stephan huller

The best summary of the original citation (which comes from the Latin portion of his Commentary on Matthew) is from Bill Adler notes (the Jewish apocalyptic heritage in early Christianity):

Origen acknowledges that some interpreters of Daniel 9:26 identified the coming prince with 'Christ' (i.e. Jesus) ... [he says that] the figure instead should be identified either as Herod or as Agrippa (the latter he says on the authority of a 'Jewish history'). In either case it was with one of these foreign rulers that the oracle of Jacob was fulfilled. (p. 235)

My guess is that this text was Justus of Tiberias's Chronology (the rival to Josephus's lost original text). The reasons for this are all circumstantial of course - Julius Africanus used Justus and was friendly with Origen, the text seems to have been circulating in Alexandria, Justus was Agrippa's secretary and would undoubtedly have written a flattering portrait of his master and finally Photius's brief description of its contents seems to hint that it emphasized Agrippa's status as the 'last the Jewish kings' an argument which would lend itself to messianic speculation (cf. Gen 49.8 - 12).

The reference in Photius is:

he begins his history from Moses, and brings it down until the demise of the seventh Agrippa of those from the house of Herod, and [Agrippa was] the last among the kings of the Jews, who received his rule from Claudius, and was augmented by Nero, and still more by Vespasian; but he came to his end in the third year of Trajan, where the history also ceases.

While the surviving texts of Josephus make it seem Agrippa never ruled in Judea this may have been deliberately conceived (i.e. as a reaction to what appears in Justus - viz. why would Justus write a history of the kings of the Jews if his master never became one?)

In any event I will argue that I think that Justus's history did not disappear but essentially became 'fused' with Josephus lost original Aramaic text and that this was the real work of the synergoi i.e. to make a history of the period which would separate Jesus and Christianity from a question of whether Agrippa was a legitimate monarch (the cause of the revolt) and the basis for the controversy over whether or not he was a/the 'messiah' (any secular monarch is necessarily a messiah; it was Agrippa's status as the last king made him unique).

I would like to concentrate my efforts in this thread to the idea that the underlying structure of what is now called 'the historical narrative of Josephus' seems to have developed out of a tradition which identified Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel. I don't think any of these events actually happened the way they are now described but they were originally developed so as to connect the entire history of the war to Daniel's 'prediction' of the destruction of the temple (and thus justify the loss and consolidate Agrippa's position within what remained of Jewish society).

I will cite the Hebrew Yosippon material sent to me by the world's leading expert on this text Professor Steve Bowman of the University of Cincinnati who sent me an early draft of the last paragraph of Agrippa's speech in ch. 60 of Flusser's edition.

And Agripas continued to speak many more words, which we have not written here. And again Agripas spoke, saying: "It is good for you, my friends, it is good for you as long as a ship stands in the harbor to protect your lives from the storm, for, when the ship enters the current of the sea, one cannot be protected against the tempest from the current of the sea or the waves in the current, for there is no haven to rest save tempests and fear of death." And he said: "Set in your heart love of your land and love of your sons and your wives and place in your heart love of your sanctuary and love of your priests and have pity upon them lest you destroy everything through your action, so pay attention to my words for I have spoken in your ears the salvation of your souls: the peace which I have chosen for myself with the Romans I have told you. If you listen and make peace, I am together with you, but if you choose war, you are alone by yourselves; if for peace you and I are together but if for war, without me."

The Yosippon has long been acknowledged to be a development or related to the Latin text of Pseudo-Hegesippus (4th century) which renders the same material as follows:

It is well, dearest ones, it is well, while the ship is still in port, to foresee the future storm, and that anyone not throw himself into threatening dangers, lest, when you have proceeded into the deep, already your are not able to avoid the shipwreck. And frequently certainly a sudden storm arises, and war follows, even though it is not inflicted; but it is better to attack an enemy that to ward him off. Not provoked he spares more, and necessity excuses insolence, when truly anyone plunges himself into abrupt danger, he is burdened with disgrace. He is not an enemy whom you are able to avoid by flight. Wherever you will go, danger follows, indeed you will surely find it. For all are friends of the Romans, and whoever is outside the friendship of the Romans is an enemy of everyone. May love of your country move you. If consideration of your hostages, of your wives does not call you back, let contemplation of the most sacred temple recall you, spare at least our religion, spare the consecrated priests, whom the Romans will not spare nor the temple itself, who regret that they spared them, inasmuch as for a long time all the nations wish to destroy our religion, Pompeius however spared it although he could have destroyed it. I have omitted nothing, I have warned of everything which pertains to our safety. I recommend to you what I choose for myself, you consider closely what is advantageous for yourselves. I wish for there to be peace with the Romans for you and me. If you reject it, you yourselves take away my association. Either there will be common good fortune, or peril without me."

In either case we have a reference to the same historical context - Marcus Agrippa is addressing the Jews and warning them that if they do not heed his words 'his association' with them will be 'cut off.' The narrative then ends with the narrator telling us that "saying this he wept, Beronice his sister also, for she herself was in the heights of Xystus."

Agrippa's self-reference to himself as a naukrleros is found in all surviving manuscripts of Josephus. The point is clearly that Agrippa is the 'ship' or the 'shipmaster' who is metaphorically 'still in the harbor' insofar as he is standing in front of the Jews making an appeal to them. Once the Jews reject him, the ship and the naukleros as the analogy goes, also leaves the harbor leading them to drown in the turbulent sea of their own designs. It is a messianic metaphor as I will show shortly.

I can't believe that people keep coming back to Josephus as if we are dealing with a factual account of the events of the Jewish War. Justus of Tiberias's parallel history of the war clearly demonstrated how fictitious most of Josephus's surviving material is. The reader should become aware once told that the entire 'history' is a development from Daniel's prophesy of the destruction of the temple after seventy sabbatical years.

It cannot be coincidence that Agrippa is identified as the messiah (Dan 9:26) in this same prophesy. It all develops out of a pseudo-historical treatment which is connected with the manufacture of the gospel by Mark too.

Note that Agrippa clearly declares in this speech that if he is rejected by the Jews he will in effect by 'cut off' from them. 'Cut off' in the original Hebrew of Daniel is yikkaret.

ואינו He is not there.
ואין לו He disappears, he has disappeared.

Daniel has the second expression, not the first. The point is that what is represented here is the exact English equivalent of the Hebrew. I put both down for comparison.

The first expression is used of Enoch. “He walked with the angels (ha-Elohim). And he was not (he was not there any more); for God (Elohim) took him (had taken him)”. In Biblical Hebrew ואיננו (ve-enénnu) is the equivalent of ואינו (ve-enó).

The distinction is like this. The first means he she or it does not exist or does not exist any more. Of a person, it could mean he has died, but only if something is added. In the case of Enoch it means he was transported (to Heaven, not to America). If said of an empire, it would mean it no longer exists. The second means he is no longer present, he has vanished, he is off the scene. It does not mean he has died. His whereabouts might be well known, but he is not HERE or ACTING IN THIS CONTEXT.

The verb yikkaret does not mean he will die. Everyone says it does, but it does not. If the context allows AND DEMANDS IT, it can mean he will be killed, as the Peshitta translates it. But the meaning without preconceptions is that he will stop acting in his function. THIS VERB IS NOT NORMALLY USED OF PEOPLE. It is used of dynasties, for example. Its use in relation to a person is not normal. It is JARRING. The meaning can only be that he stops acting as Anointed Leader. The sentence says (over-translating) “The OFFICE of Anointed Leader will terminate. He will disappear from the scene”.

I’m not fully satisfied with this but it will do for the moment.

A bit more. There is one common use of the Biblical Hebrew narrative future of KRT in the feminine passive (ve-nichreta ונכרתה) in reference to a person. I am sure that someone will raise this as an objection, so here is the answer. In several places in the Torah, it says that if a soul (nefesh, feminine) does some defined thing or does not do some defined thing, that soul “will be cut off” from its (her) people. Rabbinic exegesis on the superficial level says this means death before the age of fifty. (This is why in John it is objected by someone that Jesus is not yet fifty. He has not ye proven his genuineness).

If you look more carefully, what is meant is that death before that age can be a sign of this having happened, but not everyone in this category dies before fifty and not everyone that dies before fifty is in this category. The Rabbinic Hebrew noun is karet. Look this up in Jastrow. The meaning of karet is separation of the individual soul from its group identification. Note carefully that it does not in itself mean death. It means the end of adhesion of the individual soul to the group, and the ending of its share in the salvation of the group. The most salient offence [sic] causing karet is not to keep the Sabbath, but there are others.

Otherwise, KRT refers to the end of a dynasty.

Oversimplifying, ve-enó means he no longer exists or is no longer on this earth or at least no-one knows if he is still on this earth. Like when some intelligence official says they knew exactly what had become of Bin Laden. Reliable intelligence informed that he was alive in Afghanistan, or otherwise was dead in Afghanistan or was alive in some other country.

On the other hand, ve-en lo means he vanishes rather than disappears. His whereabouts might be still be well known and he might still be active. So Daniel says (paraphrasing): (a) “The office of Anointed Leader will be terminated (like the termination of a dynasty). There is no longer any office of Anointed Leader”; OR (b) “The individual Anointed Leader will be separated off (from “the Jews” in the sense the expression has in the NT). He won’t be there doing the job (though he will be alive and well as king, and he MIGHT EVEN STILL BE ANOINTED LEADER, but “the Jews” have no share in it)”. I will see what the Yosippon has as the wording in Agrippa’s speech.

If the final editing of Daniel was before the time of Agrippa, then the first meaning was intended. Agrippa interpreted the words in the second meaning. This is important. We don’t have to say the final editing of Daniel was in the time of Agrippa. This gets rid of a difficulty.

So let's get back to the Yosippon and the understanding of Agrippa as the messiah connected with the destruction of the temple. According to Flusser, there is an original text and later additions. “Later” means “added later”, but not necessarily later in origin, as far as I can make out, though I haven’t read the introduction in detail yet.

The Temple was destroyed in the last year of Agrippa II on the 9th Av but Agrippa and Monobaz were executed by Vespasian, who was deceived by wicked persons into thinking Agrippa and Monobaz were plotting against him. This was 1,290 days before the destruction of the Temple. The Tamid offering ended three and a half years before the destruction. (This must mean Agrippa and Monobaz were executed a week after the Tamid ended). The two events are implicitly related to each other and both are explicitly connected to Daniel IX.

Another later addition. Josephus speaking in the first person expresses his satisfaction at finding favour with Vespasian as soon as Agrippa and Monobaz were executed. (He doesn’t say anything about the truth or falsehood of the charges against them, only that Vespasian believed the charges and this was useful to him. [Bastard!].

Notice that in the previous insertion the evidence is explicitly said to be deliberate slander by wicked persons. The first insertion and the second must have different origins.

It’s hard to tell from the wording in the Yosippon whether the Abomination of Desolation is to be dated to the death of Agrippa or to just before the destruction of the Temple. The only grounds for my choice of the second possibility as more probable is that the reference in the “Little Apocalypse” in Mark and Matthew is to some object set up in the sanctuary. I will sort this out later.

Whichever reading is right, the Yosippon is emphatic that the erection or appearance of the Abomination is the direct consequence of the execution of Agrippa on false evidence. The Abomination and Agrippa are inseparable, according to this text.

I’m trying to work out precisely which offering the Yosippon refers to as having ended a week exactly after the judicial murder of Agrippa. The Rabbinic texts always say it was the Tamid, the daily offering, but the word in the Yosippon is more specific, “Minh.a” מנחה, which is an offering of flour with olive oil kneaded through it. Either way, if the precise form was the Sabbath offering, which was slightly more elaborate, and Agrippa was executed on a Sabbath, then the nefarious consequences would have come about immediately, but again would only have been evident a week later, on the next Sabbath.

So here is my proposed solution to the contradictions.

First, p. 398 of the Yosippon (Venice ed. ch. XCII), which interprets the Anointed in Daniel IX: 26 as the Anointed High Priest. The speaker is said to be Josephus.

Second, p. 450 (in an appendix; Venice ed. ch. LXXVII) which seems to identify the Anointed Leader in v. 25 with the Anointed in v. 26, and sets the execution of Agrippa and Monobaz three and a half years before the destruction and one week before the end of the Tamid. The speaker is the anonymous author of the whole book. Third, p. 296 (Venice ed. ch. LXV), which speaks of the destruction of the Temple in the twentieth and last year of Agrippa. The speaker is again the anonymous author.

We could suppose multiple sources.

(a) One passage is not in the recension edited by Flusser. This might mean it is an insertion, but it might mean it was removed as being too explicit in its interpretation of Daniel. It could have been removed by whoever wrote the passage attributed to Josephus on p. 398.

(b) The passage on p. 398, by Josephus, identifying the Anointed with the High Priest doesn’t seem to be lifted from Sa’adya: it’s too well integrated. It does, however, contradict the otherwise unanimous Jewish tradition. Also, it is artificial, as can be seen if you read vv. 25 and 26 together. I therefore take it to be an invention intended to hide the traditional interpretation. Sa’adya uses it to deny that Jesus is mentioned in Daniel. I think its original purpose could have been to deny that Jesus was the High Priest of the new order.

(c) The passage on p. 296 is integral to the chronological scheme in its context of a list of kings; but the passage on p. 450 fits better in the book as a whole and is part of a long cohesive passage on the disastrous folly and misanthropy of the Jews, and goes well the long speech by Agrippa (ten pages of print!) starting on p. 277, which warns the Jews against these traits of theirs.

I conclude that the passage on p. 450 is ancient and probably (though not certainly) an original part of the book. The passage on p. 296 is probably original to the book and can be attributed to the use of irreconcilable data, or better, to simplification in one place for the purpose of the list of kings. The passage on p. 398 could be old, but it doesn’t fit well into the book. If it is original to the book, it shows the use of irreconcilable data. The avoidance of any mention of Agrippa would actually fit the historical Josephus.

I conclude that the Yosippon is a condensation of Justus with a condensation of Josephus, the two joined by some re-writing. On top of this there are some borrowings from otherwise unknown sources. I think the passage on p. 450 and the long narrative context is so much incompatible with the Greek Josephus that it must be from Justin. Note that this passage is immediately followed by an alternative narrative attributed to Josephus which is utterly irreconcilable with it.

maryhelena

You guess.....Well, I can guess too.....and my guess is that this quote does not identify which Agrippa is being talked about....
The surviving texts of Josephus are one thing - the Herodian coins are another thing. Coins which related to two Agrippas - Agrippa I and Agrippa II.

Sure, Daniel says something about a messiah figure being cut off - but what Daniel means here is a matter of interpretation. Interpretation, Stephen, interpretation. One cannot allow an interpretation to trump historical realities. And in this case, 70 ce is not the issue - the issue is the historical reality of two Agrippas, Agrippa I and Agrippa II. And until that issue is settled - any interpretation of Daniel ch. 9 is premature.

stephan huller

What kind of nonsense is that? Is there something wrong with your reading ability? I am making an argument that the structure of Josephus's narrative for the destruction of the temple supports the traditional Jewish identification of Agrippa as the messiah from Daniel 9:26.

There can be no doubt as to which 'Agrippa' is meant here.

I spend a lot of time developing these threads which involve detailed linguistic arguments. It annoys me to always go back and be forced to wrestle with people's 'feelings' and inherited presuppositions.

I recommended at the other thread that you purchase or read a critical edition of Daniel because in it you will recognize that Origen only refers to ONE Agrippa (like the rabbinic tradition) and specifically with regards to the Daniel 9:26. You should get the commentary on Daniel by R. H. Charles NOW. It is entitled A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. (Which resembles the title of Montgomery’s commentary). Don’t confuse this with his short commentary in the Century Bible series. There is a reprint.

There is a reason why scholars write books and articles. It is to provide people with handy references to original source material. The one thing I forgot to make explicit in the original post was that there can be no doubt that IT WAS THE AGRIPPA WHO SAW THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE:

I will cite Montgomery entry for Daniel 9:26 (i.e. which deals with the 'messiah of Daniel' hence it can only be the Agrippa who lived at the time of the destruction) who:

is for “Origen ‘Herod’ or ‘Agrippa’ [just as it is] for Eusebius ‘Herod.” [Montgomery The International Critical Commentary on Daniel, p. 399]

Why does Montgomery say this? BECAUSE HE READ THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL. He read what Origen wrote related to Daniel 9:26 and what was written about Origen's opinion and concluded that he was talking about the Agrippa who lived at the time of the destruction of the temple!

Origen himself writes against those who would argue that the Imperial appointed 'Ethnarch' should disprove the more traditional understanding that the line of kings ended with Agrippa:

And what need is there to mention also that it was predicted of Christ as that then would the rulers fail from Judah, and the leaders from his thighs, when He came for whom it is reserved (the kingdom, namely); and that the expectation of the Gentiles should dwell in the land? For it is clearly manifest from the history, and from what is seen at the present day, that from the times of Jesus there were no longer any who were called kings of the Jews; all those Jewish institutions on which they prided themselves--I mean those arrangements relating to the temple and the altar, and the offering of the service, and the robes of the high priest-having been destroyed. For the prophecy was fulfilled which said, "The children of Israel shall sit many days, there being no king, nor ruler, nor sacrifice, nor altar, nor priesthood, nor responses." And these predictions we employ to answer those who, in their perplexity as to the words spoken in Genesis by Jacob to Judah, assert that the Ethnarch, being of the race of Judah, is the ruler of the people, and that there will not fail some of his seed, until the advent of that Christ whom they figure to their imagination. But if "the children of Israel are to sit many days without a king, or ruler, or altar, or priesthood, or responses;" and if, since the temple was destroyed, there exists no longer sacrifice, nor altar, nor priesthood, it is manifest that the ruler has failed out of Judah, and the leader from between his thighs. And since the prediction declares that "the ruler shall not fail from Judah, and the leader from between his thighs, until what is reserved for Him shall come," it is manifest that He is come to whom (belongs) what is reserved--the expectation of the Gentiles. [De Principiis 4.1.5]

And again the equation with the Agrippa who ruled at the time of the destruction is equally obvious:

And according to Daniel, seventy weeks were fulfilled until (the coming of) Christ the Ruler.[ibid]

When it is all taken together with Origen's other statements on the subject, Montgomery concludes that Origen identifies Agrippa the ruler at the time of the destruction of the temple to have been the messiah.

Indeed 'Christ the ruler' is clearly a Greek translation of the Hebrew mashiach nagid (מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד). Jesus is very rarely explicitly connected with this title because it is absurd. This can only mean a secular monarch and Origen knows this. Indeed this section can be read in light of Origen's consistent two advent theology to argue that Jesus was merely represented the first advent of Christ in the form of a 'suffering servant.' For clearly Origen is well known for interpreting 'Agrippa' as the mashiach nagid (מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד) or 'ruler' here of Daniel 9:26.

I don't have the original Latin in front of me for this section but I see Adler has it for the first refence:

Sed et civitas et sanctum corruptum est cum superveniente postes duces populo illi, sive Herode sive Agrippa (hunc enim dicit esse historia Iudaeorum). (Origen Commentary on Matthew ser 40 (81. 9 - 11) on Matthew 24:15 - 19 in Vanderkam and Adler's The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity p. 235

Adler notes that "it is regrettable that Origen fails to specify here the author of the Jewish history" but adds further that Origen repeatedly draws from this source. In another place Origen says "Refurtur ... ab his qui Iudaicam historam conscripserunt" (ser. 41 (82. 13 - 15).

But now it is explicit - THERE CAN BE NO MORE DISCUSSION OR BICKERING OR QUESTION AS TO 'WHICH' AGRIPPA WAS IDENTIFIED BY ORIGEN AND HIS SOURCE (who I take to be Justus) as the messiah. It is settled once and for all. It is now time for us to make sense of HOW and why THIS AGRIPPA - the ONLY Agrippa according to the rabbinic tradition - was identified as the messiah as early as the first century CE.

stephan huller

And I just noticed that Adler tentatively supports my identification of Justus as the ultimate source in footnote 138 p. 235 "Although little is known about Justus of Tiberias, it is tempting to trace the story to him ..."

maryhelena

Not nice, Stephen, not nice at all - re my reading ability - there is no need to get personal here.

Yes, Josephus has referenced Agrippa II in connection with the siege of Jerusalem - that does not make Agrippa II the Jewish messiah figure. And on that score - plenty of doubt can be cast...It annoys you - perhaps time to take a little break then...

No thanks, I follow my own interests re what I read...

Well, great for him - but what that has to do with being a Jewish Messiah figure goodness only knows...

No Latin here - nor Greek - so don't try and swamp me with your own abilities in this regard...I take it your not interested in what the scholarly consensus is regarding Agrippa I and Agrippa II....


Not so quick here Stephen - all you have done is to repeat what so and so has said.....what so and so has interpreted etc....Facts, Stephen, facts, historical facts are what we are in need of. Interpretation is anyones game.

Stephen, you have obviously invested a lot of emotional currency - as well as scholarly effort - into your Agrippa II as Jewish Messiah figure. What you see as obvious is not obvious to others. There is no point in resorting to demeaning your opponent. Your argument has to stand or fall on its own merits. It's an argument - but there are other arguments. Until there is more historical evidence re coins or archaeological stuff - you are just going to have to live with the fact that your argument is just one argument among many others.

stephan huller

I don't think I am being overly emotional. I am demonstrating what Origen's opinion can only have been not only by my own interpretation but reputable scholars before me and you can only say 'I don't know how to speak ancient languages,' 'I read my own books' - so what kind of a discussion is this.

Linguistic arguments are like mathematics. Language can help determine what is and isn't possible for ancient witnesses to have believed or held (especially if we connect that to known attributes of their culture).

The point is that there are of course different ways of approaching a problem but citing the actual language of the original sources is the BEST way to come to terms with things. You can't dismiss it with what you want to believe.

The question of whether or not there were two Agrippas is ultimately immaterial here (even though I have to mention that you still haven't read up on the problem with dating the coins of Agrippa - not just one but ALL especially of the later period). The Agrippa who is identified as the messiah by rabbinic sources and Origen CAN ONLY be 'Agrippa II' (to use the accepted terminology). It all has to do with Daniel, the prophesy of the seventy weeks and the near universal tradition that 'Christ' appeared immediately before the destruction of the people and was 'cut off.'

This isn't MY interpretation. This isn't up for debate. It is the FACTS that can't be disputed by a particular individual's unwillingness to hear them ...

maryhelena

My goodness, Stephen - it is most certainly up for debate!

"The question of whether or not there were two Agrippas is ultimately immaterial here" - Not so, not so at all.

Don't rely on a prophetic interpretation, Stephen - it will let you down. At best, all a prophetic interpretation can be is a backup - it is not the source, the historical source which provides the grounding for the interpretation. Historical realities must come first. And, in this instance, historically, there are two Agrippas. Attempting to brush this fact under the carpet is pointless. And as to interpreting Daniel ch.9 - how many books have been published on that subject - a dozen, a hundred, a thousand...

The problem is not interpreting Daniel ch.9 - the problem is getting as accurate as possible a record of the history of the l st century. With that in hand we can all take a shot at Daniel ch.9. Without that accurate historical record - it really is well and truly immaterial how many past, or present, interpretations of Daniel ch.9 have been made. Naming names - no interest whatsoever .

Linguistic arguments? Great stuff if that is your thing. It's not mine - and I'll eat my hat if this whole messiah re early christian origins debate is going to be settled by some obscure linguistic argument...

stephan huller

Nein, nein, tausendmal, nein!

The context of Origen's statements leave no possibility for 'Agrippa' being anyone other than the Agrippa who reigned at the time of the destruction of the temple. In the absence of having the original Latin available to me (you see how useful Andrew Criddle would be right now!) we have Adler's summary that makes this absolutely clear:

It's absurd to pretend that the question of 'which' Agrippa is identified by Origen's anonymous 'Jewish history' is 'debatable' question. There can be no doubt about his identity. The 'Agrippa' who appeared as the messiah of Gen 49:10 and Daniel 9:26 HAS TO BE the same Agrippa who was alive just before the destruction of the temple. There can be no mistaking this. It is why Montgomery mentions this reference in his commentary on Daniel 9:26.

In other words, Origen (and by implication Clement also who maintains the same understanding without explicitly identify Agrippa as the mashiach nagid) are the earliest surviving references to the Agrippa (Agrippa II) as messiah of Gen 49:10 and Daniel 9:26 tradition. It continues to circulate in Jewish authors down to the twentieth century but it ultimately goes back to the 'Jewish history' which Adler and I tentatively identify as Justus of Tiberias's Ιουδαιων βασιλεων των εν τοις στεμμασιν (Jewish Crowned Kings or the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy).

This is very significant for my argument that parts of Justus's work are still present in Josephus. I am not the first to argue that Justus's material may have been incorporated into surviving manuscripts of Josephus. Other's have used this argument to explain the 'extra material' in the Slavonic Josephus. But I think the integration was far more fundamental and early and represents an attempt to reconcile these two impossibly hostile witnesses.

CASE CLOSED!

Transient

Sheesh mate - your stuff is more way out than Mountainman's.
At least he bites his tongue and keeps his cool.
You seem to make the assumption that the god of the Jews is real or something - that is not proven or very likely it seems to me.
Or do I read you wrong and you think the Jews mistaken in their belief in a creator god who deems them more special than the rest of mankind

stephan huller

The tradition is real and ancient just like that of ancient Christianity and it deserves the respect afforded elders.

You want us to just reject the traditions when we don't fully understand them.

Why not just watch football or find something else to do? Maybe watching pit bull's mauling each other, Monster Jams might be coming to town.