The Strange Humility Displayed on the Coins of Agrippa II

[arnoldo]

In contrast to Acts 12 depiction of an arrogant Agrippa I, Acts 26:27-32 depiction of Agrippa II does portary him acting in a non-arrogant (humbe?) manner when questioning Paul in the following verse;

King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.

Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.

And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them:

And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.

Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar

[A_Nony_Mouse]

In contrast to Acts 12 depiction of an arrogant Agrippa I, Acts 26:27-32 depiction of Agrippa II does portary him acting in a non-arrogant (humbe?) manner when questioning Paul in the following verse;

Any appeal to Acts assumes authoritative content and first hand knowledge of the author. No where is that in evidence. Besides that it is filled with magic and therefore rejected upon inspection by adults.

King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.

Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.

And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them:

And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.

Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar

If he had not produced in Rome Chariot Driver's License he would have gone free. The question is not how he became a citizen of Rome but how he proved it.

[arnoldo]

Maybe he proved it by showing his birth certificate?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Maybe he proved it by showing his birth certificate?

If only they had been invented in his time.

[arnoldo]

Apparently, birth certificates were invented close to his time and forgery of such certificates was a serious offense.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Apparently, birth certificates were invented close to his time and forgery of such certificates was a serious offense.

Very much appreciated. Thank you. I had tried to trace the idea back a few years ago for some reason that escapes me but I couldn't get anything older than the custom of baptismal certificates. Now it starts to make sense what government employed Roman scribes were doing in their spare time. Seriously as day to day, bread and butter work like a regular bureaucracy beyond magistrate and notary type functions. This would be work for the newbies to see if they could handle the work and advance to more responsible levels.

It does raise questions given most Romans were the usual bottom of society were the certificates subsidized? Central records kept? What happened if the original lost?

Thanks again.

[Peter Kirby]

Look at all the examples on the same site:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... 3&ie=UTF-8

This seems like the point of the 'birth certificate' is to prove Roman citizenship.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

It does point to something else. When groups founded cities they became their cities. For example, Alexander founded several Alexandrias, the most famous in Egypt. The political rule was that it was a Greek city. Because of that only Greeks were allowed to be citizens of the city. In modern terms only Greeks could be citizens of the city with the right to vote and hold office while non-Greeks were resident aliens without political rights. There was a political dust up over this in Alexandria when the Judeans demanded the same civil rights as Greeks but exemption from the religious duties of Greeks. It went to Rome for adjudication and were told to forget about it.

Anyway it suggest that citizenship "papers" were around at least in Greek times and common at least as far back as the Greek empire.

I can't think of many other pre-empire examples of cities founded far from home like Joppa, modern Jaffa, of Hollywood Titan fame. So perhaps it was originally a Greek invention.

[DCHindley]

Nony,

Why can't you ever just give specifics?

Most of those who hang out here already know what passages might suggest what you assert (forced conversions of Idumeans and "Galileans" although I am not sure where you get forced Samaritan conversions), or could find them without too much effort, but I have this sneaking suspicion that you do not know where these passages can be found or are clueless how to find them.

Are you getting this kind of rhetoric from a website or modern book and simply parroting them here? Surely, if you are using some sort of scholarly work, there will be the footnotes leading right to the sources of anything they assert. Please don't assume that everyone has read, much less values, everything you have found interesting to read, and that it is "common knowledge" accepted by all who have half a brain. In the real world of biblical criticism, half brain activity may be common, but the conclusions are anything except "common."

If you really want to find the specific passages, already predigested for easy comprehension, you can always turn to the 19th century English translation of Emil Schürer's Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ* (First Division, Volume I, 1890), and which is available online for FREE.

As I have a cough from a recent bout of flu (nothing like being in the emergency room for high fever at 4:30am on Christmas eve), I am not inclined to do the homework for you. However, if you are game, you might find it enjoyable to do yourself.

Have fun!

DCH

*First Division: Political History of Palestine from BC 175 to AD 135.
Vol I, 1890. From Antioches Epiphanes to Herod the Great.
Vol II, 1890. From Herod (continued) to the Time of Hadrian.

Second Division: The Internal Condition of Palestine, and the Jewish people, in the Time of Jesus Christ.
Vol I, 1885
Vol II, 1885
Vol III, 1885

And your evidence that "tyrant priests" of Judea "forced" the Galileans to adopt the "Yahu cult" is what exactly?

Josephus, Wars of the Jews. He also recounts the conquest and forced conversion of the Idumaeans (Herod's folks) and the Samaritans. It explains the Judean hatred of those they conquered when they lost control of them with the fall of the Hasmoneans dynasty.

Given all the laws, mitzvahs is Orwellian doublespeak, and all the penalties and the power of the priests for summary judgement and execution written into the Septuagint (3000 over the golden calf incident for example) I would say that qualifies as tyranny. There were no appeals from their judgements nor were there independent courts.

Believers don't like Josephus much but we know a bit about Judea when it first appears in history in 67 BC with the arrival of Pompey in the region. What we know from that time and through NT times matches what Josephus describes as the back story. It does not match what is found in the Septuagint. Therefore it is not reasonable to consider the Septuagint superior to Josephus.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Nony,

Why can't you ever just give specifics?

Pardon me. Before I posted anything I read or scanned the threads here an in other forums and so far as I can tell my "standards" on giving specifics is at least that of the average post if not higher in at least mentioning sources. And to repeat I have still not, in most cases, found even simple declarative sentences by those who post to challenge me. What I post as opposed to what? With evidentiary sources of course.

Although it may be just a touch of paranoia it feels like I am being held not only to a higher standard but that no one else is being held to any standard at all. I do get the strong impression but after asking I can get no one to state it that the stories told in the weekend school are the de facto standard of fact and need no evidence. Is that what you are saying? If not that WHAT are you saying? Will you just ignore the question like the others have?

This started with the first challenge on the Hyksos. The man posts a citation and a quote with ellipsis. I refer to what has been omitted by the ellipsis (whatever the plural) and I get challenged for my source. It appears you are giving ellipsis guy a pass as he was clearly cutting and pasting without knowledge of the material. At the same time you expect me to do more than that. Why?

Most of those who hang out here already know what passages might suggest what you assert (forced conversions of Idumeans and "Galileans" although I am not sure where you get forced Samaritan conversions), or could find them without too much effort, but I have this sneaking suspicion that you do not know where these passages can be found or are clueless how to find them.

Given you are familiar with those two forced conversions why would I assume you folks are not familiar with the Samaritan forced conversion from the same person in the same document?

Are you getting this kind of rhetoric from a website or modern book and simply parroting them here? Surely, if you are using some sort of scholarly work, there will be the footnotes leading right to the sources of anything they assert. Please don't assume that everyone has read, much less values, everything you have found interesting to read, and that it is "common knowledge" accepted by all who have half a brain. In the real world of biblical criticism, half brain activity may be common, but the conclusions are anything except "common."

If you really want to find the specific passages, already predigested for easy comprehension, you can always turn to the 19th century English translation of Emil Schürer's Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ* (First Division, Volume I, 1890), and which is available online for FREE.

I would have thought you would use Smallwood's Jews under Roman rule from 1976. It is not particularly burdened by faith and only in a few short passages does it refer to a "truth" from NT tradition.

As I have a cough from a recent bout of flu (nothing like being in the emergency room for high fever at 4:30am on Christmas eve), I am not inclined to do the homework for you. However, if you are game, you might find it enjoyable to do yourself.

Have fun!

You need to learn to separate the facts which I use from the theory I have developed to explain more of the facts than any other theory I can find. By facts of course I mean evidence not argumentation or what someone says about a fact. I am only interested in the fact itself. My objective has been to develop the simplest theory which includes the greatest number of facts and of course including the facts explained by competing theories. Theories like the Judeans wrote the OT.

For the most part I am only taking commonly known material and sources and putting them together absent religious traditions which are not facts. Granted this results in very different explanations.

For example the fact is there is no evidence of literate culture in Judea until the 2nd c. BC. Therefore no theory can assert the OT was created in Judea prior to that time. There are many pitfalls. It is possible that the fake biblical and political archaeologists might uncover something real and us outsiders lose the reality under the weight of ther political and religious fantasies about the find.

Of course I have written it up and have given the link several times. To repeat
http://www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alex ... index.html
Anyone can develop an explanation for the facts. The challenge is to develop a theory which explains the greatest number of facts. In this exercise the biggest chunk of it was NOT including fake facts such as Judeans wrote the OT which is without evidence and therefore not a fact. The OT has no provenance. Assumptions about provenance are not facts which need be explained.

Perhaps you have missed the other posts where I gave the home link and a few other related links in the same exposition.

DCH

*First Division: Political History of Palestine from BC 175 to AD 135.
Vol I, 1890. From Antioches Epiphanes to Herod the Great.
Vol II, 1890. From Herod (continued) to the Time of Hadrian.

Second Division: The Internal Condition of Palestine, and the Jewish people, in the Time of Jesus Christ.
Vol I, 1885
Vol II, 1885
Vol III, 1885

And your evidence that "tyrant priests" of Judea "forced" the Galileans to adopt the "Yahu cult" is what exactly?

Josephus, Wars of the Jews. He also recounts the conquest and forced conversion of the Idumaeans (Herod's folks) and the Samaritans. It explains the Judean hatred of those they conquered when they lost control of them with the fall of the Hasmoneans dynasty.

Given all the laws, mitzvahs is Orwellian doublespeak, and all the penalties and the power of the priests for summary judgement and execution written into the Septuagint (3000 over the golden calf incident for example) I would say that qualifies as tyranny. There were no appeals from their judgements nor were there independent courts.

Believers don't like Josephus much but we know a bit about Judea when it first appears in history in 67 BC with the arrival of Pompey in the region. What we know from that time and through NT times matches what Josephus describes as the back story. It does not match what is found in the Septuagint. Therefore it is not reasonable to consider the Septuagint superior to Josephus.

Given what we know as facts not opinion of facts what is your explanation for the animosity of the Judeans for the Idumaeans, Gallileans and Samaritans? When the OT leaves off the people living in those areas are all happy, healthy Yahu worshipers descending from the tribes of Israel. The only global change between the two periods is the arrival of Greek rule. And the mutual animosity is what Pompey finds in the region. A related fact to explain is the OT is essentially demon free while the one in real history is demon haunted. In fact when rabbis spread after the last revolt their second income appears to be in spells, potions and evil eye protection, aka shamans. Can you include that change in your explanation also?