Freethought & Rationalism Archive

charles · 07-27-2010, 10:51 PM

A lot of this material is over my head but if I understand you correctly you think that our present copies of Josephus are a mix of his writings and those of his opponents. You also mention that others have posited a similar position. Who are these scholars? I have never heard of this before. Could you give us some names? This is quite a radical theory.

maryhelena · 07-27-2010, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

... the tradition about Herod's Ashkelonite background was further proof of his ignoble character. But once infused with Christian content, the tradition of Herod's foreign background and his relationship to Gen 49:10 and Dan 9:24-27 decisively influenced the development of one stream in Christian interpretation of Daniel's apocalypse of weeks. In an apparent allusion to it in his Commentary on Matthew, Origen acknowledges that some interpreters of Dan 9:26 identified the 'coming prince' with Christ. But if Christ had been meant, Daniel would certainly have used the the appropriate messianic title to refer to him. The figure should instead 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. [The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage p. 235]

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.

An "anonymous 'Jewish history", a christian scholar by the name of Origen - who is taken to have been an Egyptain - and now we have some 100% 'evidence' that it is Agrippa II that is being identified as a Jewish Messiah figure! And you write "HAS TO BE" because Agrippa II was alive around 70 ce. There is no has to be at all - that's just your very own assumption.

Quote:

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).

By "implication" we now get another name tagged on - who "without explicitly (identifying) Agrippa" as the Jewish messiah - did actually join this bizarre Agrippa II party - along with its Herodian bloodline and its historical associations and stigma - as the real deal Jewish messiah!

Quote:

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.

And the plot thickens - now its Slavonic Josephus that is being brought along - and the lost history of Justus.....

Quote:

CASE CLOSED!

Well, Stephen, that about sums all this up - the case is indeed closed for you. But that is it for you - closed for you. And I actually thought you wrote in one of yours posts that you are here to learn - looks more, to me, that you are here to spread your very own 'gospel'.
And I won't be wishing you any luck with that....:devil1:

Yes, this exchange has benefited my own views. I had not previously considered the argument from rabbinic literature re only one Agrippa. I do however think that there is something with that position - but the Agrippa within the Jewish tradition that was considered as a Messiah figure is not Agrippa II but Agrippa I. And it is this Agrippa, Agrippa I, that in the writing of Josephus has produced somewhat of a puzzle: A layabout type character who ends up in jail but but is later elevated to the highest position possible - King of the Jews - a title that Antipas, ruling at the time over 40 years is denied. There are echoes of the Joseph of Genesis in this storyline - and all that storyline reflects re a Jewish messianic figure. I could well point to this Genesis Joseph parallel and say, there you are, Josephus is identifying who he thinks is the 'true' Jewish messiah figure. Could do that but that would not be enough. The big question is the identity of this figure of Agrippa I. And if Josephus, by all accounts a Jew who lived at the appropriate time and was on very close terms with Agrippa II, knew something about Agrippa I that allowed him to made such a messianic pointer - that something could only have been that Agrippa I, unlike his son Agrippa II, was not carrying the Herodian bloodline - and was thus a full bloodied Jew, a Hasmonean Jew.

So, Stephen - you can have your half-Jewish Agrippa II with his Herodian bloodline as your messiah figure - I think I'll go with Josephus and his prophetic marker re Agrippa I....the very last, historical, King of the Jews - and thus, by implication if not by common sense, Jewish common sense - a Jewish messiah figure who was not carrying the Herodian bloodline.

stephan huller · 07-27-2010, 11:17 PM

I am not saying that I won't discuss Agrippa or my theories about him but the question of which Agrippa is being referenced by Origen is closed. There can't be any reasonable doubt that it was the Agrippa who lived at the time of the destruction of the temple.

On your other point let me give you another example. My mother was (German) Jew, my father was a German atheist. I am still considered Jewish by Jews. I have no idea where the rule about Jewishness being passed on the mother's side but what was true for Agrippa (cf. Rashi) is true for me, Bill Maher and countless others. The idea goes as far back as the Mishnah so in effect it is as old as our information about Judaism.

Stop saying Agrippa was 'half-Jewish.' If we follow the traditional model Herod had a son named Aristobolus who had a Jewish mother and undoubtedly married a Jewish wife. Agrippa I was thus the son of a Jewish father and a Jewish mother. He in turn married a Jewish wife Cypros who had a wholly Jewish son.

The fact that the Jews 'debate' the question of Agrippa's Jewishness (but ultimately decide in favor of the question cf. Tractate Sotah) again clearly reinforces the fact that they had a different understanding of Agrippa's lineage than what appears now in Josephus.

For more on this subject - Shaye J.D. Cohen (1999). The Beginnings of Jewishness. U. California Press. pp. 305–306.

maryhelena · 07-28-2010, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am not saying that I won't discuss Agrippa or my theories about him but the question of which Agrippa is being referenced by Origen is closed. There can't be any reasonable doubt that it was the Agrippa who lived at the time of the destruction of the temple.

On your other point let me give you another example. My mother was (German) Jew, my father was a German atheist. I am still considered Jewish by Jews. I have no idea where the rule about Jewishness being passed on the mother's side but what was true for Agrippa (cf. Rashi) is true for me, Bill Maher and countless others. The idea goes as far back as the Mishnah so in effect it is as old as our information about Judaism.

Stop saying Agrippa was 'half-Jewish.' If we follow the traditional model Herod had a son named Aristobolus who had a Jewish mother and undoubtedly married a Jewish wife. Agrippa I was thus the son of a Jewish father and a Jewish mother. He in turn married a Jewish wife Cypros who had a wholly Jewish son.

Why should I do that - just because you don't like it??

Aristobolus "undoubtedly" married a Jewish wife? Sorry, but Josephus tells a different story. Aristobolus did not marry a Jewish wife. He married Berenice - the daughter of the sister of Herod the Great, Salome I - her husband being Costobarus, governor of Idumea. The Hasmonean bloodline has been further diluted. So, the Hasmonean bloodline is reduced to only a quarter percent for their child. Agrippa I married Cypros; a name that was the name of the mother of Herod the Great - who was a Nabatean. I don't read anything to indicate that the Cypros who was married to Agrippa I was Jewish. Maybe she was - but the name seems to be a family name from the Herodian side. Bottom line is that Agrippa II - the Agrippa that lived during the events of 70 ce - on this lineage - is not even a half-Jew. He is only a quarter Jew. His mother, according to Josephus, was not Jewish - his mother was Berenice, the daughter of Salome I, the sister of Herod the Great.

Alexander, the other Hasmonean/Herodian son of Herod the Great, the brother of Aristololus, likewise, did not marry a Jewish wife. He married Glaphyra, daughter of the Cappadocian king Archelaus.

(all the above from Wikipedia).

Quote:

The fact that the Jews 'debate' the question of Agrippa's Jewishness (but ultimately decide in favor of the question cf. Tractate Sotah) again clearly reinforces the fact that they had a different understanding of Agrippa's lineage than what appears now in Josephus.

Perhaps they, and you, are talking re two different Agrippas - the historical Agrippa I and Agrippa II. If one of these Agrippas was considered in a Jewish messianic role - then perhaps those Jews of long ago knew something about that particular Agrippa that allowed them to make that connection. And, come on Stephen - a quarter Hasmonean bloodline enough to make the three quarters Herodian bloodline meaningless.....No wonder any messianic ideas re Agrippa II never made any headway with lst century Jews....

stephan huller · 07-28-2010, 08:29 AM

As you know I don't take much stock in the claims of the surviving texts of Josephus. I haven't look at this stuff for over three years. Here's the bottom line. The rabbinic tradition says repeatedly that Agrippa was fully Jewish. After looking at the account of Josephus, Agrippa II HAS NO JEWISH BLOOD AT ALL. That's just impossible.

Agrippa I was the son of a non-Jewish brother and a father who was half-Jewish. Cypros it seems was the son of Antipater who was fully Ashkelonite and Salome who was fully Ashkelonite. So this would mean that Agrippa was in effect - at least according to the Jewish Antiquities - a complete heathen.

This can't be correct. I was trying to afford the tradition at least some credibility.

So let's go to Roger Pearse's discussion (Roger being the furthest thing from a 'radical' historian) of ALL the references to Jewish Antiquities in the pre-Nicene Church Fathers.

http://tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/josephus.htm

His conclusion "On the basis of the data, the argument from absence seems very shaky indeed. There is little use of Antiquities at all." I would put it differently, THERE IS NO USE OF JEWISH ANTIQUITIES, the text from which this genealogy is drawn before Eusebius - the man who many of us think is the actual author of the material (Jewish Antiquities was modeled on Roman Antiquities)

So all these claims that Agrippa was a non-Jew come from a book that isn't even cited before the fourth century (Ant. 18.5.4) but the Jewish tradition dating back to the Mishnah and the related commentary in the Talmud is dated to the second and third centuries. Here Agrippa is considered fully Jewish, Jewish enough to be thought fit to be king of the Jews by the authoritative body of contemporary sages.

Make no mistake about it, both the Christianized texts of Josephus AND the story in Mishnah Sotah claim to derive from sources in the first century. But the Mishnah was codified in the second century and the first mention of the Jewish Antiquities is in the fourth century.

I can't find any rational reason why the Jews would accept Agrippa as a full Jew if he wasn't. Can you?

Thanks for prompting me to re-read Josephus.

stephan huller · 07-28-2010, 08:33 AM

Quote:

If one of these Agrippas was considered in a Jewish messianic role - then perhaps those Jews of long ago knew something about that particular Agrippa that allowed them to make that connection.

I have just taken a lot of time to show you that Origen - a third century witness - had a first or (more unlikely) a second century 'Jewish history' which said the Agrippa who lived at the time of the destruction of the temple was the messiah. Come on. How could this be 'Agrippa I' when even if he had an existence he died in 43 or 44 CE? Stop saying there is some question as to whether the Agrippa of the 'Jewish history' can be debated. It is the same Agrippa that the rabbinic tradition took to be the messiah (owing to its repeated connection to Daniel 9:26)! This should have been settled a long time ago.

I think the Samaritans remembered him as Marcus the son of Titus (Marqe bin Tute) the very founder of their surviving tradition.

I am not saying that Agrippa IS the messiah. I am merely reminding people that the tradition that we WAS the messiah goes back to his time (the first century) AND existed in Jewish and Christian witnesses in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth and twenty first centuries (whew!) because the ultimate source must have been historical.

Even if Adler and I right in suspecting that Justus was the original source of Origen's history, Justus was Agrippa's secretary. The rabbinic story that the 'sages' of the time (i.e. the Sanhedrin) acknowledged Agrippa's status can't be far behind.

It should be noted that many Jewish sources have wondered whether being a Jewish king necessarily meant one was the mashiach in some sense. I tend to think this was true hence parallel legends of Herod being the messiah, so too Alexander Jannai and the rest.

maryhelena · 07-28-2010, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

As you know I don't take much stock in the claims of the surviving texts of Josephus. I haven't look at this stuff for over three years. Here's the bottom line. The rabbinic tradition says repeatedly that Agrippa was fully Jewish. After looking at the account of Josephus, Agrippa II HAS NO JEWISH BLOOD AT ALL. That's just impossible.

Agrippa I was the son of a non-Jewish brother and a father who was half-Jewish. Cypros it seems was the son of Antipater who was fully Ashkelonite and Salome who was fully Ashkelonite. So this would mean that Agrippa was in effect - at least according to the Jewish Antiquities - a complete heathen.

This can't be correct. I was trying to afford the tradition at least some credibility.

In my previous post I gave the Josephan lineage for Agrippa I. A lineage that gives Agrippa I a mixed Herodian and Hasmonean bloodline - his father being the Herodian/Hasmonean son of Herod the Great and Mariamne, Aristobolus. This makes Agrippa I one quarter Jewish. This is the Josephan lineage. You have not provided any evidence to dispute this linage. Sure, we can debate what Josephus was up to with his whole storyline re Agrippa I - but what we cannot do is deny what the Josephan material states. We might not like it, it might not fit our theory but we cannot just deny that this is the Josephan lineage for Agrippa I.

Quote:

So let's go to Roger Pearse's discussion (Roger being the furthest thing from a 'radical' historian) of ALL the references to Jewish Antiquities in the pre-Nicene Church Fathers.

http://tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/josephus.htm

His conclusion "On the basis of the data, the argument from absence seems very shaky indeed. There is little use of Antiquities at all." I would put it differently, THERE IS NO USE OF JEWISH ANTIQUITIES, the text from which this genealogy is drawn before Eusebius - the man who many of us think is the actual author of the material (Jewish Antiquities was modeled on Roman Antiquities)

So all these claims that Agrippa was a non-Jew come from a book that isn't even cited before the fourth century (Ant. 18.5.4) but the Jewish tradition dating back to the Mishnah and the related commentary in the Talmud is dated to the second and third centuries. Here Agrippa is considered fully Jewish, Jewish enough to be thought fit to be king of the Jews by the authoritative body of contemporary sages.

Make no mistake about it, both the Christianized texts of Josephus AND the story in Mishnah Sotah claim to derive from sources in the first century. But the Mishnah was codified in the second century and the first mention of the Jewish Antiquities is in the fourth century.

I can't find any rational reason why the Jews would accept Agrippa as a full Jew if he wasn't. Can you?

The issue, Stephen - is which Agrippa did the Jews recognize as fitting into a messiah role. The issue is not whether or not they did. We can agree that they did. We will have to disagree on just which Agrippa that might have been. And since your theory has only one Agrippa - it does look as though we are going to be continually at loggerheads.....

Origen? Lets get something straight here. Origen lived nearly 200 years from the events of 70 ce. He was a christian. Whatever were his interpretations re Daniel ch.9 they are neither here nor there. People interpret Daniel ch. 9 all the time. If Origen came up with an Agrippa interpretation - so what - it means nothing whatsoever. And, yes, if there was a Jewish history that he could refer to - then I am pretty sure that he would find the name Agrippa within its pages. So, 70 ce + the Agrippa that was alive at that time - and Bobs your uncle - an interpretation of Daniel ch.9. So what - that's how interpretations are made. The real question is not that Origen could have made an interpretation of Daniel ch. 9 and related it to Agrippa and 70 ce - the real question is how 'true', how accurate, was his interpretation. And seeming that the Herodian coins do reference two Agrippas - the chances that Origen picked the wrong Agrippa - and the wrong time slot re the events of 70 ce in connection with Daniel ch.9 - cannot be ruled out.

Especially so, when the events of 37 bc are taken into account. Events that led to the downfall of the Hasmonean dynasty of King/Priests. And if, as your own theory is suggesting, an alternative Jewish temple was built in Alexandria - then the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 ce was meaningless to those Alexandrian Jews. The only people who would have any interest in the 70 ce scenario were the early christians and their own interpretation of Daniel ch.9 in connection to the gospel Jesus storyline - not a stone to be left upon a stone etc. Origen, at best, is playing to a christian audience with his interpretation. Ironic really - the christians looking for a literal destruction - and those Hasmonean Jews in Alexandria already up and running with a spiritual understanding - that the Jerusalem temple and its destruction was meaningless. That temple had ceased to have any meaning. Thus - any interpretation of Daniel ch.9 that referenced the events of 70 ce - would be, likewise, viewed as irrelevant. 70 ce was the great prophetic fulfillment for christians not for the Jews of Alexandria. If christians want to add Agrippa II to their interpretation of Daniel ch.9.....I can well imagine those Alexandrian Jews just shaking their heads at those foolish christians for missing the main event...

maryhelena · 07-28-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

If one of these Agrippas was considered in a Jewish messianic role - then perhaps those Jews of long ago knew something about that particular Agrippa that allowed them to make that connection.

I have just taken a lot of time to show you that Origen - a third century witness - had a first or (more unlikely) a second century 'Jewish history' which said the Agrippa who lived at the time of the destruction of the temple was the messiah. Come on. How could this be 'Agrippa I' when even if he had an existence he died in 43 or 44 CE? Stop saying there is some question as to whether the Agrippa of the 'Jewish history' can be debated. It is the same Agrippa that the rabbinic tradition took to be the messiah (owing to its repeated connection to Daniel 9:26)! This should have been settled a long time ago.

I'll keep saying it as long as there is evidence to support the two Agrippas - Agrippa I and Agrippa II - the Herodian coins. Yes, Agrippa I died around 43 or 44 ce - and he was, according to historians, the last King of the Jews. Agrippa II never having ruled Judea.

Quote:

I think the Samaritans remembered him as Marcus the son of Titus (Marqe bin Tute) the very founder of their surviving tradition.

I am not saying that Agrippa IS the messiah. I am merely reminding people that the tradition that we WAS the messiah goes back to his time (the first century) AND existed in Jewish and Christian witnesses in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth and twenty first centuries (whew!) because the ultimate source must have been historical.

Even if Adler and I right in suspecting that Justus was the original source of Origen's history, Justus was Agrippa's secretary. The rabbinic story that the 'sages' of the time (i.e. the Sanhedrin) acknowledged Agrippa's status can't be far behind.

It should be noted that many Jewish sources have wondered whether being a Jewish king necessarily meant one was the mashiach in some sense. I tend to think this was true hence parallel legends of Herod being the messiah, so too Alexander Jannai and the rest.

Oh, so now your saying that you are not saying "that Agrippa IS the messiah" - only that you are pointing out the 'tradition' that he 'WAS'.

And I am saying to you - 'tradition' is perhaps not being evaluated rationally. Perhaps this 'tradition' re an Agrippa needs to be viewed from both a Jewish and a christian perspective: The Jewish perspective being Agrippa I (aka, Philip the Tetrarch, the Hasmonean King of the Jews ) and the christian perspective, albeit perhaps a misinterpretation or misunderstanding - being connected to Agrippa II. Now, how about that as a way out of this puzzle.....

charles · 07-28-2010, 11:01 AM

Hi everyone:wave:

I am just reading the Real Messiah and I think you are saying that Justus's work is from the first century. You also say that Origen read that text and tells us that it says that Agrippa was the Christ. You also have other evidence in the book. There is also a Hebrew version of Josephus which says that Agrippa is the Christ. You say that report comes from Justus too. Or parts of it (I am note sure). Also you quote a Jew named Nachmanides (wikipedia quote)

Rabbi Moses ben Nachman Girondi, Bonastruc ça Porta and by his acronym Ramban, (Gerona, 1194 – Land of Israel, 1270) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahmanides

who says that the tradition that Agrippa is the Christ goes back to 'sages' at the time of Agrippa. You never say it but I presume you think Justus is one of these 'sages.'

I have always believed that Josephus was forged especially the passage where he says that he believes in Jesus Christ. How could a Jew say this?

I never heard about the Jewish belief in Agrippa as the messiah before. Do you believe that Eusebius forged the Josephus history in order to wipe out the truth that Origen knew? But wasn't Eusebius a student of Origen?

stephan huller · 07-28-2010, 01:05 PM

Well Charles, let me start by explaining how Jewish religious tradition works. It is based on tradition. New ideas are eschewed. Ideas have to be rooted in tradition (as a means of preventing 'heresy' from spreading). That's why when you read a Jewish text you have these prefaces like 'R. Ashi says ...' or 'R. Ashi according to R. Joshua' etc. You can't just invent things out of thin air. That's not to say that misunderstandings don't develop or that apocryphal legends make their way into the literature, but the Mishnah is a very reliable document. It is very early and very reliable - reliable in the sense that it reflects the beliefs of second century Jewry (not in the sense that that belief is necessary perfect or well informed).

Nevertheless, we have the Mishnah which says that Agrippa was accepted as a Jew and a legitimate ruler. The context as I note in my book is clearly messianic (standing not sitting in the context of reading a certain passage in Deuteronomy) it was also a Sabbatical year when the eighth year is clearly referenced. All messianic clues.

The Jerusalem Talmud - a text which is rooted in the third century - reads the Mishnah a text rooted in the second century as if it refers to the Agrippa who ruled when the temple was destroyed. As such this would be 'Agrippa II' by the unfortunate reckoning of the Christianized texts of Josephus.

The point is that - as I have noted at other posts - when we question the reliability of the question who was believed to be the messiah by various and Jewish groups we have to admit that the MOST RELIABLE tradition is that many Christians believed that Jesus was the Christ. This becomes clear from Irenaeus (and his role in preserving texts from earlier in the second century - Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin etc). Irenaeus lived at the end of the second century (the very age that the Mishnah was completed).

Irenaeus's works were 'codified' into a collection of five books 'Against the Heresies' in the third century according to my reckoning. He was widely influential and there can be no doubt that there were Christians who believed that Jesus was the Christ in his age and subsequent to that period (third century CE).

At the same time, I would argue there was a Christian position from Alexandria which was clearly persecuted by the Roman government which held that Jesus was God who came down to earth in order to hail his messiah (cf Pslam 2 etc). I think Origen was part of a third century effort to reconcile that tradition associated with St. Mark with the officially sanctioned orthodoxy of Christianity associated with the Severan Emperors.

If assume Clement's beliefs were associated with Origen's as some sort of on going Alexandrian tradition transforming itself to avoid persecution then I there is evidence to suggest that St. Mark was a remnant of an original Alexandrian Christian acceptance that Marcus Julius Agrippa was Jesus's anointed king. If you are reading my book you know how that argument unfolds.

I think that Origen's allusion to this 'Jewish history' is a sign that the Alexandrian Christian tradition was connected with a parallel Jewish belief in Agrippa as the messiah. Origen and the Origenist Patriarchs of Alexandria (most notably Arius) are all accused of Jewish leanings. The reality is that Origen and to some extent Clement share the same interpretation of Daniel 9:24 - 27 as the many of the greatest lights of the rabbinic tradition and it all revolves around Agrippa being taken to be the messiah of Dan 9:26.

This has to be explained but never is.

The point is that there is a way to connect Origen to the rabbinic tradition through Justus. It has to be carried out cautiously. Adler says 'it is tempting' to take Justus as the author of Origen's first (or second) century 'Jewish history.' Even if it is some other figure we have no information about the stone lands quite close to Justus.

The Agrippa is clearly 'Agrippa II' as the context is the destruction of the temple. Everyone who has ever commented on this situation has come to the same conclusion. Mary Helena is different of course but she has never read any or all of the pertinent material. Perhaps if she used less imagination and actually took the time to read the sources she would change her mind ...

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

07-27-2010, 10:51 PM	#11
charles Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Midwest Posts: 94	A lot of this material is over my head but if I understand you correctly you think that our present copies of Josephus are a mix of his writings and those of his opponents. You also mention that others have posited a similar position. Who are these scholars? I have never heard of this before. Could you give us some names? This is quite a radical theory.

07-27-2010, 11:17 PM	#13
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I am not saying that I won't discuss Agrippa or my theories about him but the question of which Agrippa is being referenced by Origen is closed. There can't be any reasonable doubt that it was the Agrippa who lived at the time of the destruction of the temple. On your other point let me give you another example. My mother was (German) Jew, my father was a German atheist. I am still considered Jewish by Jews. I have no idea where the rule about Jewishness being passed on the mother's side but what was true for Agrippa (cf. Rashi) is true for me, Bill Maher and countless others. The idea goes as far back as the Mishnah so in effect it is as old as our information about Judaism. Stop saying Agrippa was 'half-Jewish.' If we follow the traditional model Herod had a son named Aristobolus who had a Jewish mother and undoubtedly married a Jewish wife. Agrippa I was thus the son of a Jewish father and a Jewish mother. He in turn married a Jewish wife Cypros who had a wholly Jewish son. The fact that the Jews 'debate' the question of Agrippa's Jewishness (but ultimately decide in favor of the question cf. Tractate Sotah) again clearly reinforces the fact that they had a different understanding of Agrippa's lineage than what appears now in Josephus. For more on this subject - Shaye J.D. Cohen (1999). The Beginnings of Jewishness. U. California Press. pp. 305–306.

07-28-2010, 08:29 AM	#15
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	As you know I don't take much stock in the claims of the surviving texts of Josephus. I haven't look at this stuff for over three years. Here's the bottom line. The rabbinic tradition says repeatedly that Agrippa was fully Jewish. After looking at the account of Josephus, Agrippa II HAS NO JEWISH BLOOD AT ALL. That's just impossible. Agrippa I was the son of a non-Jewish brother and a father who was half-Jewish. Cypros it seems was the son of Antipater who was fully Ashkelonite and Salome who was fully Ashkelonite. So this would mean that Agrippa was in effect - at least according to the Jewish Antiquities - a complete heathen. This can't be correct. I was trying to afford the tradition at least some credibility. So let's go to Roger Pearse's discussion (Roger being the furthest thing from a 'radical' historian) of ALL the references to Jewish Antiquities in the pre-Nicene Church Fathers. http://tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/josephus.htm His conclusion "On the basis of the data, the argument from absence seems very shaky indeed. There is little use of Antiquities at all." I would put it differently, THERE IS NO USE OF JEWISH ANTIQUITIES, the text from which this genealogy is drawn before Eusebius - the man who many of us think is the actual author of the material (Jewish Antiquities was modeled on Roman Antiquities) So all these claims that Agrippa was a non-Jew come from a book that isn't even cited before the fourth century (Ant. 18.5.4) but the Jewish tradition dating back to the Mishnah and the related commentary in the Talmud is dated to the second and third centuries. Here Agrippa is considered fully Jewish, Jewish enough to be thought fit to be king of the Jews by the authoritative body of contemporary sages. Make no mistake about it, both the Christianized texts of Josephus AND the story in Mishnah Sotah claim to derive from sources in the first century. But the Mishnah was codified in the second century and the first mention of the Jewish Antiquities is in the fourth century. I can't find any rational reason why the Jews would accept Agrippa as a full Jew if he wasn't. Can you? Thanks for prompting me to re-read Josephus.

07-28-2010, 11:01 AM	#19
charles Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Midwest Posts: 94	Hi everyone:wave: I am just reading the Real Messiah and I think you are saying that Justus's work is from the first century. You also say that Origen read that text and tells us that it says that Agrippa was the Christ. You also have other evidence in the book. There is also a Hebrew version of Josephus which says that Agrippa is the Christ. You say that report comes from Justus too. Or parts of it (I am note sure). Also you quote a Jew named Nachmanides (wikipedia quote) Rabbi Moses ben Nachman Girondi, Bonastruc ça Porta and by his acronym Ramban, (Gerona, 1194 – Land of Israel, 1270) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahmanides who says that the tradition that Agrippa is the Christ goes back to 'sages' at the time of Agrippa. You never say it but I presume you think Justus is one of these 'sages.' I have always believed that Josephus was forged especially the passage where he says that he believes in Jesus Christ. How could a Jew say this? I never heard about the Jewish belief in Agrippa as the messiah before. Do you believe that Eusebius forged the Josephus history in order to wipe out the truth that Origen knew? But wasn't Eusebius a student of Origen?

07-28-2010, 01:05 PM	#20
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Well Charles, let me start by explaining how Jewish religious tradition works. It is based on tradition. New ideas are eschewed. Ideas have to be rooted in tradition (as a means of preventing 'heresy' from spreading). That's why when you read a Jewish text you have these prefaces like 'R. Ashi says ...' or 'R. Ashi according to R. Joshua' etc. You can't just invent things out of thin air. That's not to say that misunderstandings don't develop or that apocryphal legends make their way into the literature, but the Mishnah is a very reliable document. It is very early and very reliable - reliable in the sense that it reflects the beliefs of second century Jewry (not in the sense that that belief is necessary perfect or well informed). Nevertheless, we have the Mishnah which says that Agrippa was accepted as a Jew and a legitimate ruler. The context as I note in my book is clearly messianic (standing not sitting in the context of reading a certain passage in Deuteronomy) it was also a Sabbatical year when the eighth year is clearly referenced. All messianic clues. The Jerusalem Talmud - a text which is rooted in the third century - reads the Mishnah a text rooted in the second century as if it refers to the Agrippa who ruled when the temple was destroyed. As such this would be 'Agrippa II' by the unfortunate reckoning of the Christianized texts of Josephus. The point is that - as I have noted at other posts - when we question the reliability of the question who was believed to be the messiah by various and Jewish groups we have to admit that the MOST RELIABLE tradition is that many Christians believed that Jesus was the Christ. This becomes clear from Irenaeus (and his role in preserving texts from earlier in the second century - Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin etc). Irenaeus lived at the end of the second century (the very age that the Mishnah was completed). Irenaeus's works were 'codified' into a collection of five books 'Against the Heresies' in the third century according to my reckoning. He was widely influential and there can be no doubt that there were Christians who believed that Jesus was the Christ in his age and subsequent to that period (third century CE). At the same time, I would argue there was a Christian position from Alexandria which was clearly persecuted by the Roman government which held that Jesus was God who came down to earth in order to hail his messiah (cf Pslam 2 etc). I think Origen was part of a third century effort to reconcile that tradition associated with St. Mark with the officially sanctioned orthodoxy of Christianity associated with the Severan Emperors. If assume Clement's beliefs were associated with Origen's as some sort of on going Alexandrian tradition transforming itself to avoid persecution then I there is evidence to suggest that St. Mark was a remnant of an original Alexandrian Christian acceptance that Marcus Julius Agrippa was Jesus's anointed king. If you are reading my book you know how that argument unfolds. I think that Origen's allusion to this 'Jewish history' is a sign that the Alexandrian Christian tradition was connected with a parallel Jewish belief in Agrippa as the messiah. Origen and the Origenist Patriarchs of Alexandria (most notably Arius) are all accused of Jewish leanings. The reality is that Origen and to some extent Clement share the same interpretation of Daniel 9:24 - 27 as the many of the greatest lights of the rabbinic tradition and it all revolves around Agrippa being taken to be the messiah of Dan 9:26. This has to be explained but never is. The point is that there is a way to connect Origen to the rabbinic tradition through Justus. It has to be carried out cautiously. Adler says 'it is tempting' to take Justus as the author of Origen's first (or second) century 'Jewish history.' Even if it is some other figure we have no information about the stone lands quite close to Justus. The Agrippa is clearly 'Agrippa II' as the context is the destruction of the temple. Everyone who has ever commented on this situation has come to the same conclusion. Mary Helena is different of course but she has never read any or all of the pertinent material. Perhaps if she used less imagination and actually took the time to read the sources she would change her mind ...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.