Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:01 pm
My reluctance to accept a partially authentic negative TF derives from the presence of the passage about the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate, where we have the incredible "coincidence" of a "Messiah Son of Joseph" (remember that the Samaritans claimed to be "descendants of Joseph" according to Josephus himself,
and even more so their Taheb would have claimed that title for himself) killed by Pilate, hence,
unless the historical Jesus was just the Samaritan false prophet, it would be immensely improbable that two
distinct "Messiahs Sons of Joseph" were killed by the same Roman governor (Pilate).
Giuseppe - looking for a Messiah son of Joseph is no different than looking for a Messiah son of David. These are concepts and not identification labels. i.e. we no more look, if we are looking, for a historical man descendent from a biblical Joseph as we don't look for a historical man descendent from the biblical David. We deal with the concepts not with claims of ancestry.
Two messianic concepts. A Davidic man of war concept and a Joseph man of peace concept. The gospels have combined these two concepts; an underlying rebel/zealot concept combined with an overlay of a turn the other cheek man of peace concept. Dave Allen, in his paper, has simply pointed out that the Josephan TF corresponds to what has already been discerned in the gospel Jesus figure. An earlier man of war figure is the underlay of the TF and the gospel Jesus story. That figure can be viewed as a figure living in the time of Alexander Jannaeus - hence the time period of the Toledot Yeshu. The Roman execution of Antigonus in 37 b.c. fits this scenario i.e. the Davidic messianic concept of a man of war.
That leaves the Joseph messianic concept of a man of peace. A non-crucified messiah figure. One does not have to look very far. Josephus has already put his cards on the table. Josephus has identified this Joseph type messiah figure as Agrippa I. While Josephus's account of Agrippa I is primarily allegory - Agrippa I was a historical figure; coins testify that he referred to himself as The Great King Agrippa.
Josephus has used the Joseph story with his account of Agrippa I.
Genesis 41: 41-46
So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” Then pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck……Joseph was 30 years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Ant book 18 ch.6 (re Agrippa I)
“I think it fit to declare to thee the prediction of the gods. It cannot be that thou shouldst long continue in these bonds; but thou wilt soon be delivered from them, and wilt be promoted to the highest dignity and power, and thou wilt be envied by all……”
“However, there did not many days pass ere he sent for him to his house, and had him shaved, and made him change his raiment; after which he put a diadem upon his head, and appointed him to be king of the tetrarchy of Philip. He also gave him the tetrarchy of Lysanias, and changed his iron chain for a golden one of equal weight.”
Daniel 9: 25
..to restore and rebuild Jerusalem….
Ant book 19 ch.7 (re Agrippa I)
“As for the walls of Jerusalem, that were adjoining to the new city [Bezetha], he repaired them at the expense of the public, and built them wider in breadth, and higher in altitude; and he had made them too strong for all human power to demolish, “…….
Numbers 24:17
I behold him, but not near;
A star shall come forth from Jacob,
A scepter shall rise from Israel,
Ant.book 19 ch.8 (re Agrippa I)
…”he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature”.
Daniel Schwartz: Agrippa I. The last King of Judaea: page 48 and 105.
But if VAgr's genre is that of the Joseph and Esther novels, then one must register doubts about its historical worth. Note, for example, two other works written in the image of these biblical books: the Testament of Joseph and Ill Maccabees. These too are fascinating novels, but the historical worth of even the latter, which claims to be historiography, is open to serious doubt.
……..Josephus, for his part, following VAgr, reports a lavish banquet Agrippa threw for Gaius, whereupon the emperor allowed him to ask for any favor he desired; Agrippa asked that the project be canceled. However, both versions are suspect, for Philo obviously composed the epistle himself (see Appendix VI) and Agrippa's banquet sounds suspiciously like Esther's; we have already noted how one Diaspora novelle imitates another.
Niehoff, Maren R.. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) (p. 45). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.
‘’Turning the historical Agrippa into his own mouthpiece, Philo appropriates the image of the king, who enjoyed exceptional popularity not only with Josephus, but also among Jews in general, including the rabbis. Philo’s Agrippa is no longer a successful, independent, and widely appreciated politician on behalf of Second Temple Jewry, but a humble extension of Philo’s own religious self. Inventing a letter by Agrippa to Gaius, Philo puts on another mask, namely, that of the Judean king, who turns out to be politically impotent but deeply pious. Given the drastic changes that Agrippa’s image has undergone, Philo must have published his account after Agrippa’s sudden death in 44 CE. He does not anticipate the possibility that the king can respond and publicly clarify that he neither fainted nor wrote the letter attributed to him.
Did Agrippa write a letter to Gaius Caligula? Solomon Zeitlin.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1453330?se ... b_contents..........
‘’The letter of Agrippa to Gaius, as recorded by Philo, was composed by Philo in accordance with his theology. The speech of Agrippa to Gaius, as recorded by Josephus, was composed by Josephus in the spirit of his historiography of the Greeks.’’
Agrippa First: The Last King of Judaea: Daniel R Schwartz
Pages 158 and 159
Many problems beset those who would use rabbinic literature for historical purposes in general, and regarding Agrippa in particular.
..no one should expect to find in rabbinic literature what we find in Josephus and Philo: Jewish perspectives on Agrippa more or less contemporary with him....
....Rabbinic literature speaks not infrequently of “King Agrippa” but does not specify father or son. Do all traditions refer to the same one? If so, which one? Or do some traditions refer to one and some to the other? If so, which should be assigned to whom? Or should we prefer to assume that the lack of rabbinic concern to identify the king indicates that the fact that there had once been two Kings Agrippa has been forgotten.....
The problem is quite a difficult one, and we have no unambiguous solution to offer.
So.....two historical Kings - two historical Kings that reflect the concepts of two Messiah concepts - a warlike Davidic King in Antigonus, killed by the Romans in 37 b.c. and The Great King Agrippa of whom Josephus uses messianic concepts towards. What more does anyone want in a search for the Jewish roots that grew into what we know today as Christianity. ? It's Jewish history we have to deal with - get the history on the table and then run with interpretations, understanding, insights etc as to the why and the how of what led to that history being reflected in the gospel story.
One 'why' reason would be that the focus had to be removed from Jewish nationalism before a philosophical message of neither Greek nor Jew could become viable - and on that, the NT writers were successful. However, today, if we want to understand the Jewish roots of early Christianity then we have to go back in time, we have to focus on Jewish/Hasmonean history. Otherwise we can't move forward in our understanding of early Christian origins.
Yep, Dave Allen has a way to go - a man of war, a Davidic messiah figure, in the TF is only part of the TF scenario - as it is only a part of the gospel Jesus figure. As to when Agrippa I died - one can go the scholarly route that uses Josephus and his allegorical Agrippa story - or one can go with Tacitus who places the death of Agrippa around 49 c.e.
Tacitus: Annals 12
‘’In the year of the consulship of Caius Pompeius and Quintus Veranius,
…………….‘’Narbon Gaul, for its special reverence of the Senate, recei(ved a privilege. Senators belonging to the province, without seeking the emperor's approval, were to be allowed to visit their estates, a right enjoyed by Sicily. Ituræa and Judæ, on the death of their kings, Sohæmus and Agrippa, were annexed to the province of Syria.’’