talmud that is formally introduced as a baraita [Aramaic fem. definite adjective meaning external, that is, not in the Mishnah] has been transmitted orally and in written form both at once.

In general, there seems to be a misconception amongst some historians of the Rabbinic theory or even dogma of the need for oral transmission. A comparison with the same theory amongst the Neoplatonists will illustrate what I mean. In both cases oral transmission means the passing on of understanding from generation to generation. Data can be both memorised and written. Memorisation is better, but the written text is needed as a control. After data are memorised comes the work of understanding.

Contrary to what seems to be thought by many Classicists, there are other Rabbinic documents with a definite date of written composition. Look at the Seder ‘Olam Rabba, written by one person between 150 and 160. This gives the dates for there being one Agrippa rather than two as the texts of Josephus which circulated among Christians and whose manuscripts only date to the twelfth century.

In short, whenever I justify my use of rabbinic material for the construction of my argument that there was only one Marcus Agrippa rather than two I was not thinking of undateable anecdotes in either Talmud. As for the reliability of the process, here is one striking instance. The Tosefta, the halachic midrashim, and the Palestinian Talmud preserve enough information about the High Priest Yishma‘el ben Piyavi [Greek Phiabi] to show that he was a Sadducee, though the reader has to see the evidence and put it together. This person is always mentioned with respect as the first link in the chain of transmission of older metaphysics into the Rabbinic system!

Here is one reference. This was the first systematic study of the relationship between memorisation, living transmission of understanding, and written records as a control on the accuracy of memorisation. Except for detailed studies in Hebrew before and after, it has not been surpassed. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk). [Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Uppsaliensis, 22]. Lund, 1961 and slightly enlarged 1964.

maryhelena · 07-09-2010, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I have an interest in Agrippa. I won't get too deeply into it but the bottom line is that something is wrong with Josephus's accounts of the Herodian family tree. The use of Josephus by the canonical authors is suspicious too. The Christian employment and preservation of Josephus as a 'second tier' text of the canon (usually bundled with Ignatius, Clement of Rome) smells fishy to me too. Then there is the Testimonium Flavianum.

The real issue for me is that the rabbinic literature only knows of one Agrippa not two. I know that there are lots of stupid biographies in the rabbinic literature (the story that Nero was a proselyte stands out http://www.jstor.org/pss/1453470) but there are certainly others.

But why don't the Jews act as if there is just one Agrippa? Why do they preserve traditions that he was the messiah? Why does Alexandrian Christian exegesis agree with the rabbinic sources insofar as Agrippa being the messiah of Daniel 9:26? Is the 'Jewish history' that Origen cites as confirming Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel a variant text of Josephus or the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, Agrippa's secretary? The last answer seems right. But as I have pointed out many times elsewhere if you actually look at the structure Josephus's narrative (forget about the whatever changes might have been made by Christian editors) the account of the destruction perfectly fits the standard Jewish and Alexandrian exegesis where Agrippa is 'cut off' after attempting to get the Jews to give up their revolt in its early stages and then he 'disappears' from the narrative basically, confirming the Hebrew of Daniel 9:24 - 27.

There seems to be a prevalent absence of understanding amongst historians and even in some reference works over the process of transmission of the material making up the Rabbinic texts. What many say about the codification of Rabbinic works in the 3rd c. is misleading enough to be false:

(a) The Mishnah is not the model to be applied generally, because by definition it is the product of the formation of a consensus on practice.

(b) The halachic midrashim are a different matter. (One from the school of Ishmael and one from the school of ‘Akiva on each of Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy, making eight books. Ishmael and Akiva are each near the last in line of heads of each academy). These were built up in writing generation by generation. Whatever is dated by attribution to a person was in writing from that time. This is not to deny that there must have been a final selection and editing from a vast mass of written material.

(c) Something similar but not the same could be said of the various products of the various academies that went into the Mishnah. I think for example of the tractate Middot, on the details of structure and dimensions of the Jerusalem Temple. This comes in whole from one known academy.

(d) The same with modifications can be said of Bereshit Rabba on Genesis, Vayyikra Rabba on Leviticus, and Echah Rabba on Lamentations. Much of their content can be dated to the mid 2nd c. with some parts being dateable as older and some later. Anonymous material is admittedly often undateable.

(e) Material from the time of the Tanna’im in either Talmud that is formally introduced as a baraita [Aramaic fem. definite adjective meaning external, that is, not in the Mishnah] has been transmitted orally and in written form both at once.

In general, there seems to be a misconception amongst some historians of the Rabbinic theory or even dogma of the need for oral transmission. A comparison with the same theory amongst the Neoplatonists will illustrate what I mean. In both cases oral transmission means the passing on of understanding from generation to generation. Data can be both memorised and written. Memorisation is better, but the written text is needed as a control. After data are memorised comes the work of understanding.

Contrary to what seems to be thought by many Classicists, there are other Rabbinic documents with a definite date of written composition. Look at the Seder ‘Olam Rabba, written by one person between 150 and 160. This gives the dates for there being one Agrippa rather than two as the texts of Josephus which circulated among Christians and whose manuscripts only date to the twelfth century.

In short, whenever I justify my use of rabbinic material for the construction of my argument that there was only one Marcus Agrippa rather than two I was not thinking of undateable anecdotes in either Talmud. As for the reliability of the process, here is one striking instance. The Tosefta, the halachic midrashim, and the Palestinian Talmud preserve enough information about the High Priest Yishma‘el ben Piyavi [Greek Phiabi] to show that he was a Sadducee, though the reader has to see the evidence and put it together. This person is always mentioned with respect as the first link in the chain of transmission of older metaphysics into the Rabbinic system!

Here is one reference. This was the first systematic study of the relationship between memorisation, living transmission of understanding, and written records as a control on the accuracy of memorisation. Except for detailed studies in Hebrew before and after, it has not been surpassed. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. [Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Uppsaliensis, 22]. Lund, 1961 and slightly enlarged 1964.

Stephen - I'm afraid all the Jewish literature is above my head....all I am working from is the NT storyline and trying to fathom out the Herodian history of that timeline.

I don't know the ins and outs re only one Agrippa. Again, I'm working within the general historical context.

As regards Marcus Julius Agrippa II and any messianic expectations placed upon him - by whoever. Yes, particularly if he is the son of Philip the Tetrarch. As such he would be higher on the dynasty ladder than any son of an Agrippa I - and of course, the two sons of Alexander (son of Herod the Great) disinherited their Jewish heritage. (Wikipedia). So that left Marcus Julius Agrippa II - as the son of Philip the Tetrarch - the heir to the Herodian/Hasmonean dynasty, bloodline.

My own theory re Philip the Tetrarch sees this historical figure as the inspirational figure around which the gospel Jesus storyline developed - so a natural continuation in one sense if Philip' son became viewed in some quarters as a last hope, perhaps a messianic hope, re the Hasmonean bloodline...

And yes - Josephus has cooked the books....

stephan huller · 07-09-2010, 01:15 PM

Without becoming acquainted with other sources outside of those collected and redacted by Europeans you will fail. Spend the time, go beyond the familiar. Otherwise you will lose debates with the other side.

The rabbinic tradition is the only way to get around Josephus.

maryhelena · 07-09-2010, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Without becoming acquainted with other sources outside of those collected and redacted by Europeans you will fail. Spend the time, go beyond the familiar. Otherwise you will lose debates with the other side.

The rabbinic tradition is the only way to get around Josephus.

Quite frankly, its going to take a lot more than rabbinic tradition to dislodge Josephus. After all, its not more words and debates and conflicting opinions that we need - its rock solid historical facts. The sort of facts that can only be found with archaeology, with inscriptions. Until then, all we all are doing is trying out possible scenarios.

stephan huller · 07-09-2010, 01:35 PM

It's going to take me proving that the 'synagogue' near the Martyrium of St. Mark is really the Jewish temple wrongly identified as being in Heliopolis by Josephus (because of Isa 19:18?). That will do it. But the question is where do we go from there?

maryhelena · 07-09-2010, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It's going to take me proving that the 'synagogue' near the Martyrium of St. Mark is really the Jewish temple wrongly identified as being in Heliopolis by Josephus (because of Isa 19:18?). That will do it. But the question is where do we go from there?

A new reformation - the christians need to come out of their historical Jesus delusion and start living for the here and now. The Jews need to realize that the earth belongs to us all and that no one has any ownership of any specific part of it.
How about that for starters?

But first - as with Jerusalem in 70 ce - the destruction of the outmoded spiritual mindset has to be undertaken.

stephan huller · 07-09-2010, 02:32 PM

Actually, I don't mean to quibble but it's the whole idea of progress that has to go. It's very much a European concept. If we want to understand the truth we have to adopt the Semitic concept of the true redeemer and the true religion as 'restorations' of a truth that was rejected by bad ancestors. The Samaritans have that concept with regards to the 'Ta'eb.' It is the basis to the Islamic revelation. Mohammed, the bearer of new revelations, the founder, or more correctly the RESTORER, of an absolutely true and final 'perfect' religion.

Read the Islamic critique of Christianity's abandoning of Hebrew as the original language of the gospel. It HAD to have been written in Hebrew. It's absolutely beyond question. That all these Europeans sit around and 'question' this is about as stupid as the King James is holy position.

The gospel HAD TO HAVE been written in Hebrew for it to have the same level of holiness as the Torah, much less to exceed it in holiness.

There can only be one right answer. I found this the other day in a book of Coptic MSS of the New Testament

He (Matthew) wrote it (the gospel) in the Hebrew language in Palestine and preached it in Jerusalem and (the) Indies after the Ascension of our Lord and Savior seven years, and John the son of Zebedee translated it in the City of Tongues, chapters 426, in common 350, apart (peculiar) 46."

http://www.archive.org/stream/coptic.../n103/mode/1up

Something like this is the solution to everything because it can be seen from the Coptic tradition that 'John' and 'Mark' are the names of the same apostle. Luke doesn't even exist until the late second century.

I know this has seemingly nothing to do with the topic at hand but my point is that the answer will always be found in Semitic references or at least references outside of European sources.

We should be interested in reinventing truth. Finding and restoring the original truth is enough

maryhelena · 07-09-2010, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Actually, I don't mean to quibble but it's the whole idea of progress that has to go. It's very much a European concept. If we want to understand the truth we have to adopt the Semitic concept of the true redeemer and the true religion as 'restorations' of a truth that was rejected by bad ancestors. The Samaritans have that concept with regards to the 'Ta'eb.' It is the basis to the Islamic revelation. Mohammed, the bearer of new revelations, the founder, or more correctly the RESTORER, of an absolutely true and final 'perfect' religion.

Read the Islamic critique of Christianity's abandoning of Hebrew as the original language of the gospel. It HAD to have been written in Hebrew. It's absolutely beyond question. That all these Europeans sit around and 'question' this is about as stupid as the King James is holy position.

The gospel HAD TO HAVE been written in Hebrew for it to have the same level of holiness as the Torah, much less to exceed it in holiness.

There can only be one right answer. I found this the other day in a book of Coptic MSS of the New Testament

He (Matthew) wrote it (the gospel) in the Hebrew language in Palestine and preached it in Jerusalem and (the) Indies after the Ascension of our Lord and Savior seven years, and John the son of Zebedee translated it in the City of Tongues, chapters 426, in common 350, apart (peculiar) 46."

http://www.archive.org/stream/coptic.../n103/mode/1up

Something like this is the solution to everything because it can be seen from the Coptic tradition that 'John' and 'Mark' are the names of the same apostle. Luke doesn't even exist until the late second century.

I know this has seemingly nothing to do with the topic at hand but my point is that the answer will always be found in Semitic references or at least references outside of European sources.

We should be interested in reinventing truth. Finding and restoring the original truth is enough

Stephen - I'm afraid you have lost me a bit now. I'm an atheist and only interested in trying to fathom the early origins of christianity - from a purely historical, secular, point of view. As for 'truth':

Quote:

Perhaps the mission of those who love mankind is to make people laugh at the truth, to make truth laugh, because the only truth lies in learning to free ourselves from insane passion for the truth.
Umberto Eco (b. 1932), Italian semiologist, novelist. Brother William, in The Name of the Rose, "Seventh Day: Night (2)" (1980; tr. 1983).

The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

aa5874 · 07-09-2010, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...And yes - Josephus has cooked the books....

What advantage does Josephus gain by cooking books with information about Herodias and Agrippa?

Unless you think Josephus was an idiot, there would have been no benefit, no advantage at all, for Josephus to have made stuff up when there were writers like APION who would have destroy the credibility of Josephus.

It must be that his books were cooked by fraudsters including those who wanted people to believe that the God/man Jesus did exist.

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

07-09-2010, 12:43 PM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have an interest in Agrippa. I won't get too deeply into it but the bottom line is that something is wrong with Josephus's accounts of the Herodian family tree. The use of Josephus by the canonical authors is suspicious too. The Christian employment and preservation of Josephus as a 'second tier' text of the canon (usually bundled with Ignatius, Clement of Rome) smells fishy to me too. Then there is the Testimonium Flavianum. The real issue for me is that the rabbinic literature only knows of one Agrippa not two. I know that there are lots of stupid biographies in the rabbinic literature (the story that Nero was a proselyte stands out http://www.jstor.org/pss/1453470) but there are certainly others. But why don't the Jews act as if there is just one Agrippa? Why do they preserve traditions that he was the messiah? Why does Alexandrian Christian exegesis agree with the rabbinic sources insofar as Agrippa being the messiah of Daniel 9:26? Is the 'Jewish history' that Origen cites as confirming Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel a variant text of Josephus or the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, Agrippa's secretary? The last answer seems right. But as I have pointed out many times elsewhere if you actually look at the structure Josephus's narrative (forget about the whatever changes might have been made by Christian editors) the account of the destruction perfectly fits the standard Jewish and Alexandrian exegesis where Agrippa is 'cut off' after attempting to get the Jews to give up their revolt in its early stages and then he 'disappears' from the narrative basically, confirming the Hebrew of Daniel 9:24 - 27. There seems to be a prevalent absence of understanding amongst historians and even in some reference works over the process of transmission of the material making up the Rabbinic texts. What many say about the codification of Rabbinic works in the 3rd c. is misleading enough to be false: (a) The Mishnah is not the model to be applied generally, because by definition it is the product of the formation of a consensus on practice. (b) The halachic midrashim are a different matter. (One from the school of Ishmael and one from the school of ‘Akiva on each of Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy, making eight books. Ishmael and Akiva are each near the last in line of heads of each academy). These were built up in writing generation by generation. Whatever is dated by attribution to a person was in writing from that time. This is not to deny that there must have been a final selection and editing from a vast mass of written material. (c) Something similar but not the same could be said of the various products of the various academies that went into the Mishnah. I think for example of the tractate Middot, on the details of structure and dimensions of the Jerusalem Temple. This comes in whole from one known academy. (d) The same with modifications can be said of Bereshit Rabba on Genesis, Vayyikra Rabba on Leviticus, and Echah Rabba on Lamentations. Much of their content can be dated to the mid 2nd c. with some parts being dateable as older and some later. Anonymous material is admittedly often undateable. (e) Material from the time of the Tanna’im in either Talmud that is formally introduced as a baraita [Aramaic fem. definite adjective meaning external, that is, not in the Mishnah] has been transmitted orally and in written form both at once. In general, there seems to be a misconception amongst some historians of the Rabbinic theory or even dogma of the need for oral transmission. A comparison with the same theory amongst the Neoplatonists will illustrate what I mean. In both cases oral transmission means the passing on of understanding from generation to generation. Data can be both memorised and written. Memorisation is better, but the written text is needed as a control. After data are memorised comes the work of understanding. Contrary to what seems to be thought by many Classicists, there are other Rabbinic documents with a definite date of written composition. Look at the Seder ‘Olam Rabba, written by one person between 150 and 160. This gives the dates for there being one Agrippa rather than two as the texts of Josephus which circulated among Christians and whose manuscripts only date to the twelfth century. In short, whenever I justify my use of rabbinic material for the construction of my argument that there was only one Marcus Agrippa rather than two I was not thinking of undateable anecdotes in either Talmud. As for the reliability of the process, here is one striking instance. The Tosefta, the halachic midrashim, and the Palestinian Talmud preserve enough information about the High Priest Yishma‘el ben Piyavi [Greek Phiabi] to show that he was a Sadducee, though the reader has to see the evidence and put it together. This person is always mentioned with respect as the first link in the chain of transmission of older metaphysics into the Rabbinic system! Here is one reference. This was the first systematic study of the relationship between memorisation, living transmission of understanding, and written records as a control on the accuracy of memorisation. Except for detailed studies in Hebrew before and after, it has not been surpassed. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk). [Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Uppsaliensis, 22]. Lund, 1961 and slightly enlarged 1964.

07-09-2010, 01:15 PM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Without becoming acquainted with other sources outside of those collected and redacted by Europeans you will fail. Spend the time, go beyond the familiar. Otherwise you will lose debates with the other side. The rabbinic tradition is the only way to get around Josephus.

07-09-2010, 01:35 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It's going to take me proving that the 'synagogue' near the Martyrium of St. Mark is really the Jewish temple wrongly identified as being in Heliopolis by Josephus (because of Isa 19:18?). That will do it. But the question is where do we go from there?

07-09-2010, 02:32 PM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Actually, I don't mean to quibble but it's the whole idea of progress that has to go. It's very much a European concept. If we want to understand the truth we have to adopt the Semitic concept of the true redeemer and the true religion as 'restorations' of a truth that was rejected by bad ancestors. The Samaritans have that concept with regards to the 'Ta'eb.' It is the basis to the Islamic revelation. Mohammed, the bearer of new revelations, the founder, or more correctly the RESTORER, of an absolutely true and final 'perfect' religion. Read the Islamic critique of Christianity's abandoning of Hebrew as the original language of the gospel. It HAD to have been written in Hebrew. It's absolutely beyond question. That all these Europeans sit around and 'question' this is about as stupid as the King James is holy position. The gospel HAD TO HAVE been written in Hebrew for it to have the same level of holiness as the Torah, much less to exceed it in holiness. There can only be one right answer. I found this the other day in a book of Coptic MSS of the New Testament He (Matthew) wrote it (the gospel) in the Hebrew language in Palestine and preached it in Jerusalem and (the) Indies after the Ascension of our Lord and Savior seven years, and John the son of Zebedee translated it in the City of Tongues, chapters 426, in common 350, apart (peculiar) 46." http://www.archive.org/stream/coptic.../n103/mode/1up Something like this is the solution to everything because it can be seen from the Coptic tradition that 'John' and 'Mark' are the names of the same apostle. Luke doesn't even exist until the late second century. I know this has seemingly nothing to do with the topic at hand but my point is that the answer will always be found in Semitic references or at least references outside of European sources. We should be interested in reinventing truth. Finding and restoring the original truth is enough

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.