CONTEMPORARY WITNESSES

Josephus son of Gorias (var. son of Matthai) and Justus son of Pristus are our two earliest comprehensive chroniclers of the Jewish War which originally confirmed Mark’s messiahood. The problem of course now is that Josephus’ text became incorporated into Catholic Christianity as a text almost approaching canonical status. It would be only fitting that a first century author who originally chased Agrippa from his throne and subtly held a grudge against him ever since should be accepted into the fold as a Christian. The Church itself was based on an anti-Marcionite sentiment which directed its “appropriation” of ancient figures such as Josephus and Justus.

There can be in my mind no doubt that the many corruptions, additions, inconsistencies and apparent removal and reposition of entire narratives in Josephus’ body of work was deliberately conceived to assist in this “latter day” conversion effort. Much the same thing will be seen with his historical foil Justus, Marcus’ historical secretary in Tiberias, in a latter section of this work. It is most unfortunate that his rival chronicle of the events which led to the war did not survive from antiquity. The most obvious reason for the historical rejection of the text was that it must have spoken too highly of Marcus Agrippa, the messiah who became a pariah in the Antonine period.

Nevertheless despite the editorial emendations and omissions I have assembled a brief summary of references in the surviving material which still seems to confirm the original formulation – viz. Marcus Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel, the Christ witnessed by Jesus as appearing as one who would reap vengeance for the events of 37 CE. This list of references would include:

• “What did the most to induce the Jews to start this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. There are about it several interpretations. Indeed some by this understood Herod, but others the crucified wonderworker, others again Vespasian." [Slavonic Josephus, Jewish War 6.312-313; in B. J. VI. v. 4, where in our texts the prophecy of the messianic world-ruler is referred to Vespasian solely. The only “Herod” present at the destruction was Agrippa]

• Although there was by the Jews a prophecy that the city would be destroyed by the quadrangle shape [i.e. the Cross] they started making crosses for crucifixion which includes the quandrangle shape we said, and by the demolition of [the tower of] Antonia they gave the temple a quandrangle shape. [Slavonic Josephus, Jewish War 6:311] One must ask why would the near contemporary destruction of the Jewish temple be seen as a victory of the Cross unless it was being connected to the primal myth of Christianity in the age cf. Vengeance of the Savior.

• At the time the priests mourned and grieved to one another in secret for they did not dare to do so openly out of fear of Herod and his friends. They said, “Our Law bids us to have no foreigner for king (Deut 17:15)… but of Herod we know that he is an Arabian uncircumcised. [Slavonic Josephus, Jewish War 1:370] comp. Mishnah “King Agrippa stood to receive it and read it while standing and the sages praised him. When he reached "You may not appoint over you someone of foreign extraction" (Deut 17:15) there were tears in his eyes. They said to him, "Do not worry, Agrippa, you are our brother, you are our brother!" and Sotah 41b’s commentary “[a]t that moment the enemies of Israel made themselves liable to extermination, because they flattered Agrippa.”

• The surviving report in the Slavonic text of Josephus must have been appropriated from an original report regarding “Herod Agrippa” and “added” to the pre-existent narrative re. “Herod the Great” [cf. numismatic evidence that Agrippa used the name “Herod” too. So too does the Slavonic assign a certain “Ananus” as high priest (notice the Daniel prophesy associated with Agrippa. Ananus the priest … spoke to them ‘I know all of Scripture. When Herod fought beneath the city wall I never had a thought that God would permit him to rule over us. But now I understand that our destruction is nigh. Study you the prophecy of Daniel. He writes (9:24f) that after the return from Babylon the city of Jerusalem shall stand for seventy weeks of years which are 490 years and after these years it shall be desolate.’ … but Jonathan answered and spoke ‘the number of years are indeed as we have said. But the Holy of Holies where is he? For Daniel cannot call the Holy one this Herod who is bloodthirsty and impure.’ But one of them by name Levi wishing to outwit them … fled to Herod and informed him of the speeches of the priests which they had spoken against him. But Herod sent by night and slew them all without the knowledge of the people lest they should be roused. [Slavonic Josephus Jewish War 1:370]

• How could both Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa have been identified as the “messiah” of Dan 9:24 -27? Even if Herod the Great associated himself with Daniel’s prophesy it seems impossible that Josephus could have avoided contemporary acknowledgement of Herod Agrippa as this figure (see next section). Justus seems to connect Agrippa with the Mosiac expectation (after the Samaritan manner) when we read that Photius witnesses that Justus “begins his [A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the Form of a Genealogy] with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews.” [Photius, Bibliotheca 23] Notice the structure of the book comparing Agrippa to Moses, a not so subtle messianic argument. The messiah would appear “like Moses” [Deut 18:18]; Justus makes an implicit comparison saying effectively that Moses was first and Marcus was last.

• Photius writes moreover that Justus' “style is very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of [Jesus], the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him … He was [also] a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go free. It is said that the history which he wrote is in great part fictitious, especially where he describes the Judaeo-Roman war and the capture of Jerusalem.” [ibid] At the very least it is clear that his history was very different from that of Josephus. Yet who knows exactly how different.

The structure seems to indicate that Justus’ royal patron Marcus Agrippa was the focus of at least the latter part of the work just as Moses started the Chronicle. Did the work end with Marcus “taking credit” for the destruction of the Jewish temple and the “fulfillment of prophesy”? Did it explicitly identify him as the “messiah” of Daniel 9:24 – 27? Notice how Photius is scandalized by the lack of mention regarding “Jesus.” Did the text focus instead on “Christ”?