Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-30-2012, 07:37 PM

Eusebius for his part is using 'the Antiquities of Josephus,' his 'Histories' and 'Hegesippus' all at the same time in this section dealing with the apostolic period. Eusebius begins by citing from the 'Histories' (= Jewish War) but a version that is different from our own:

Quote:

Now while Claudius was still reigning, it came to pass that so great a faction and tumult broke out at Jerusalem during the feast of the Passover, that, of those Jews alone who were forcibly crushed together around the exits from the temple, thirty thousand perished, trampled to death by one another. So the feast proved an occasion of grief to the people as a whole, and of lamentation to every house. These are the very words employed by Josephus. But Claudius appointed Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, king of the Jews; and sent Felix as procurator of the whole district of Samaria and Galilee, and of Peraea, as it is called, as well. As for himself, when he had conducted the government for thirteen years and eight months, he died, leaving Nero to succeed to the principate.

How do we know this isn't Antiquities? Let us compare what appears in our version of Antiquities. First the Passover of the crushed happens AFTER Agrippa II is given the kingdom of his father and now the famous 'switchero' is introduced where Agrippa receives not the kingdom of his father but that of his uncle Herod of Chalcis:

Quote:

Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. And now it was that Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander; as also that Herod, brother of Agrippa the great king, departed this life, in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar. He left behind him three sons; Aristobulus, whom he had by his first wife, with Bernicianus, and Hyrcanus, both whom he had by Bernice his brother's daughter. But Claudius Caesar bestowed his dominions on Agrippa, junior.

3. Now while the Jewish affairs were under the administration of Cureanus, there happened a great tumult at the city of Jerusalem, and many of the Jews perished therein. But I shall first explain the occasion whence it was derived. When that feast which is called the passover was at hand, at which time our custom is to use unleavened bread, and a great multitude was gathered together from all parts to that feast, Cumanus was afraid lest some attempt of innovation should then be made by them; so he ordered that one regiment of the army should take their arms, and stand in the temple cloisters, to repress any attempts of innovation, if perchance any such should begin; and this was no more than what the former procurators of Judea did at such festivals. But on the fourth day of the feast, a certain soldier let down his breeches, and exposed his privy members to the multitude, which put those that saw him into a furious rage, and made them cry out that this impious action was not done to approach them, but God himself; nay, some of them reproached Cumanus, and pretended that the soldier was set on by him, which, when Cumanus heard, he was also himself not a little provoked at such reproaches laid upon him; yet did he exhort them to leave off such seditious attempts, and not to raise a tumult at the festival. But when he could not induce them to be quiet for they still went on in their reproaches to him, he gave order that the whole army should take their entire armor, and come to Antonia, which was a fortress, as we have said already, which overlooked the temple; but when the multitude saw the soldiers there, they were affrighted at them, and ran away hastily; but as the passages out were but narrow, and as they thought their enemies followed them, they were crowded together in their flight, and a great number were pressed to death in those narrow passages; nor indeed was the number fewer than twenty thousand that perished in this tumult. So instead of a festival, they had at last a mournful day of it; and they all of them forgot their prayers and sacrifices, and betook themselves to lamentation and weeping; so great an affliction did the impudent obsceneness of a single soldier bring upon them.[Jewish Antiquities 20]

Interesting to note that Eusebius's specific number of thirty thousand comes from the manuscript of Jewish War 2.12.1 cited by Leeming. The text employed by Whiston reads 'ten thousand':

Quote:

NOW after the death of Herod, king of Chalcis, Claudius set Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, over his uncle's kingdom, while Cumanus took upon him the office of procurator of the rest, which was a Roman province, and therein he succeeded Alexander; under which Cureanus began the troubles, and the Jews' ruin came on; for when the multitude were come together to Jerusalem, to the feast of unleavened bread, and a Roman cohort stood over the cloisters of the temple, (for they always were armed, and kept guard at the festivals, to prevent any innovation which the multitude thus gathered together might make,) one of the soldiers pulled back his garment, and cowering down after an indecent manner, turned his breech to the Jews, and spake such words as you might expect upon such a posture. At this the whole multitude had indignation, and made a clamor to Cumanus, that he would punish the soldier; while the rasher part of the youth, and such as were naturally the most tumultuous, fell to fighting, and caught up stones, and threw them at the soldiers. Upon which Cumanus was afraid lest all the people should make an assault upon him, and sent to call for more armed men, who, when they came in great numbers into the cloisters, the Jews were in a very great consternation; and being beaten out of the temple, they ran into the city; and the violence with which they crowded to get out was so great, that they trod upon each other, and squeezed one another, till ten thousand of them were killed, insomuch that this feast became the cause of mourning to the whole nation, and every family lamented their own relations. [Jewish Wars 2.12.1]

The Slavonic text mentions only 'more than a thousand:

Quote:

And they suffered such violence and distress that they trampled on each other, *and more than »1,000« were crushed.* And instead of the Feast there was lamentation and weeping in all the homes. (p.271)

Of course the Latin Hegesippus does not mention any details of the reign of Claudius beyond Agrippa's rise to power. Nevertheless what we have revealed so far represents not an insignificant difference between Josephus's text and ours - i.e. the Passover of the crushed DID NOT occur under Agrippa II's watch. The next story that Eusebius touches up also happens to mention Agrippa:

Quote:

Now Josephus, again, tells of the faction that took place among the priests themselves in the days of Nero, when Felix was procurator of Judaea. He writes thus, in these very terms, in the twentieth book of the Antiquities:

And there actually arose a faction between the high priests on the one hand and the priests and leaders of the people of Jerusalem on the other. Each of them collected round him a band of the most reckless and revolutionary men, and put himself at their head; who when they met abused each other and threw stones. Nor was there a single person to rebuke them: the thing was done freely, as if in a city without a ruler. And the high priests were possessed of such impudence and audacity, that they dared to despatch slaves to the threshing floors, to seize the tithes that were the priests’ due; insomuch that needy priests might be seen perishing of want. Thus did the violence of the factions prevail over all that is right.

Yet in our version of Antiquities Agrippa is single out to have caused the problem with the high priests:

Quote:

About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. And now arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem; each of which got them a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations about them, and became leaders to them; and when they struggled together, they did it by casting reproachful words against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody to reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice.

Maybe Eusebius's text mentioned Agrippa nominating Ismael but did not mention it in his account. Who knows.

Next Eusebius goes on to say:

Quote:

And, once more, the same writer records that a certain kind of robbers sprang up at the same time in Jerusalem, who, as he says, used to murder those they met in broad daylight and in the midst of the city.

Yet we have to be careful here as Eusebius will tell us after the citation that he is not citing Antiquities but 'the Histories' (= Jewish War):

Quote:

For [he states] that es-pecially at the festivals they mingled with the crowd and stabbed those that differed from them with short little swords, which they had pre¬viously con-cealed under their garments; and that when the men fell, their murderers actu-ally joined the ranks of the indignant, and so under this plausible disguise could in no way be detected. [He goes on to say] that while Jonathan the high priest was the first to be murdered by them, after him many were killed every day, and that fear was a sorer burden than the evils themselves; for, as in a bat-tle, everyone was hourly expecting death.

This corresponds to 2.8.10 in our Jewish Antiquities which reads:

Quote:

Upon Festus's coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire. So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

Yet as I noted before Eusebius isn't citing Antiquities here. He has for some reason 'switched' from Antiquities to 'the Histories' (= Jewish War) for his account of the Egyptian:

Quote:

After other remarks he next goes on to say:

But a greater blow than this was inflicted upon the Jews by the Egyptian false prophet. For a wretched trickster arrived in the country, who by securing faith in himself as a prophet gathered together about thirty thousand of his dupes, and led them round from the desert to the mount of Olives, as it is called. From that point he was in a position to force his way into Jerusalem and overcome the Roman garrison and the people with a high hand, with the aid of his body-guard of spearmen who were to pour in with him. But Felix anticipated his attack, and went to meet him with the Roman hoplites, while all the people lent a hand in the defence: so that, when the engagement took place, the Egyptian fled accompanied by a few, but the most of his followers perished or were taken captive. . . .

Such is the account given by Josephus in the second of the Histories. But it is worth while comparing the statements here made concerning the Egyptian with those in the Acts of the Apostles, where in the time of Felix it was said by the chief captain in Jerusalem to Paul, when the multitude of the Jews raised a disturbance against the apostle: Art thou not then the Egyptian, which before these days stirred up to sedition and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the Assassins?

A long section follows where Eusebius cites Hegesippus in order to provide information on James the brother of Jesus. He concludes however by going back to the twentieth book of the Antiquities:

Quote:

And the same person [Josephus] also tells us of his death in the twentieth book of the Antiquities, as follows:

Now Caesar sent Albinus as governor to Judaea, when he learnt of the death of Festus. But the younger Ananus, who, as we stated, had received the high priesthood, was of a rash and exceedingly audacious disposition; he belonged to the sect of the Sadducees, who surpass all the rest of the Jews in the cruelty of their sentences, as we have already shown. Inasmuch, then, as Ananus was a man of this character, he convened the judicial court of the Sanhedrin, deeming that he had a suitable opportunity in the fact that Festus had died and that Albinus was still on his way; and bringing before the court the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, he accused them of breaking the law, and deliv-ered them over to be stoned.

But those in the city who had a reputation for greater fairness, and strict observance of the laws, took this conduct very ill, and sent secretly to the king, asking him to write to Ananus not to continue such practices any longer; for he had not done rightly even this first time. And some of them also went to meet Albinus as he was on his way from Alexandria, and informed him that it was illegal for Ananus to convene a meeting of the Sanhedrin without his consent. Albinus was persuaded by what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, threatening him with punishment; and King Agrippa for this reason took the high priesthood away from him, when he had ruled for three months, and appointed Jesus the son of Dammaeus.

It is worth noting that our version of the same passage is an expansion of Eusebius's original text:

Quote:

AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

No one can deny that our text of Antiquities is an expansion of Eusebius's more original text. But a better question is why does Eusebius switch back and forth between Antiquities and Histories when their information does not agree.

maryhelena · 09-30-2012, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I happen to have glanced at mh's comments before signing in. It is not a theory that Jews juxtaposed Agrippa as the messiah against the Christian claims about Jesus. Just read John Calvin, Abarbanel, Nachmanides and the earliest Jewish authorities from the period. The question is how far the tradition went back. The answer is clearly that at least part of the shared tradition shows up in Clement and Origen. The only problem is what to do about Josephus

It's a bit of a joke, is it not Stephan, your putting my posts on ignore??

No answer to my question re are you dumping your theory re one Agrippa? And when you state that "It is not a theory that Jews juxtaposed Agrippa as the messiah...." you failed to mention which Agrippa this would be.: Agrippa I or Agrippa II. Rabbinic literature, as the quote in my above post made clear, is at best ambiguous in it's mention of 'Agrippa'

As for your theory that Agrippa II was made King of Judea - methinks that's going to be a very hard historical case to make. Keep in mind the advice of Steve Mason re your one Agrippa theory - same applies here...

Quote:

http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...e-agrippa.html

Quotes from Steve Mason

Quote:

The basic point remains the very one at which we started. None of Stephan's work will find a place in historical scholarship until he makes a historical argument: a full and complete one. He can use as much rabbinic lit. as he wants to use. That's all fine. Why should I care? It's his argument. But he will need to argue his hypothesis for all the evidence concerning Agrippa, and show why it explains all of the evidence better than any other hypothesis. There is no point in getting into abstract discussions of halakhic midrashim, or getting perturbed about it. It's all irrelevant. I have not made any sort of case about anything in this discussion, because that is not my role. I have been asked to respond to others' arguments, and in doing so I have (a) sought greater clarity about what they mean (though the responsibility lies with the advocate, not with me), (b) pointed out where I see the problems in what has been said -- whether those points could conceivably be better argued is not my concern; I respond to what has been argued -- and (c) relentlessly pointing out that arguing for one Agrippa will be a very large and complex undertaking. As I said to Stephan at the beginning, there are no shortcuts. If he wants sometime to come back with a full historical argument for Agrippa singular, explaining all the material and literary evidence, against all other historical hypotheses, then I would be willing to , have a look -- if he is looking for critical engagement.

Where do you get this stuff from? Josephus needs explaining, of course, as does all evidence (that's what history is about), but not defending. And the wide variety of literary evidence concerning Agrippa I needs explaining too. It's a lot, and I see no hope from what you have written so far that you will try in a methodical and systematic way to work through all that evidence and explain it by your hypothesis. If you do, great. If you don't, there's nothing to talk about.

I have identified precisely what the historical issue is, trying to be helpful to you. If you want to make a historical argument, you will need to show that your hypothesis explains all of the evidence better than any other hypothesis. It's that simple: that's what history is. It won't do to suggest that (other?) historians are stuck in preconceptions, just because you don't want to engage in historical argumentation.

Stephan, theories are great. Speculation is a wonderful thing. I do it myself....The difference between us is that you have a published book on there being only one Agrippa - and that this one Agrippa was the Jewish messiah figure. And because of that, you have a theory to defend. Myself - I'm free from all of that. While I have my own theory regarding Agrippa I, I know damn well that my theory needs historical evidence to support it. I don't have it - as you don't have historical evidence for your Agrippa (II) theory. Methinks, rather than being so hell-bent on defending your theory and speculations - check out your reasons for doing so...You might find that you are not being led by the available evidence but by a need to defend your published theory...

Duke Leto · 09-30-2012, 10:58 PM

I've posted this link before, which I found by googling Josephus and Clement of Alexandria a while back.

Whatever else we can say about Stephan, it's clear that he does not have the most bizarre Josephus theory out there by a long shot. The site's article on Clement is also... interesting.

If I've violated any forum rules by linking to what looks like hate speech, I apologize, but I'm incredulously condemning, not endorsing.

In this case, to steal a Douglas Adams joke, we appear to be dealing with a mind that is not just twisted but actually sprained. The site's conclusions are so staggeringly insane that I have to invoke the inverse of Poe's Law and suppose that the whole thing might be an elaborate satire.

maryhelena · 09-30-2012, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke Leto

I've posted this link before, which I found by googling Josephus and Clement of Alexandria a while back.

Whatever else we can say about Stephan, it's clear that he does not have the most bizarre Josephus theory out there by a long shot. The site's article on Clement is also... interesting.

:huh:

But it's Stephan that is on FRDB - a published author of a book dealing with 'the real messiah' - Marcus Julius Agrippa (II) who according to Stephan's theory, was made King of Judea. Two theories that have no historical evidence to support them. i.e. all speculation. And, as such, whenever Stephan makes reference to 'Agrippa' on this forum, he needs to be called on his speculations. That goes for anyone with a published theory that visits this forum. They bring their 'baggage' along with them - unless of course, they have recanted from their errors....

.....This is a history forum is it not? One can offer any number of biblical interpretations - not much anyone can do to discredit interpretations. Each to his own in that context. However, when dealing with history - one needs some pretty strong evidence before one is going to be taken seriously if one is questioning, and rejecting, the current state of play...

Duke Leto · 10-01-2012, 05:08 AM

This is true, maryhelena.

But on a scale of 1 to "Oh my god it's him, lock up all the sharp things and just smile and nod!", levels of crazy:

"Josephus was a Christian Forgery covering up that there was only one Herod Agrippa, who was Marcion and the Real Messiah" rates somewhere between e an Pi. "Josephus was the secret identity of St. Luke and he distorted the history Jesus and Judea to cover up the true nature of Jesus and spread the lie that the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans as part of a 2000 year conspiracy by the Jesuits and the Vatican that resulted in the Jesuits Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Stalin killing millions of innocent people and most recently caused the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis... and my evidence for this is I got a confession from his ghost." is really somewhere in the vicinity of Avogadro's Number.

maryhelena · 10-01-2012, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke Leto

This is true, maryhelena.

But on a scale of 1 to "Oh my god it's him, lock up all the sharp things and just smile and nod!", levels of crazy:

"Josephus was a Christian Forgery covering up that there was only one Herod Agrippa, who was Marcion and the Real Messiah" rates somewhere between e an Pi. "Josephus was the secret identity of St. Luke and he distorted the history Jesus and Judea to cover up the true nature of Jesus and spread the lie that the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans as part of a 2000 year conspiracy by the Jesuits and the Vatican that resulted in the Jesuits Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Stalin killing millions of innocent people and most recently caused the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis... and my evidence for this is I got a confession from his ghost." is really somewhere in the vicinity of Avogadro's Number.

Speculations are a wonderful thing....they only become a problem when one believes that ones own speculation is special! People who go in for speculation, like Stephan, should not be the first to start throwing stones at others - people who live in glass houses etc....

I've had enough 'stones' thrown my way on this forum by Mr Huller that, at the very least, the man should be expecting some 'stones' coming his way. And yes - be man enough to take them all without resorting to his usual disparaging remarks...:angry:

Duke Leto · 10-01-2012, 06:00 AM

He's certainly very good at talking out his opponents, whatever else you might say about him.

Complete and total non-response is another.

I'm STILL waiting for an acknowledgement that his insistence that Hegesippus was unknown previously as a Greek name was demonstrably wrong.

stephan huller · 10-01-2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Hegesippus was unknown previously as a Greek name

While I was unaware that the name existed in classical Greek texts it is generally acknowledged by scholars that the Christian use of the name Hegesippus is a corruption of 'Joseph.' Part of the reason for this is that 'Hegesippus' was Jewish.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...478-hegesippus

"The author is given in the manuscripts sometimes as Hegesippus -- which may be a corruption of Iosippus, the spelling of Josephus in many of the manuscripts"

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/he..._00_eintro.htm

"There is a Latin version of the History of the Jews, dating from the end of the 4th century A.D., under the name of Hegesippus, a corruption of Josephus."

http://www.classics.upenn.edu/myth/p...ethod=standard

"In the manuscripts of the work "Iosippus" appears quite regularly for "Josephus". From Iosippus an unintelligent reviser derived Hegesippus, which name, therefore, is merely that of the original author, ignorantly transcribed."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07195a.htm

I could go on and on but the same process of corruption clearly explains all applications of the name Hegesippus on Jews. 'Joseph' is still such a common name among Jews owing to the high status of the patriarch. With respect to Jewish naming in antiquity, one must recall that angelic names (Michael, Gabriel etc) only became accepted in Jewish communities after their adoption by Christians in the East. As such there were even fewer names for Jewish males to chose - the patriarchs being the most common.

stephan huller · 10-01-2012, 09:42 AM

The point here (if the discussion has now turned to my impressions about the surviving manuscripts of Josephus's writings) is that:

1. I acknowledge that there was a figure named Joseph who was either 'son of Gorion' (as the rabbinic tradition) or 'son of Mattathias' who was a leader in the revolt of 66 CE.
2. I also acknowledge that the surviving manuscripts attributed to Josephus testify that the surviving works of this Joseph:
i. have come to us through the hands of certain 'assistants' like the Pauline corpus
ii. were likely originally written in Aramaic like at least some of the NT material
iii. were much shorter than the surviving material (still in five books but more like Hegesippus than the Greek text of Jewish War
3. I suspect Antiquities is a second century fake written by Jewish Christian in the name of Joseph undoubtedly incorporating original material from Joseph in certain places but as a whole representing something else entirely which was unknown to Joseph
4. the purpose of the Antiquities was to raise Joseph's profile and prestige (hence the language) against his rival Justin of Tiberias who up until the third century was considered the more reliable historian
5. at some point in the third century the Chronicle of the secretary of Agrippa was lost or ignored by Christian historians and this false (Christianized) Josephus supplanted it.
6. Eusebius's possessed slightly different versions of Antiquities, 'the Histories' (= Jewish War) and Hegesippus. He cites all three together in Book Two of his History of the Church, acknowledging the author of Antiquities and Histories to be the same person (= Josephus) and the Outlines to be someone else (= Hegesippus) even though:
i. it is clear that Josephus and Hegesippus wrote a 'hypomnemata' (= outlines) in five books which touched upon the same themes (James, Jesus, John the Baptist, the apostles) in the apostolic age and written in Aramaic which would allow for an early mutilation of the name Yoseph
ii the names Josephus and Hegesippus are etymologically related and are shared in certain manuscripts of the Jewish War
7. in all the surviving variants of Joseph's History (the text most closely related to the common Aramaic hypomnemata) there is very little consistency about the person of Agrippa. As mentioned in the Slavonic text Agrippa I exists but does not have a son, in the Latin text he has a son but is immediately installed as Agrippa I's successor in Judea, in Eusebius's text he has a son who is immediately installed as king of the Jews, in the Greek text he is installed as Herod of Chalcis's replacement and never made king of the Jews etc.
8. as all ancient writers are demonstrated to flatter their sovereign rulers it is strange that Josephus spends so much time lauding Agrippa's father (Agrippa I) but consistently intimates Agrippa II's incompetence and effectively blames his sovereign for the insurrection (at least partially). This in spite of Vita's claim that they were better friends than Justus, his universally acknowledged intimate and secretary.
9. Origen not only cites the Jewish understanding of Agrippa as a world ruler/messianic figure from (a) oral tradition and (b) a Jewish historical chronicle generally presumed to be Justin's Chronicle
10. given all this contradiction and misrepresentation of the historical personage of Agrippa in Christianized sources passing as Joseph's original text I chose to give more credence to the rabbinic sources about (a) the existence of only one Agrippa (or at least Agrippa not having Agrippa I as his father so Slavonic text) and (b) Agrippa being the messiah (agreeing with Justus, Origen and other early Christian sources).
11. in my book I also develop at length the Samaritan witness for a Marcus in the first century or early second century who was a secular authority, second Moses who defined the tradition forever more as another witness for Agrippa's possible influence. The identification of Berenice's husband Marcus as the evangelist Mark 'from Josephus' is apparently accepted in Coptic circles so Shenouda III

I am not sure why this topic brings out such hostility from only two participants at the forum. Well that is not exactly true. Maryhelena has an even stupider theory so I can understand her hostility. But at bottom my theory isn't an 'attack' on Josephus. While 'Josephus' as such does support the claim that there was only one Agrippa in history, my claims that Agrippa was regarded as the Jewish messiah don't depend on that any way.

In my book I reconstructed an argument for understanding Agrippa as a participant in the gospel narrative with a historical Jesus and a historical Passion. This is what it is. It is certainly an oversimplication. But the book was not published by an academic publisher. It should be viewed as an expression of my personal 'faith' at the time. It is quite common to modify and develop theories in light of new evidence. I would not construct the argument for Agrippa's messiahood in that way in 2012. But - as a caviat - I would be unable to reconstruct a 'truer' reflection of the evidence as I have to come to see it in a way that would be published for reading by a wide audience or read by a wide audience today. That's the simple facts of the matter.

stephan huller · 10-01-2012, 10:09 AM

If I was to write the book today I would start with the debates in Europe between Jews and Catholics (and Protestants) and ask - how can it be explained that we see an Agrippa vs Jesus dynamic emerge in the thirteenth - sixteenth centuries? But who is going to read that book though?

I would make the case that the gospel as read in Alexandria was a Platonized reinterpretation of an original text attributed to Peter. To this end, Mark universally understood to be a Jew in Alexandrian sources would necessarily have to be a Jewish Platonist. How many Jewish Platonists named 'Marcus' do we know of beside Agrippa?

There is a consistent effort to blend the Jewish scriptures with Greek philosophy in the first century. The three most prominent examples - (a) Philo, (b) Justus and (c) Marqe. Are (b) and (c) related as Agrippa and his secretary? Was there a concerted effort to redefine Judaism by means of Gentile enlightenment? With respect to Philo and Mark, the Coptic tradition of course understands Philo and Mark to have been related by blood.

There are clear and early Christian interpretations of the gospel which emphasize that Jesus was not the awaited messiah of the Jews. The most famous of these schools of thought were the Marcionites - a name I presume has something to do with appellation Marcus. There is a consistent understanding that Christian baptism has something to do with the 'kingship of God.' Were Christians waiting to establish the messiah in human form? Is the distance that is put between Paul and Jesus reflective of an acknowledgement that the messiah only appeared after the Passion? I think so and the temporal distance that we see in Marcionitism between 'the Paraclete' and Jesus's death is reflective generally of all later traditions (Montanism, Manichaeanism, Mohammedism). If I had developed this argument more fully I wouldn't have needed to get distracted by the question of whether the rabbinic tradition was justified in arguing for only one Agrippa or the even worse argument that Agrippa was present at the Passion.

But oversimplification is necessary to get published by non-academic publishers and documentaries. Got to pay to play.

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

09-30-2012, 10:58 PM	#43
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	I've posted this link before, which I found by googling Josephus and Clement of Alexandria a while back. Whatever else we can say about Stephan, it's clear that he does not have the most bizarre Josephus theory out there by a long shot. The site's article on Clement is also... interesting. If I've violated any forum rules by linking to what looks like hate speech, I apologize, but I'm incredulously condemning, not endorsing. In this case, to steal a Douglas Adams joke, we appear to be dealing with a mind that is not just twisted but actually sprained. The site's conclusions are so staggeringly insane that I have to invoke the inverse of Poe's Law and suppose that the whole thing might be an elaborate satire.

10-01-2012, 05:08 AM	#45
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	This is true, maryhelena. But on a scale of 1 to "Oh my god it's him, lock up all the sharp things and just smile and nod!", levels of crazy: "Josephus was a Christian Forgery covering up that there was only one Herod Agrippa, who was Marcion and the Real Messiah" rates somewhere between e an Pi. "Josephus was the secret identity of St. Luke and he distorted the history Jesus and Judea to cover up the true nature of Jesus and spread the lie that the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans as part of a 2000 year conspiracy by the Jesuits and the Vatican that resulted in the Jesuits Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Stalin killing millions of innocent people and most recently caused the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis... and my evidence for this is I got a confession from his ghost." is really somewhere in the vicinity of Avogadro's Number.

10-01-2012, 06:00 AM	#47
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	He's certainly very good at talking out his opponents, whatever else you might say about him. Complete and total non-response is another. I'm STILL waiting for an acknowledgement that his insistence that Hegesippus was unknown previously as a Greek name was demonstrably wrong.

10-01-2012, 09:42 AM	#49
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The point here (if the discussion has now turned to my impressions about the surviving manuscripts of Josephus's writings) is that: 1. I acknowledge that there was a figure named Joseph who was either 'son of Gorion' (as the rabbinic tradition) or 'son of Mattathias' who was a leader in the revolt of 66 CE. 2. I also acknowledge that the surviving manuscripts attributed to Josephus testify that the surviving works of this Joseph: i. have come to us through the hands of certain 'assistants' like the Pauline corpus ii. were likely originally written in Aramaic like at least some of the NT material iii. were much shorter than the surviving material (still in five books but more like Hegesippus than the Greek text of Jewish War 3. I suspect Antiquities is a second century fake written by Jewish Christian in the name of Joseph undoubtedly incorporating original material from Joseph in certain places but as a whole representing something else entirely which was unknown to Joseph 4. the purpose of the Antiquities was to raise Joseph's profile and prestige (hence the language) against his rival Justin of Tiberias who up until the third century was considered the more reliable historian 5. at some point in the third century the Chronicle of the secretary of Agrippa was lost or ignored by Christian historians and this false (Christianized) Josephus supplanted it. 6. Eusebius's possessed slightly different versions of Antiquities, 'the Histories' (= Jewish War) and Hegesippus. He cites all three together in Book Two of his History of the Church, acknowledging the author of Antiquities and Histories to be the same person (= Josephus) and the Outlines to be someone else (= Hegesippus) even though: i. it is clear that Josephus and Hegesippus wrote a 'hypomnemata' (= outlines) in five books which touched upon the same themes (James, Jesus, John the Baptist, the apostles) in the apostolic age and written in Aramaic which would allow for an early mutilation of the name Yoseph ii the names Josephus and Hegesippus are etymologically related and are shared in certain manuscripts of the Jewish War 7. in all the surviving variants of Joseph's History (the text most closely related to the common Aramaic hypomnemata) there is very little consistency about the person of Agrippa. As mentioned in the Slavonic text Agrippa I exists but does not have a son, in the Latin text he has a son but is immediately installed as Agrippa I's successor in Judea, in Eusebius's text he has a son who is immediately installed as king of the Jews, in the Greek text he is installed as Herod of Chalcis's replacement and never made king of the Jews etc. 8. as all ancient writers are demonstrated to flatter their sovereign rulers it is strange that Josephus spends so much time lauding Agrippa's father (Agrippa I) but consistently intimates Agrippa II's incompetence and effectively blames his sovereign for the insurrection (at least partially). This in spite of Vita's claim that they were better friends than Justus, his universally acknowledged intimate and secretary. 9. Origen not only cites the Jewish understanding of Agrippa as a world ruler/messianic figure from (a) oral tradition and (b) a Jewish historical chronicle generally presumed to be Justin's Chronicle 10. given all this contradiction and misrepresentation of the historical personage of Agrippa in Christianized sources passing as Joseph's original text I chose to give more credence to the rabbinic sources about (a) the existence of only one Agrippa (or at least Agrippa not having Agrippa I as his father so Slavonic text) and (b) Agrippa being the messiah (agreeing with Justus, Origen and other early Christian sources). 11. in my book I also develop at length the Samaritan witness for a Marcus in the first century or early second century who was a secular authority, second Moses who defined the tradition forever more as another witness for Agrippa's possible influence. The identification of Berenice's husband Marcus as the evangelist Mark 'from Josephus' is apparently accepted in Coptic circles so Shenouda III I am not sure why this topic brings out such hostility from only two participants at the forum. Well that is not exactly true. Maryhelena has an even stupider theory so I can understand her hostility. But at bottom my theory isn't an 'attack' on Josephus. While 'Josephus' as such does support the claim that there was only one Agrippa in history, my claims that Agrippa was regarded as the Jewish messiah don't depend on that any way. In my book I reconstructed an argument for understanding Agrippa as a participant in the gospel narrative with a historical Jesus and a historical Passion. This is what it is. It is certainly an oversimplication. But the book was not published by an academic publisher. It should be viewed as an expression of my personal 'faith' at the time. It is quite common to modify and develop theories in light of new evidence. I would not construct the argument for Agrippa's messiahood in that way in 2012. But - as a caviat - I would be unable to reconstruct a 'truer' reflection of the evidence as I have to come to see it in a way that would be published for reading by a wide audience or read by a wide audience today. That's the simple facts of the matter.

10-01-2012, 10:09 AM	#50
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	If I was to write the book today I would start with the debates in Europe between Jews and Catholics (and Protestants) and ask - how can it be explained that we see an Agrippa vs Jesus dynamic emerge in the thirteenth - sixteenth centuries? But who is going to read that book though? I would make the case that the gospel as read in Alexandria was a Platonized reinterpretation of an original text attributed to Peter. To this end, Mark universally understood to be a Jew in Alexandrian sources would necessarily have to be a Jewish Platonist. How many Jewish Platonists named 'Marcus' do we know of beside Agrippa? There is a consistent effort to blend the Jewish scriptures with Greek philosophy in the first century. The three most prominent examples - (a) Philo, (b) Justus and (c) Marqe. Are (b) and (c) related as Agrippa and his secretary? Was there a concerted effort to redefine Judaism by means of Gentile enlightenment? With respect to Philo and Mark, the Coptic tradition of course understands Philo and Mark to have been related by blood. There are clear and early Christian interpretations of the gospel which emphasize that Jesus was not the awaited messiah of the Jews. The most famous of these schools of thought were the Marcionites - a name I presume has something to do with appellation Marcus. There is a consistent understanding that Christian baptism has something to do with the 'kingship of God.' Were Christians waiting to establish the messiah in human form? Is the distance that is put between Paul and Jesus reflective of an acknowledgement that the messiah only appeared after the Passion? I think so and the temporal distance that we see in Marcionitism between 'the Paraclete' and Jesus's death is reflective generally of all later traditions (Montanism, Manichaeanism, Mohammedism). If I had developed this argument more fully I wouldn't have needed to get distracted by the question of whether the rabbinic tradition was justified in arguing for only one Agrippa or the even worse argument that Agrippa was present at the Passion. But oversimplification is necessary to get published by non-academic publishers and documentaries. Got to pay to play.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.