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: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."
In either case we have a reference to the same historical context - Mark 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."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."
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).
In various other sources he is 'killed' - yet another way to translate the Hebrew. For instance Vengeance of the Savior. Then we go on to see the symbolic power of the various crucifixions dotting the landscape which seems to correspond to the 'abomination that cause desolation.' Then there is the destruction of Jerusalem. I once did a comparison of the various attempts to connect the war of 70 CE to Daniel and it is pretty widespread starting with Origen. I think Vanderkam quotes Origen as implying that Justus of Tiberias identified Agrippa as the messiah. But there does seem to be the outline of an implicit timeline matching Daniel chapter 7 in Josephus even though I think Josephus himself identifies the prophesy as having been fulfilled by the events during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.