stephan huller

I have corresponded with Danny. I have the book. The best that can be said about it was put forward by Steve Mason. It's source criticism.

None. All historians accept the reliability of Josephus is great enough despite all the problems (the Testamonium Flavianum, his 'admission' to have had 'synergoi' to help 'develop' the text into Greek, the obvious chronological corruptions, Photius's explicit reference to conflicts between Justin's history and the surviving text of Josephus etc) and say we can use Josephus as our only guide, including Jewish historians.

The facts nevertheless are that rabbinic Judaism holds there was only one Agrippa and that he was the messiah predicted by Daniel (Dan 9:26). I listed relatively recent sources (from the seventeenth century onward). Here is a list of sources:

A tradition incorporated in the Mishnah (mid second century CE.) recalls the events surrounding the destruction of the temple where “the Daily Sacrifice was discontinued, the walls of the city were breached, and the Apostle burned the Torah and erected an idol in the Temple.” [Taanith IV. 6] Who else could this ‘apostolos’ be but Agrippa?

2. Seder ‘Olam Rabba (mid second century CE.), which has official standing as the authoritative chronology, has information not in the Mishnah and acknowledges Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel [see Montgomery ].

3. the Yosippon (second century CE., but the editing is probably late Amoraic) Agrippa is explicitly identified as the mashiach of Daniel. The tradition is more historically reliable and more authoritative within the Rabbinic tradition than is generally realized.

4. Epiphanius (fourth century CE.) declares that Jews have stubbornly persisted in recognizing “Herod” instead of Jesus as the Christ or the king announced by the prophets. [Panarion 20.2; the same idea appears in Eusebius Eccl 8 and various later Byzantine writers]

5. Jerome (fourth century CE.) identifies contemporary Jews who read Daniel 9:24–27 as if it already relates to “Christ the prince.” [Braverman, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel p. 107 – 9]

6. Rabbi Abaye (fourth century CE.) says that prophecy of the messiah in Daniel 9:24–27 (which is universally agreed to refer to the destruction of the temple) was fulfilled "a long time ago" without explaining who exactly the messiah was [Sanhedrin 98b and 97a]

7. Samuel b. Nahmani (fourth century CE.) declares a curse on “those who calculate the end” from Daniel “[f]or they would say since the predetermined time has arrived, and yet he [the messiah] has not come, he will never come.” [Sanhedrin 97b]

8. pseudo-Saadiah Gaon (eleventh century CE.) implicates that Agrippa was the messiah of Dan 9:24-27 and says that the text identifies that “he will strengthen a covenant with the great ones.” [VeDeos ch 8]

9. Rashi (eleventh century CE.) commenting on Daniel 9:26, says this reference to the mashiach points to “Agrippa, the king of Judea, who was ruling at the time of the destruction, will be slain.” [Commentary on Daniel]

• Rashi further develops the historical context of the passage that “Israel should receive their complete retribution in the exile of Titus and his subjugation, in order that their transgressions should terminate, their sins should end, and their iniquities should be expiated, in order to bring upon them eternal righteousness and to anoint upon them (sic) the Holy of Holies: the Ark, the altars, and the holy vessels, which they will bring to them through the king Messiah.” [ibid]

• Rashi says further more that “[t]he monarch who will come” will destroy the Roman armies and their “end will come about by inundation. And his end will be damnation and destruction, for He will inundate the power of his kingdom through the Messiah.” [ibid]

• Rashi refers to a historical situation where the Messiah “will strengthen Titus [through] a covenant with the princes of Israel … He will promise them the strengthening of a covenant and peace for seven[ty] years, but within the seven[ty] years, he will abrogate his covenant. [H]e will abolish sacrifice and meal-offering” … and “[t]hrough a covenant of tranquility, he will destroy them [i.e. the Romans].” [ibid]

• Rashi concludes that the Messiah “will place the dumb one, the pagan deity, which is dumb … [and] the dumb one and the ruling of the abomination will endure until the day that the destruction and extermination decreed upon it [will] befall it, in the days of the king Messiah … and total destruction will descend upon the image of the pagan deity and upon its worshippers.” [ibid]

• Some Rabbinic commentators interpret Rashi’s ideas to mean that bar Kochba, the leader of the subsequent revolt against Rome, was Agrippa’s son [Shafranovich, The Halachic Status of the Herodian Dynasty 7]

10. Ibn Ezra (twelfth century CE.) explicitly identifies Agrippa with the messiah of Dan 9:26, as Montgomery notes, citing the Hebrew text of Josephus (vi. c. 30 (s. Shurer 1, 159) who gives a tradition of Agrippa’s martyr-death [Montgomery The International Critical Commentary on Daniel, p. 397]

11. Ibn Daud (twelfth century CE.) insists that Daniel’s messianic prophesies had already been fulfilled and therefore could no longer be applied in the future [Cohen, The Book of Traditions, p. 241]

12. Maimonides (twelfth century CE.) says that previous traditions similarly held that the messiah already came, viz. "Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise (rabbis) have barred the calculation of the days of Messiah's coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah." [Igeret Teiman, Chapter 3 p.24]

13. Nachmanides (thirteenth century CE.) identifies Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel 9:26, but, as Goldwurm notes, he also “imputes this information to the Sages, [but,] as the editor of [his work] notes, his sources are unknown.” [Goldwurm, Daniel A New Translation with Commentary, p. 264]

• Nachmanides, likely drawing from these ancient sources, argues that, at the time Agrippa was the messiah, Christianity was being formulated as a ‘Roman plot’ to subvert the Jewish religion, saying “[o]ur relationship with Rome and Edom [i.e. Christianity] is similar. We ourselves caused our falling into their hands, since they made a covenant with the Romans, and Agrippa, the last king during the Second Temple, fled to them for help. It was because of the famine that Jerusalem was captured by the Romans, and the exile has greatly prolonged itself over us.” [Commentary on Genesis 47:28]

• Nachmanides takes the passage in the Mishnah (late second century CE.) which refers to the “flattery” shown Agrippa by his contemporaries to be a covert reference to the new Christian doctrine – viz. “this being a reference to the exile in which we were expatriated to Rome because of the journey there of King Agrippa.” [Commentary on Deut 28:36]; Genesis Rabba (late second century CE.) identifies that “flattery,” hanif, is a codeword for “Christian heresy;” Muhammad was taught by a group of Christian ascetics called “the hanifim.”

• Nachmanides was put on trial by Catholics for his belief in “another messiah” beside Jesus identified in the Talmud. He was ultimately banished from Spain because of his beliefs. [cf. Wikkuach]

14. Abarbanel (fifteenth century CE.) similarly argued that Agrippa was the messiah of Dan 9:24 – 27 and, as Goldwurm notes, “though admitting he can find no source for [Nachmanides] statement, champions [his] assertion. [Nachmanides’] reputation is assurance enough that he had good sources for his statement though they have been lost to us.” [Goldwurm, Daniel A New Translation with Commentary, p. 264]

• Abarbanel speaks of the idea where "[t]he messiah will have to die in order to purify the generation and he will wait in a spiritual state in heaven until he rises from the dead as it says in the Talmud Sanhedrin 98b." [Yeshuot Moshicho Part 2, topic 2, chapter 1]

• Abarbanel became the touchstone of contemporary European attacks against the widespread Jewish belief in “Agrippa the messiah.” As Calvin notes, “Rabbi Abarbinel, who thinks himself superior to all others, rejects our idea of the spiritual reign of Christ as a foolish imagination. For the kingdom of God, he says, is established under the whole heavens, and is given to the people of the saints. If it is established under heaven, says he, it is earthly, and if earthly, therefore not spiritual.” [Commentary on Daniel Volume 2]

• Calvin identifies him as “[t]hat trifler Abarbanel … who thinks Agrippa has just as much right to be called a Christ” but whom Christians know “cannot by any means be called Christ, even though he had surpassed all angels in wisdom, and virtue, and power, and everything else. Here [the Church] is treated, and this will not be found in the person of Agrippa.” [ibid]

• Calvin is similarly scandalized by the fact that Abarbanel “allows [Agrippa’s] defection to the Romans, but states it to have been against his will, as he was still a worshipper of God. Although he was clearly an apostate, yet he treats him as by no means worse than all the rest, and for this reason he wishes him to be called the Christ.” [ibid]

• Luther notes the German Jews of his day entertained similar ideas writing, “Oh, how ridiculous it seems to these circumcised saints that we accursed Goyim have interpreted and understand this saying thus, especially since we did not consult their rabbis, Talmudists, and Kokhbaites whom they regard as more authoritative than all of Scripture. For they do a far better job of it. This is what they say… ‘And after sixty-two weeks the Messiah (that means King Agrippa) will be killed and will not be’ -- this means, will be no king … [yet] Agrippa was not killed after the sixty-two weeks – in brief, all that they [the Jews] say is a lie.” [On the Jews and Their Lies, Chapter 12]

• Luther again argues against the Jews that “[n]either can one produce a Messiah to whom the statement in Daniel 9 applies other than this Jesus of Nazareth, even if this drives the devil with an his angels and Jews to madness. For we heard before how lame the lies of the Jews regarding King Cyrus and King Agrippa are.” [ibid Chapter19]

15. The Metsudat David (a seventeenth-century commentary from Prague) agrees with the prevalent Jewish interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27 and adds “[w]hen the second temple will be destroyed, the righteous King Messiah will come and rule forever in everlasting.”

The question of why Jews abandoned their traditional belief in one Agrippa is complex but begins with (a) the Yosippon (which was developed in part from a Christianized text of Josephus related to the Slavonic text) which reflects two Agrippas and (b) the general pattern of accommodation to European taste when Jews were a subjugated minority.

Ask a Jew today what is the official position on Jesus and you get something like 'he's a nice guy' or someone who thought he was a prophet but not the official, double stamped it, no erasies position of the Talmud (the Talmud has a higher authority than the Torah) that Jesus is suffering in torment in a vat of boiling semen or the Toledoth Yeshu that Jesus was a homosexual who was sodomized by Judas and so lost his connection with the divine Name.

If you want to know why Jews gave up the belief that Agrippa was the messiah of Daniel read (a) the various versions of the trial of Nachmanides (where the interpretation was 'leaked' by Pablo Christiani) (b) Luther and Calvin's vitriol against the Jews (they don't even mention the 'gay Jesus' belief but are totally offended by the Jewish belief in Agrippa.

The bottom line is that when Jews entered mainstream culture they had to (a) abandon calling Jesus a fagela (at least openly - I can tell you that gay Jesus is still a Jewish mainstay inter pares) and (b) stop promoting Agrippa as their messiah and - in scholarly circles explain away the phenomenon noted by Danny in the way Danny does it (it is a 'curiosity' 'who knows what it means/where it came from'). The facts are that the Jewish sources know of only one Agrippa. Agrippa still likely had a father with 'Agrippa' in his name. The question is how much of what is in Christian sources is an attempt to suffocate a connection between the messianic claims of Agrippa in Jewish, Samaritan and Alexandrian sources to allow for Jesus the divine hypostasis to become a person and as a person, the Christ.

The Yosippon likely blended material from Justus's and Josephus's account of the destruction of the Jewish War.

The narrative makes the case over and over again that because the Jews rejected Agrippa they will never have their messiah.

maryhelena

Stephen, whatever are the interpretations that one can come up with re rabbinic traditions/writings regarding Agrippa - the fact remains that Herodian coins do exist - coins which relate to two Agrippa figures. It's not traditions we should be relying on for historicity but material evidence. And in this case, as Schwartz points out, the issue is not over whether there was one or two Agrippa figures mentioned in the rabbinic writing - its a case of, in the rabbinic writings, of how to tell which traditions refer to which Agrippa. In that case, as Schwartz says, there is no unambiguous solution to the problems raised in the rabbinic literature. But that does not mean that the question of whether there was one or two Agrippa figures cannot be settled historically - with the Herodian coins, for instance.

The issue regarding any messianic speculation re Agrippa II is a secondary issue. It surely is an unnecessary burden to saddle your theory with issues of historicity.

stephan huller

I have copies of all the known coins. There is nothing in them that necessarily supports the contention that there were two Agrippas. "Agrippa the son of the King" what does that prove? Who is 'the king'? God? Agrippa I - okay but what was his name 'Aristobulus'? The texts of Josephus don't even given him a praenomen. So what do scholars do? Eh, must have been Marcus too?

It's ridiculous.

Getting back to the "Agrippa son of the king" if you read uncritical editions describing the coin they will cite it as "Agrippa the son of King Agrippa"

http://books.google.com/books?id=bs3...page&q&f=false

As I always say, you have to actually do the work yourself. Hold the coins in your hand. Look at the inscriptions.

There is nothing that can't be explained another way.

stephan huller

But here's the bottom line for me. The 'best' tradition is the one which accepts the surviving Christianized texts of Josephus and tries to make the coins fit that chronology (they don't - read any book on the numismatic evidence and they will tell you that). But let's not get into that. Let's leave it at that and simply say that all scholars incorporate Josephus or prefer the existing texts of Josephus against all other evidence to the contrary

Fair enough

Then we have your attempt to make Agrippa the son of Philip. There is no proof for that assertion. Period.

Then you have the rabbinic tradition which only references one Agrippa. I follow that tradition

I'd like to hear why anyone should argue that making Agrippa the son of Philip is preferable to an existing tradition - the rabbinic tradition of my ancestors in the same way as Josephus is the witness for the spiritual descendants of the Church Fathers - with witnesses back to the third century.

The acceptance of Josephus is done out of habit. The ignoring of the evidence to the contrary is also a habit. But both can be dated to a very early period.

I don't understand how you don't put your theory into third place, at necessarily a much lower rank to the one Agrippa theory. How is it better other than the fact that it was you who got the inspiration for a novel idea

maryhelena

Well, what can I say - the historians, both Jewish and Christian, would seek to disagree...

Stephen, don't get me wrong here - I'm a mythicist after all, so consensus opinion is not the end of the matter in any shape or form. If someone came up with a good argument that there was only one Agrippa - then great. I'd be quite happy to get rid of the first one, Agrippa I - The Josephan storyline re this character just sounds very fishy! - as is the account in Acts. Particularly now that I'm going with the idea that Agrippa II is the son of Herodias and Philip the Tetrarch - the connection with Agrippa I is already broken....OK - I'll do some thinking...

maryhelena

Ah - but see my last post - going with Agrippa (see I've dropped the II...)as the son of Herodias and Philip breaks the link to Agrippa I - there is thus no need for this figure - so there you are - one Agrippa!

OK - bedtime my way - I'll give it more thought in the morning...

stephan huller

Most scholars are lazy. Not all of course. And it depends what they are writing but most numismatic evidence is simply forced into a box and then people start quoting what is said about the coin rather than what is on the coins.

If I had a dollar for every time someone cited the 'Agrippa the son of King Agrippa' coin I'd be a rich man. But that's not what it says!

As I noted earlier, even with all this 'cheating' any book which deals with ancient Jewish coins will tell you they can't make the regnal years on the coin match the histories of Josephus. Just google it and you'll see.

But no one cares too much of course because better to have a model than no model.

maryhelena

After much though I can’t, as much as I would like to, get rid of Agrippa I. My own theory re Agrippa II being the son of Philip the Tetrarch, does not ‘need’ Agrippa I. In other words, I have broken the commonly accepted view that Agrippa II is the son of Agrippa I. That leaves me free to re-evaluate Herodian history from this perspective. Why the interest in Philip the Tetrarch? That is an interest that stems from an attempt to unravel Herodian history in relationship to the gospel storyline re a crucified carpenter named Jesus. I reject this gospel figure as being historical. I view this figure as being a mythological, figurative or symbolic creation. However, the creation of this gospel figure was, more likely than not, the result of an attempt to understand a specific historical time frame in the light of OT prophecies. An interpretation of history that has been focused upon the life of a particular historical, inspirational, figure. That figure is, I believe, Philip the Tetrarch.

Keeping all of the above in mind, this is how I now view the ‘controversy’ re the two Agrippa figures: I think there is much merit in the rabbinic literature re its King Agrippa tradition. I think Josephus has manipulated Herodian history for the historical period in question (the NT time frame). Why? My simple answer is that Josephus was involved with the pre-christian origins of early Christianity. If, as is my position above, the historical figure of Philip the Tetrarch, was relevant to early Christian origins, then, because the gospel storyline has it’s own spiritual/theological focus - the historical figure of Philip has been put on the back burner ie that historical figure has become side-lined once the Jesus storyboard is created. In time the gospel Jesus storyboard became historicized - people came to believe that the mythological creation had been a flesh and blood historical person. However, if it’s a historical understanding of Christian origins that is sought - then the necessity arises of uncovering the cover-up. Josephus being suspect No.1.

How Agrippa I ever got to be considered for any rulership position is bizarre. However, putting that aside, the fact remains that he did. The question is not whether he ruled or not - but where did he rule. What I think Josephus has done is reverse the extent of the territory that Agrippa I and Agrippa II ruled. In other words, as in the rabbinic literature, Agrippa II is simply King Agrippa. The last king of Judea who ruled the whole of the kingdom of Herod the Great. Agrippa I never ruled Judea. All Agrippa I ruled was the Tetrarchy of Philip. Josephus has played fast and loose with not giving each of these two historical figures their correct territory.

Why was Agrippa I (using this designation simply for convenience) given the territory of Philip? Possibly as a caretaker for Philip’ own son to come of age. Josephus places the death of Philip around 33/34 ce. However, seemingly, a Latin version of Josephus has another date - the 22nd instead of the 20th year of Tiberius. This would move the death of Philip to 36 ce. Just prior to the death of Tiberius. At Philip’ death, with a young son left behind, issues regarding his territory would arise. Agrippa I, being the brother of Herodias, the young child’s mother, would likely be first to be considered as a guardian. Antipas might have had ideas re Philip’ territory but ultimately Agrippa I gets Antipas out of the way. (I doubt that Herodias ends up married to Antipas). However, a few short years later (7 or 8) Agrippa I suddenly dies. Philip’ territory is added to the province of Syria - with the tributes from it collected and retained in that Tetrarchy.

Later, when the son of Philip and Herodias is of an appropriate age, he inherits his late father’s territory - plus Judea - and becomes the last Hasmonean/Herodian King Agrippa of Judea.

That this figure, King Agrippa, was able to rise to such prominence over all other Herodian claims to Herod’s kingdom, does suggest that his claim was without question. Whether Herod the Great killed his sons Aristobulus and Alexander is not really an issue here. These sons were not viewed as successors in the rulership hierarchy - possibly disinherited because of their father. (that rules out Agrippa I). That would leave the son of Philip as an unquestionable heir to Herod the Great. But who was Philip - what was his own parentage?

Josephus gives his mother as Cleopatra of Jerusalem. - giving her another son named Herod. Herod the Great has another wife with a son named Herod. Mariamne II - daughter of the high priest Herod Boethus. Mariamne II, like Mariamne I falls out of favour and her son is disinherited ie he does not feature in Herod’s future plans re dividing his territory. Thus, Josephan confusion re the Philip mentioned in the gospel storyline ie is he Herod Philip or Philip the Tetrarch. Perhaps another case of Josephus mixing up the details in order to cover up the historical origins of early Christianity.

Philip the Tetrarch was most likely a son of Herod the Great and Mariamne I. She had three sons - two survived but got killed (maybe) and one died - in Rome. Since the killing of two sons can be questioned - so can the dying of the other son of Mariamne. The other two, Aristobulus and Alexandra, if not killed were more likely to be disinherited - and thus also would be their children. That left the sole Hasmonean heir, to the kingdom of Herod the Great, his son Philip. Herod’s will split his kingdom into three parts. However, with Archelaus exiled and Antipas later exiled, the way was open for the kingdom of Herod the Great to be fully restored - when his grandson, the son of Philip, King Agrippa, was old enough to take up that responsibility.

Why all the mystery? Primarily because the gospel storyline required that the real, the historical, origins of early Christianity be covered up. Covered up, not in any underhanded conspiracy - but simply to enable the spiritual/theological message of the gospel Jesus storyline to become the focus. Christianity, unlike Judaism, was not looking for a human ‘saviour’ - it’s raison d'être was a spiritual ‘saviour’. The historical figure of Philip the Tetrarch provided the inspiration for creating such a ‘spiritual saviour’.

And King Agrippa? As the son of Philip the Tetrarch - most probably he had a role to play in the developing origin story of Christianity. The Jews might well have had ideas re messianic expectations re King Agrippa. The early Christian movement draw similar messianic interpretations regarding his father, Philip - albeit in the Christian scenario - these interpretations took a theological/spiritual spin...

stephan huller

But you keep talking about 'Josephus' as if we have what Josephus originally wrote. We don't. We have a massive Greek expansion of an original Aramaic text written by Josephus in the second half of the first century. Our text acknowledges at 'syngergoi' - helpers! - were commissioned to carried out the translation but this word has a bad history in the Christian tradition that ultimately preserved Josephus's writings.

The Marcionites for instances had much a much smaller Apostolikon with different cities being addressed by the apostle (Alexandria, Laodicea etc). They also didn't have Paul addressing 'fellow workers' who suddenly come into the text in the Catholic period. We see the Marcionite HATRED and refutation of these 'synergoi' throughout the Dialogues of Adamantius.

I think we can make an argument that Irenaeus always used this concept of introducing 'synergoi' to change texts. The list of synergoi in the so-called Pauline letters iclude Prisca and Aquila (Rom 16:3), Urbanus (Rom 16:9), Timothy (Rom 16:21; 1Thess 3:2), Titus (2Cor 8:23), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25), Clement (Phil 4:3), Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus (Col 4:10-11), Philemon (Phlm 1), Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (Phlm 24).

Some of these people which the Catholics introduce as associates of Paul reappear in other texts associated with the early canon. Demas appears in the forged Ignatian Epistle to the Philippians as a 'helper' of the Catholic Church. While Onesimus is made to be too young to be a 'fellow worker' in the apostolic period, he is another associate of Paul who is recycled in the falsified Ignatian Epistle to the Ephesians, now the bishop of the church of Ephesus and a friend of Polycarp.

Paul uses several other Greek terms containing the prefix syn- ("with") to designate his assistants, including systratiotes ("fellow soldier") for Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25) and Archippus (Phlm 2), synaixmalotos ("fellow prisoner") for Aristarchus (Col 4:10), Epaphras (Phlm 23), and Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7), and syndoulos ("fellow slave") for Epaphras (Col 1:7) and Tychicus (Col 4:7).

The point however is that the same methodology which expanded the original writings of Josephus expanded BOTH the Apostolikon and the original letters associated with Polycarp (rebaptized as it were as letters to a certain 'Ignatius' but ignatius means 'fiery one' and Polycarp was renowned for dying a fiery death.

I think Ignatius changed all these texts. As such there is no point emphasizing 'what Josephus wrote' or 'Josephus said this' or 'that.' We have a thoroughly falsified text.

maryhelena

And you want to produce rabbinic literature as the literature we should be relying upon?
Sure, Josephus cannot be taken at face value - and I would hope that you would be able to say the same with regard to rabbinic literature. We have what we have - and have to make the best we can with what we have. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a productive way to get to any historical insights that might be within the Josephan pages. I do, as my post above indicates, challenge the Herodian history within Josephus in regard to the NT time period. My focus - and it is not a Jewish focus - is to try and understand how christianity got going - what are its historical roots. I don't think this endeavor needs to be tied to any rabbinic literature. Such literature might contribute but it cannot distract from the historical endeavor to seek early christian origins. Your particular theory re messianic ideas re King Agrippa is interesting - but it will not provide any answer to questions regarding early christian origins. The fundamental question re early christian origins revolves around the historicity of the gospel crucified Jesus figure. Your theory does not contributing anything to a search for answers to that fundamental question of NT research. Your theory regarding King Agrippa is a side-issue. NT research faces far bigger challenges than whether King Agrippa was or was not considered a Jewish messiah figure.