stephan huller

I really don't know if anyone will respond to this post. I am not a big believer in arguing for the sake of arguing. I traveled back to Seattle on a flight last night and managed to read Alan K Bowman's Egypt after the Pharaohs (or via: amazon.co.uk) with screaming kids (my own included) sitting all around me. It got me thinking and rather than develop a post which is going to encourage 'debate' I'd rather hear people who have some expertise in matters related to ancient Egypt.

I know there are all kinds of semi-idiotic books arguing that Christianity developed from Egyptian paganism. Most of the people that write these books develop their premise from a shallow understanding of 'parallels' that exist between Egyptian paganism and Christianity - i.e. Jesus and Mary/Harpocrates and Isis etc.

My developing understanding is - I think - a little bit more sophisticated than this. I think the sect associated with Dositheus was the 'missing link' between Hebrew 'monotheism' and a messianic religious tradition later called 'Christianity' either because the adherents were 'of Christ' (i.e. following a Latin etymology) or 'of the little Christ' (Greek).

Not very many people have any real knowledge of the Dositheans. I happen to have a good friend who is one of the leading experts on the ancient Samaritan sects. I have forwarded some of the posts I have developed and he has given me the thumbs up as it were that nothing I am saying can be disproved by the existing evidence related to the sect and moreover what I am saying follows from the various references.

As I noted in a previous post, the Torah does not reference the names of the months in the Jewish calendar that we all know (Nisan, Tishrei etc). There are no references to any months having less days than thirty nor any total number of months more than twelve.

The Dositheans had a calendar of twelve thirty day months which I have suggested was the original Israelite model developed directly from the Egyptian calendar and the time they spent as slaves in that society.

I don't know enough about the Egyptian calendar to know if my theory about Pentecost being related to the Egyptian agricultural new year makes sense. I developed my ideas from an article written in the last century. That article is cited in Crown's The Samaritans (or via: amazon.co.uk) http://books.google.com/books?id=pzo6KAH3FmUC

There are a number of people who have theorized that the Dositheans preserved the earliest form of Hebrew worship. The calendar is key because of its POTENTIAL to go back to a pre-Babylonian Israelite cult that still had connections to Egypt and Egyptian tradition (or perhaps better yet a Semitic culture WITHIN ancient Egypt).

What I am beginning to theorize is that:

(a) Christianity was developed at Alexandria
(b) that it reflected a development of Dosithean ideas related to the 360 calendar
and (c) more importantly, argued that it was as much a RESTORATION of the original beliefs of Israel BEFORE the corruption of the Golden Calf etc.

I still don't believe that the first Christians of Egypt promoted any belief directly associated with the ancient pagan gods of the land. Instead I think that it was recognized that Moses represented a break from that pagan past and that Christ was the fulfillment of an expectation that was common to the descendants of Israel and Egypt.

The reason I stress this is that I can't believe that the high level of Egyptian conversion to Christianity would have been possible if the religion argued that 'the Jews' (i.e. the modern representatives of the ancient religion of Moses) were 'correct.' I suspect that the central argument of Christianity was developed from common frames of reference (i.e. the crossing of the sea as an act of redemption) but developed with an Egyptian audience in mind.

Let me give my readers an example.

I think that Christian baptism was directed at Egyptians. It is inescapable that the ancient Israelites never actually touched the waters of the sea. The only people who were immersed in water as the seventh day went out into the eighth, the time the Egyptians were understood to have drowned.

I think the Marcionite interest in framing the ritual as a 'baptism on behalf of the dead' goes back to the dead Egyptians in the sea. I also suspect that secret Mark was the original baptism narrative out of which Egyptian Christianity developed its water immersion rituals. It also reinforces the 'seventh day going out into the eighth' too.

The traditional Samaritan understanding is that the gods of the Egyptians also died in the water. I think some symbolism was developed where these 'thirty powers' (Aram. hyl contains the eighth, tenth and twelfth letters of the Hebrew alphabet) went into the sea as the sun (i.e. the god of the Hebrews) went up from the underworld to start the eighth day.

But there are other little things which emerge from Bowman's discussion of Egyptian society that struck me as influencing earliest Christianity. I don't want to list all of them just yet. But some of the more striking manifest themselves in Bowman's discussion of the rules of ancient Egyptian society such as:

A characteristic feature of Egyptian practice (of dividing property) was the custom of dividing property between all children with little regard to sex or age. One natural result of this was a large proportion (for the ancient world) of female property owners [p. 131]

I know most people in this forum will probably be scratching their heads wondering where in the gospel is there any reference to women inheriting property like men but it actually comes from a much better source - Jewish eyewitness testimony from the late first century.

Mama (Imma) Salome, the wife of R. Eliezer and sister of Rab ban Gamaliel, had a philosopher as a neighbour, who had the reputation of taking no bribe. They wished to render him ridiculous. Mama accordingly brought him a golden candle-stick, presented herself before him and said: 'I should like to have a share in the property of my family.' The philosopher answered her: 'Then have thy share!' But Gamaliel said to him : 'We have the law: where there is a son, the daughter shall inherit nothing.' The philosopher said: 'Since the day when ye were driven out of your country, the Law of Moses is repealed and there is given the Gospel, in which it is said: Son and daughter shall inherit together.' [Bab. Shabbath 116 a]

This is of course merely scratching the surface. What I am wondering is whether there are others who have come across arguments that Christianity essentially wanted to 'restore' a lost Israelite tradition very much rooted in Egyptianism but (as I suspect) with a streamlined monotheistic sensibility.

Toto

Sorry, deep links to google books sometimes create problems, since Google will only allow one person a certain number of hits on a page, and is telling me that page has exceeded it's limits.

You are trying to reference Sylvia Powels, "The Samaritan Calendar and the Roots of Samaritan Chronology" at p 729

bacht

Great stuff Stephan. I don't know the references but I believe what you're describing is the general tenor of Jewish gnosticism, the restoration theme, pre-Josiah / pre-Moses. The focus on ancient figures like Adam, Seth, Enosh, Enoch and Melchizedek supports this.

show_no_mercy

The Logos is also an Alexandrian concept.

According to Irenaeus one of the first heretics, Cerinthus, was schooled in Egypt and was an antagonist to a "John".

bacht

Right, and our friend Apollos from the Pauline mini-series

stephan huller

As a sidebar to the Egyptian discussion, I thought I might mention that I have identified a number of examples when Philo references an Alexandrian group who HE CLAIMS has an anti-Jewish agenda (but then again Jews can - let's face it - turn around ANY disagreement with anyone into proof of 'anti-Semitism'; I managed to get out of a contract that way). These references include:

1) taking the 'side' of the Egyptians in Exodus narrative (a la the Marcionites)
2) making appeals to the native Egyptian population
3) developing an apocalyptic vision of the future through kabbalah (a la the Marcosians)
4) having a gnostic interest in a hypostasis called νοῦς

and now I can take that even one step further. I think Philo also seems to reference a Marcionite interpretation of Deuteronomy 25:4.

I know this might sound crazy to most of my readers. After all we 'know' that 'Paul' never traveled to Alexandria. But I have argued at length here that there are good reasons for believing that the letter which is called 'the first letter to the Corinthians' is actually a Catholic reworking of a Marcionite text originally identified as 'to the Alexandrians.'

That Pauline texts resemble Philo's writings has long been noted but what I am suggesting here has not. I think that that Philo bears witness to the primacy of the Marcionite recension of the Pauline writings and in particular the Marcionite interpretation of the scripture we identify as 1 Corinthians 9:9 but which was undoubtedly identified as 'to the Alexandrians' by the followers of Mark (Marqione as we have already noted is an Aramaic gentilic collective plural meaning 'those of Mark').

Now I don't want to get sidetracked by all the assumptions about the period that Marcion was active. The bottom line is that it is the Catholic sources - and in particular Irenaeus - who fix the date of Marcion's activity in the middle of the second century. Clement by contrast says that Marcion became a Christian in the early apostolic period.

Indeed even if modern Catholic apologists become adamant about dating Marcion in the second century period there are clear signs that the 'Marcion' encountered by Polycarp belonged to a tradition which must have included a distinct collection of Pauline writings and interpretation which stretched back to the first century.

'Marcion' is our earliest authority on the Pauline writings. This should certainly mean something (but it doesn't). Nevertheless to make up for lost time, let's attempt to make sense of the Marcionite interpretation of our 1 Cor 9:9.

Epiphanius alludes to Marcionite variants in this section which are also found in Catholic MSS. We read:

[1 Corinthians 9:9 is] given in an altered form. In place of, ’in the Law,’ he [Marcion] says ’in the Law of Moses.’ [Eusebius Pan 42,11,8]

So all that we can acknowledge is that the Marcionite text read:

For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

ἐν γὰρ τῷ Μωϋσέως νόμῳ γέγραπται· οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα. μὴ τῶν βοῶν μέλει τῷ θεῷ

It should be self-evident that the Marcionites DID NOT have most of the rest of the material which surrounds 1 Cor 9:9. This was undoubtedly developed by a Catholic editor to provide ANOTHER context for the obvious depreciation of the traditional Jewish interpretation of the Law.

It should be acknowledged that there was a very well established position within Judaism that Deuteronomy (the book cited here) was written only on the authority of Moses. In other words, it was not written by God. Abraham Heschel (Heavenly Torah (or via: amazon.co.uk)) has developed a fascinating study of this understanding in the rabbinic literature which can be read here. http://books.google.com/books?id=WAGK8GiNrQgC p 457

By the way, I keep telling people the Achilles heel of Patristic and New Testament scholars IS THEIR COMPLETE IGNORANCE AND MISUNDERSTANDING OF JUDAISM. Marcionitism was a Jewish heresy or better yet a form of Christianity which stands VERY CLOSE to what we know about the Jewish beliefs of the second commonwealth period. Sorry, had to mention that again.

Heschel also provides us with an earlier view which argues that the Sadducees and the Samaritans emphasized that God only wrote the ten utterances (commandments). I happen to think that this was the original Christian point of view.

In other words, in some sense 'Marcion' (or Mark) can be understood to be arguing that the Law of Moses was imperfect because it did not come from God but Moses. God would only care for the creation made after his image - man - whereas the Law of Moses reflects an interest in human concerns like the welfare of animals. This is clearly reflected in the surviving fragmentary information about the Marcionite exegesis of 1 Cor 9:9:

But he wanted divine authority. What was the use, however, of adducing the Creator’s, which he was destroying? It was vain to do so; for his god had no such authority! [The apostle] says: ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn,’ and adds: ‘Doth God take care of oxen?’ Yes, of oxen, for the sake of men! For, says he, ‘it is written for our sakes.’ Thus he showed that the law had a symbolic reference to ourselves(…)” [Against Marcion V.7]

Megethius the Marcionite ”I will demonstrate that the Apostle mentions [the ancient prophets] in many places(…) ”Who tends a flock, and does not get sustenance from the milk? Surely I do not say these things by human authority, for does not even the law say these things? In the law of Moses it stands written, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing’. Surely God is not concerned for oxen? Rather, does he not certainly speak for our sakes? It is written for our sakes, because the ploughman ought to plough in hope.” [Dialogue 1.22]

Once we become aware that there was an early tradition which identified 1 Cor 9:9 as criticizing 'the Law made by Moses' for its interest in the well being of animals one can perhaps see Philo's awareness of this position at the time he was writing On the Virtues:

But these men have established these enactments with reference to human beings, but this lawgiver of ours, going beyond them all, extends his humanity even to brute beasts, in order that ... we being accustomed to practise all the things ordained in his laws, may display an excessive degree of humanity, abstaining from pursuing any one, or even from annoying them in retaliation for any annoyance which we have received at their hands, and that we may not store up in secret our own good things, so as to keep them to ourselves, but may bring them into the middle, and offer them freely to all men everywhere, as if they were our kinsmen and our natural brothers.

Moreover, let wicked sycophants calumniate the whole nation as one given to inhumanity, and our laws as enjoining unsociable and inhuman observances, while the laws do thus openly show compassion on even the herds of cattle, and while the whole nation from its earliest youth is, as far as the disobedient nature of their souls will admit of, brought over by the honest admonitions of the law to a peaceable disposition. And our lawgiver endeavours to surpass even himself, being a man of every kind of resource which can tend to virtue, and having a certain natural aptitude for virtuous recommendations; for he commands that one shall not take an animal from the mother, whether it be a lamb, or a kid, or any other creature belonging to the flocks or herds, before it is weaned. And having also given a command that no one shall sacrifice the mother and the offspring on the same day, he goes further, and is quite prodigal on the particularity of his injunctions, adding this also, "Thou shalt not seethe a lamb in his mother's Milk."{Ex 23:19} For he looked upon it as a very terrible thing for the nourishment of the living to be the seasoning and sauce of the dead animal, and when provident nature had, as it were, showered forth milk to support the living creature, which it had ordained to be conveyed through the breasts of the mother, as if through a regular channel, that the unbridled licentiousness of men should go to such a height that they should slay both the author of the existence of the other, and make use of it in order to consume the body of the other. And if any one should desire to dress flesh with milk, let him do so without incurring the double reproach of inhumanity and impiety. There are innumerable herds of cattle in every direction, and some are every day milked by the cowherds, or goatherds, or shepherds, since, indeed, the milk is the greatest source of profit to all breeders of stock, being partly used in a liquid state and partly allowed to coagulate and solidify, so as to make cheese. So that, as there is the greatest abundance of lambs, and kids, and all other kinds of animals, the man who seethes the flesh of any one of them in the milk of its own mother is exhibiting a terrible perversity of disposition, and exhibits himself as wholly destitute of that feeling which, of all others, is the most indispensable to, and most nearly akin to, a rational soul, namely, compassion.

I also greatly admire that law which, like a singer in a well-trained chorus, is perfectly in accord with those which have gone before it, and which forbids a man to "muzzle the ox which treadeth out the Corn."{Deuteronomy 25:4} For it is he who, before the sowing was performed, cut the furrows through the deep-soiled plain, and prepared the field for the operations of heaven and for the labours of the husbandman; for the latter, so that he might sow it at a seasonable time, and for the other, that the deep bosom of the earth might receive its bounty displayed in gentle showers, and in consequence might treasure up rich nutriment for the seed and dispense it to it gradually until it should swell into the full ear and bring its annual fruit to perfection. And, after the corn is brought to perfection, then again the ox is necessary for another service, namely, for the purification of the sheaves, and the separation of the chaff from the genuine useful grain. And since I have explained this distinct and humane command respecting the oxen which tread out the corn, I will now proceed to speak of that one which relates to the animals which plough, which is also of the same family; for the lawgiver also forbids the husbandman to yoke the ox and the ass together in the same plough for ploughing, {Deuteronomy 22:10} considering in this not only the difference of nature between the two animals, because the one is clean, while the ass is one of the unclean beasts, and it is not becoming to bring together animals which are so utterly alienated, but also because they are unequal in point of strength, he takes care of that which is the weaker, in order that it may not be oppressed and worn out by the greater power of the other. And, indeed, the ass, which is the weaker animal, is driven outside of the sacred precincts; but the more vigorous beast, namely, the ox, is offered up as a victim in the most perfect sacrifices. But, nevertheless, the lawgiver neither neglected the safety of the unclean animals, nor did he permit those which were clean to use their strength in disregard of justice, crying out and declaring loudly in express words, if one may say so, to those persons who have ears in their soul, not to injure any one of a different nation, unless they have some grounds for bringing accusations against them beyond the fact of their being of another nation, which is not ground of blame; for those things which are not wickedness, and which do not proceed from wickedness, are free from all reproach.[On the Virtues 140 - 149]

The point of course is that when you look at things from a Marcionite perspective it is very easy to see how the 'sycophants' of Philo's On Virtues may well have been Christian followers of the Apostle. The argument clearly must have originally been that the true God would necessarily exclusively have an interest in his people.

One more thing. If you look at Origen's interpretation of 1 Cor 9:9/Deut 25:4 it appears on the surface to echo what we would call a 'normative' interpretation of the material but if you stand back you suddenly realize that the Alexandrian is just extremely skillful at repackaging the heresy of his patron Ambrose (a former Marcionite/Valentinian depending on who you listen to you) in such a way that these beliefs seem compatible with the Roman orthodoxy.

Origen’s use of the writings of 'the Apostle' in Peri Archon IV.2 and 3, to illustrate the contrast between spiritual interpretation and literalist reading, serves to make the reading practices of “those of the circumcision” synonymous with improper, literalist reading. At IV.2.6, after allowing that one may be edified by the bodily meaning of scripture, Origen cites 1 Cor 9:9-10 as an example of an explanation “which penetrates as it were to the soul.” In this passage, Paul interprets Deut 25:4 not as applying to oxen but as meant metaphorically “for our sake.”

Origen then continues:

But it is a spiritual explanation when one is able to show of what heavenly things the Jews according to the flesh served a copy and a shadow, and of what good things to come the law has a shadow.

The language of this sentence is drawn from Heb 8:5, Heb 10:1, and 1 Cor 10:18. “Spiritual explanation,” is posed here not strictly in opposition to the “bodily sense” in itself, but rather in opposition to the cultic observance of the “Jews according to the flesh,” that is, in opposition to the cultic practices resulting from their reading of scripture.

These two verses from Hebrews appear at least twelve times in Peri Archon, occasionally together; at times, as in this context, they are used not only to make a statement about how to understand scripture, but also to assert that the worship offered by the Jews was neither true nor spiritual.

A series of examples follows, to illustrate what 'the Apostle' means by spiritual interpretation. First Origen quotes 1 Cor 10:11 and 10:4 as 'the Apostle’s”' statement of the hermeneutical principle that the biblical narratives were written “for our sake,” and were to be interpreted figuratively. He briefly cites Hebr 8:5, which itself quotes Exod 25:40 and its allusion to the “figure” (tupos) shown to Moses on the mount. He then discusses Gal 4:21-24, in which Paul uses the technical term 'allegory'; Origen reads the passage as Paul’s assertion that observance of the law is not synonymous with “understanding and knowing” the law. It is those who desire to be under the law, not those who are under the law, who should be able to comprehend the meaning of the law, “the allegories in the scriptures”.

Next comes Colossians 2:16-17, which speaks of food laws, holidays and the Sabbath as a “shadow of the things to come.” The “shadow” language of Col 2:17 reminds Origen once more of the beginning of Hebr 8:5, which he now quotes more fully. Thus the sense of “serving a copy and a shadow” is extended to encompass not merely the temple cult, but Jewish religious observance in general. These examples reinforce the section’s opening definition of spiritual interpretation as understanding the meaning of the biblical text in opposition to the way that Jews read scripture.

What I am hoping to show is that Origen has just succeeded in recasting what was the original 'slight' against the law of those 'sycophants' known to Philo and the Marcionites (whom I think were one and the same). The first century heretics were openly saying that the Law of Moses (i.e. something distinguished from the Law of God) was imperfect. It was animal and so reflected an interest in animals.

Origen has just learned to rephrase this original bravado (undoubtedly owing to Imperial mistrust of the original Alexandrian heresy and its identification of 'the ruler of the world' and the 'kosmokrator' to whom the 'gnostics' thought they were superior as the Emperor himself) but I think the same understanding is buried within all the rhetoric.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

It seems that there are all kinds of clues that Alexandria played a major part, if not the dominant role in the development of Christianities in First centuries.

There is a subtle hostility to Jewish Law throughout early Christianities which can be read as a desire to go back to a pre-Mosaic Judaism. It is possible that some Jews in Alexandria would have a negative view towards the Exodus. After all, if you're arguing that Jews were enslaved in Egypt and the Jewish God gave the land of Israel to the Jews and led Jews out of Egypt, what the hell are Jews doing, still in Egypt? Why not go pack up our things and make the three day trip to Judea? So we can easily imagine that an anti-Mosaic law Jewish cult developed in Egypt and that it influenced Christian texts.

As Bacht pointed out, Apollos, Paul's rival/co-apostle, was from Alexandria.

History is always fuzzy and it is hard to know why some paths were taken and others abandoned.

If we look at the James Bond phenomena, which has some odd parallels to Christianity. (e.g. Jesus will return, we are told in the gospels, James Bond will return, we are told at the end of each movie.) influences are somewhat easier to trace. The first James Bond movie "Dr. No." was influenced by Alfred Hitchcock's "North by Northwest," and Joseph Mankiwitz's "The Quiet American," The early James Bond film deliberately had more sex (well dressed or undressed beautiful women) and action sequences, obscuring plot logic, because the producers felt that if the audience had time to think about what Bond was doing, they would realize how absurd and ridiculous it was and walk out. This led to a number of Bond "spoof" movies, such as "Matt Helm" which contained almost no reasoning or logic at all. This led to the later Bond movies with Sean Connery and the Bond movies with Roger Moore being spoofs of the spoofs. We may think of the last dozen James Bond movies as being more like Gothic Churches, where the same themes are preached in ever more dazzling surroundings.

The heretical Jason Bourne spy series of films seems to be the first real rival series to Bond that may outlast it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin (AKA Philosopher Jay)

stephan huller

Hi Jay,

This is rather easy to explain. It only expresses an idea that is paralleled by the Samaritan (and Dosithean) concept of the 'time of favor'/'disfavor.' Samaritans always lived around mount Gerizim. They still do. You'd think that they would just set up a temple now or at some point in the last two thousand years.

The reason they don't is the same as the arguments used by Maimonides and the rabbinic tradition AGAINST the re-establishment of the Jewish temple (which used to be orthodoxy but God knows where Judaism is heading now).

Maimonides says that the old system of sacrifices has come and gone. Whatever is coming will not be like the old system. The same idea appears in the last chapter of the Samaritan Asitar.

The question of WTF the Jews of Egypt were up to with their rival temple HAS NEVER BEEN ADEQUATELY answered by scholarship. It is ignored in the way Samaritanism is ignored.

Yet the Egyptian temple is actually a lot more problematic than Gerizim. It is explicitly described as having 'an altar' and the references to the priesthood in the early sources (Mishnah) make clear that they were engaged in sacrificial

The rabbinic reports while mostly frowning on the sacrifices that went on at this rival site did not condemn its participants. They were still Jews, which is odd frankly owing to the fact that you'd think that Jerusalem would be seen as the ONLY place that was fit to hold sacrifices.

So how did Jews come to accept the idea that other Jews were carrying out what should only have been carried out at Jerusalem?

There really can be only one answer. Onias established the Alexandrian temple but also represented the last of the true line of high priests. The high priests in Judea soon came from the family of Judah Maccabeus and then Pharisees.

The Qumran literature testifies to a chorus of dissident voices who disapproved of the manner in which the traditional sacrifices were being carried out.

I suspect that the Alexandrian community must have argued that because the Jerusalem temple was not functioning properly, there was in effect no sanctity to the religious services there. As such Israel returned to the time before Jerusalem - i.e. the age where the ark moved from one place to another and wherever it was was the legitimate place for sacrifices.

This is the basic manner in which I believe the Alexandrian Jewish tradition justified carrying out sacrifices outside of Jerusalem. They must have originally been highly disgruntled Sadducees. They must have shared many similar traits with at least some sects who developed literature found at Qumran.

The basic idea is represented in Jesus' discussion with the Samaritan woman in front of Mount Gerizim the place Samaritans formerly offered sacrifices to God. Jesus says "the hour is coming, when neither in Jerusalem, nor in this mountain, shall ye worship the Father."

BTW Jerome makes clear that this woman - 'Photi' - was a Dosithean Samaritan (the name comes up during the conversation with Jesus i.e. "if you knew 'the gift of God'" ...

All of this opens up the ultimately DANGEROUS question - given the fact that rabbinic sources from the Tannaitic period testify to a functioning temple in the early second century - how would the native Alexandrian Jewish tradition have viewed the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE?

To answer that let's make it clear that the Samaritans would have peed their pans with joy. But they didn't have a functioning temple. Is it possible that the Alexandrians would have been equally proud that their temple was the only one left? Could this have initiated a new doctrine of 'redemption' from Egypt which became the basis for Christianity and Christian baptism?

All of this is speculative of course but I have a hard time believing that if - we liken this to sports for a second - that the residents of Boston wouldn't cheer if the Yankees were forever eliminated from the Major Leagues (something akin to Inter Milan in Serie A just recently).

Everybody wants to rule the world or at least thinks they are the center of the world. The destruction of the Jewish temple by Marcus Agrippa, Titus et al would have made that a reality for the Jewish Alexandrian priesthood and the religion's adherents.

bacht

Forgive my ignorance, but is there any evidence that Jews in the east (Babylon, Parthia) practiced ritual sacrifices similar to the Jerusalem system?

stephan huller

Sacrifices were officially forbidden outside of the Jerusalem altar, all of which makes the existence of countless references to a Jewish 'altar of Alexandria' so utterly intriguing. Something officially 'forgotten' lies beneath the surface here. Something that the editors of Josephus (who invent an imaginary temple at Heliopolis) want us to forget.

Here's the next level to the problem. How would the Alexandrian Jews have viewed Marcus Julius Agrippa? We see him celebrated as a savior in Flaccus but that was 38 CE. What about the destruction of the Jewish temple and his role in the event?

Everyone keeps telling me 'it is impossible to imagine Agrippa's role in the destruction as warranting connecting him with the messiah of Daniel 9:26.' But there it is in black and white in Jewish and Christian sources from as early as the late second century.

The earliest Christian sources for this tradition are Alexandrian. Is that the clue to unravel everything? Was Marcus Agrippa the messiah of the ALEXANDRIAN JEWISH TRADITION because - to use the analogy - he hit the home run that knocked the New York Yankees (i.e. the Jerusalem tradition) out of the World Series forever and thereby left Alexandria as the only altar in Judaism? And is Agrippa remembered still as St. Mark, the son of Aristobulus and Salome according to Coptic sources? Aristobulus is still the name of Agrippa's father according to a reconciliation of rabbinic sources and Josephus. Salome can be inferred to be the name of Agrippa's mother in the Acts of Isidorus (cf. the Acts of the Pagan Martyrs Musurillo). But how certain is all of this? What do we do when we stop using Josephus as our guide to the period?

Questions, questions, questions ...