Rory response to Steve Mason (part 3)

By Rory Boid (personal correspondence)

Dear Prof. Mason,

I agree with you entirely on the need for sound method when putting a hypothesis forward. What you say on this subject is self-evidently correct.

I had not intended to give the impression that I was arguing from a specific passage in a Rabbinic text while not saying what the passage was, but on looking back at what I typed I can see why you might have thought that. My actual concern had been with the standard handbooks, and this is what I meant when I spoke of ignoring evidence or even not knowing some evidence. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Rabbinic texts overall know of only one Agrippa, as you say. My point was that this fact is not stated in the handbooks. In this respect, the handbooks mislead any reader that is not a specialist. A random example is the “New Schürer” edited by Vermes and Millar. I know this is not recent, but for the present purpose that does not matter. My concern was not to assert that the Rabbinic view is correct. I leave it to others more familiar with the issues to weigh the evidence.

If you will pardon my saying so, my second concern was with the statement that the Rabbinic texts are the result of oral transmission, and therefore not valid historical sources. (I paraphrase and condense). That was why I sent the data on the various forms of the mechanism of transmission.

You are of course correct in saying or implying that that any given passage or pericope that mentions King Agrippa without further qualification is no proof that there was only one, or even necessarily proof of the opinion that there was only one. You correctly made the same observation in connection with the various historians that mention Agrippa. It is quite true that there would not usually be any explicit specification of which one was meant.

I had assumed you would know the locus classicus for there being only one Agrippa, the Seder ‘Olam Rabba, ad loc. Ratner gives some parallels in his notes. Some of these are independent and are of the same date. This book is as close to the events as most of the historians. The book is by a single person, the Tanna Yose ben Ḥalafta, and would have been composed about 150 AD. The fact that this book is cited as an authority on various matters by the Amora’im indicates that it was generally considered reliable from the time of its composition. This does not prove it is right about Agrippa, but it is not to be ignored.

But all this takes away us from the essential point expressed by you clearly and in detail, the requirement of careful examination of all data and rigorous argument.

I am very pleased to have made contact with you. I don’t suppose we will ever meet, unfortunately. The time that you have put into this correspondence is appreciated.

Just to give some personal information. You referred to me as a Rabbinic scholar. That is half true. I originally trained as a Semitic scholar in the broadest sense. There was a time when my academic lecturing and teaching was almost entirely concerned with the Rabbinic texts and mediaeval Hebrew literature. That phase of my career ended in 1989, with the publication of my book Principles of Samaritan Halachah (published in Leiden, like most of my work over the years). The Samaritan halachah and its theory are obviously the focus, but the book builds on an expert knowledge, acquired over very many years of hard work, of both the Rabbinic and the Karaite halachah as well as the body of theory behind both systems. That was then and that is over. Harassment for political motives made it impossible to continue, but I was not sorry to be out. Since then I have been able to pursue my main interest, the recovery of undeciphered or unrecognised Samaritan texts, or texts that have baffled scholars for various reasons. Many of these are Arabic translations of older documents in Aramaic or Greek, now lost. (Two articles on Arabic documents are in the press at the moment). Some are halachah, some are history, some are accounts of sects and movements.

With very best wishes (and with thanks),

Ruairidh Bóid

Steve Mason's response (part 3)

Dear Dr. Boid:

I know Birger G's work quite well, and everything that you say about rabbinic lit. is worth a hearing. But there are also many complicating factors. I have studied in Israel, and studied rabbinic lit with several competent people there and here. It's not my main thing, but it is important for a historian of the period. But all that is beside the point -- of this circumstance, this context. I have been asked to respond critically to someone else's work. All he has given so far are some very specific, particular suggestions. I have pointed out the problems with those suggestions. Zehu.

If one is going to make an argument about a particular rabbinic tradition, fine: argue it. Argue it, fully, in the scholarly way. But it will need to take into respectful account all of the work done by other rabbinic scholars, whether one agrees with their conclusions or not. I am not making any arguments, again. I am responding to things that you and Stephan have put forward, trying to understand them and their logics (you declined to indicate which rabbinic passage you had in mind, so how in the world did you expect me to know what you were thinking of?).

The basic point remains the very one at which we started. None of Stephan's work will find a place in historical scholarship until he makes a historical argument: a full and complete one. He can use as much rabbinic lit. as he wants to use. That's all fine. Why should I care? It's his argument. But he will need to argue his hypothesis for all the evidence concerning Agrippa, and show why it explains all of the evidence better than any other hypothesis. There is no point in getting into abstract discussions of halakhic midrashim, or getting perturbed about it. It's all irrelevant. I have not made any sort of case about anything in this discussion, because that is not my role. I have been asked to respond to others' arguments, and in doing so I have (a) sought greater clarity about what they mean (though the responsibility lies with the advocate, not with me), (b) pointed out where I see the problems in what has been said -- whether those points could conceivably be better argued is not my concern; I respond to what has been argued -- and (c) relentlessly pointing out that arguing for one Agrippa will be a very large and complex undertaking. As I said to Stephan at the beginning, there are no shortcuts. If he wants sometime to come back with a full historical argument for Agrippa singular, explaining all the material and literary evidence, against all other historical hypotheses, then I would be willing to , have a look -- if he is looking for critical engagement.

I am not making any case about anything (here), but only responding to cases made by others, out of sheer politeness and good will. I have my own things to publish, doctoral students to supervise, exams to administer, and heaven knows what. Since I am not trying to prove anything, I accept no burden of proof -- about some general theory of the accuracy of halakhic midrashim for pre-70 realia or about anything else. Let the one who wishes to make a case make the case (for Agrippa). Then we would have something to talk about. Detouring into what I myself would argue about all these matters is not relevant, and I lack the time or interest to research and write essays on all these subjects.

Best wishes,

Rory Boid's response (part 2)

Dear Dr. Mason,

I know you have no wish to carry on this correspondence. I think it has just been illustrated how hard it is to have a discussion in written form. I want to be sure we are ending the correspondence on amicable terms.

That having been said, I have to correct a misconception, even at the risk of seeming to go against your wishes. What follows is not meant to lead to a discussion.

There seems to be a prevalent absence of understanding amongst historians and even in some reference works over the process of transmission of the material making up the Rabbinic texts. What you say about the codification of Rabbinic works in the 3rd c. is misleading enough to be false. (a) The Mishnah is not the model to be applied generally, because by definition it is the product of the formation of a consensus on practice. (b) The halachic midrashim are a different matter. (One from the school of Ishmael and one from the school of ‘Akiva on each of Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy, making eight books. Ishmael and Akiva are each near the last in line of heads of each academy). These were built up in writing generation by generation. Whatever is dated by attribution to a person was in writing from that time. This is not to deny that there must have been a final selection and editing from a vast mass of written material. (c) Something similar but not the same could be said of the various products of the various academies that went into the Mishnah. I think for example of the tractate Middot, on the details of structure and dimensions of the Jerusalem Temple. This comes in whole from one known academy. (b) The same with modifications can be said of Bereshit Rabba on Genesis, Vayyikra Rabba on Leviticus, and Echah Rabba on Lamentations. Much of their content can be dated to the mid 2nd c. with some parts being dateable as older and some later. Anonymous material is admittedly often undateable. (c) Material from the time of the Tanna’im in either Talmud that is formally introduced as a baraita [Aramaic fem. definite adjective meaning external, that is, not in the Mishnah] has been transmitted orally and in written form both at once. (d) In general, there seems to be a misconception amongst some historians of the Rabbinic theory or even dogma of the need for oral transmission. A comparison with the same theory amongst the Neoplatonists will illustrate what I mean. In both cases oral transmission means the passing on of understanding from generation to generation. Data can be both memorised and written. Memorisation is better, but the written text is needed as a control. After data are memorised comes the work of understanding. The analogy with oral material about Canada is misleading. (e) Contrary to what seems to be thought by many Classicists, there are other Rabbinic documents with a definite date of written composition. The one I had in mind in my previous message is the Seder ‘Olam Rabba, written by one person between 150 and 160. This gives the dates for one Agrippa.

In short, I was not thinking of undateable anecdotes in either Talmud. As for the reliability of the process, here is one striking instance. The Tosefta, the halachic midrashim, and the Palestinian Talmud preserve enough information about the High Priest Yishma‘el ben Piyavi [Greek Phiabi) to show that he was a Sadducee, though the reader has to see the evidence and put it together. This person is always mentioned with respect as the first link in the chain of transmission of older metaphysics into the Rabbinic system!

Here is one reference. This was the first systematic study of the relationship between memorisation, living transmission of understanding, and written records as a control on the accuracy of memorisation. Except for detailed studies in Hebrew before and after, it has not been surpassed. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. [Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Uppsaliensis, 22]. Lund, 1961 and slightly enlarged 1964.

When I used the word “science” before, I was influenced by the corresponding word in many European languages and in Arabic and Hebrew, as you would have gathered. I was not thinking of the narrower meaning in English. I will rephrase by saying that what has just been typed had to be said for the sake of sound investigative method.


Best wishes,

Ruaridh Bóid

Steve Mason's response (part 2)

Dear Dr. Boid:

Thanks for your detailed comments. They do highlight some areas of misunderstanding. It's entirely possible that you and Stephan have corresponded otherwise about this, because you draw upon extra-textual knowledge that I do not have. I was responding, and could only respond, to what Stephan wrote that I received.

>
> I thought the question was whether what is given in numerous sources about Agrippa I and Agrippa II actually referred to a single person. The veracity of the evidence from multiple sources, including Philo, that there was an Agrippa that did what Josephus says was done by the first Agrippa neither proves nor disproves the hypothesis that there was only ever one Agrippa. The argument is circular, unless I have missed something.

I'm not sure which argument you consider circular. I'm not making any arguments about Agrippa; I am responding to whatever Stephan has offered of his arguments.

My concern is with understanding and explaining evidence, which he (or anyone who presents a new hypothesis) will need to do, and trying to show where the pitfalls lie. Of course, only a narrative that purports to offer a detailed political history of Judaea through much of the first century, which focused on the affairs of these men, would have any need to clarify Agrippa I and II. To say that only Josephus does this and the other sources for Agrippa don't, as if that were a meaningful distinction requiring investigation, would be pointless. Philo was either dead or on his last legs before (Josephus') Agrippa II had done much and Agrippa's well known family life was not obviously germane to the In Flaccum or Legatio. Tacitus and Dio mention men named Agrippa at different times, in different generations, and in very different contexts. They do the same with other eastern rulers (as Josephus also does when he is not dealing with central figures -- one must often check which Sohaemus or Antipater or Alexander he has in view). We are not entitled to assume that there was only one Antipater or one Sohaemus or one Juba because the ancient narratives don't stop to distinguish them from others of the same name, or that the onus rests with anyone who wants to separate them; clearly, that would make no sense. The contexts in which Dio mentions figures named Agrippa, for example, and quite incidentally (for the historian, all the more valuable because not programmatic evidence), cannot easily be explained by the hypothesis that they are all the same person. Perhaps all that evidence can be so explained, but it will certainly need explaining. That has been my point all along. The onus is on the one making the case, who in this case is Stephan.



The methodological issue is simply this: anyone, any historian, launching a new hypothesis (and all hypotheses are welcome in principle) is required to show how it explains all the evidence. The evidence does not speak for itself (else history would not be necessary). If one wishes to make any case about Agrippa(s), one needs to gather all relevant evidence and work through it systematically, explaining how this hypothesis would put the pieces together better than any other one. That's what's required. We can't take massive shortcuts and declare that because texts except Josephus don't see the need to label this father and son explicitly (just as they don't with other characters in their narrative), there's no problem of multiple Agrippas in those texts. That would beg the question. One still has to explain all the evidence. IOW, the method has to be the same for all similar phenomena. Stephan's particular interest appears to be in Agrippa. Mine is not: I must publish on all aspects of the period, using the same kind of criteria and the same sorts of evidence for all cases. I am only responding to what he proposes from that vantage point.




There is still the Rabbinic tradition that there was only one Agrippa. This is a statement in a systematic treatise of early date based on older tradition, as well as the implication of all relevant pericopes or notices in early texts. The fact that this datum is left out of the handbooks neither proves nor disproves its truth or falsity, but it does illustrate the sloppiness of much historical writing. I won’t name the systematic record, or cite the main loci in other texts, because all are as accessible and familiar as Josephus’s Against Apion.

I'm reasonably familiar with the rabbinic lit., and with its anecdotes involving a King Agrippa (sometimes evidently called Yannai -- a name used confusingly for a wide range of different Hasmonean-Herodian rulers).



So I was aware that rabbinic lit. mentions 'King Agrippa' without any attempt at clarification. That's not surprising and it doesn't trouble me, given the nature of the corpus. Rabbinic lit. also sometimes conflates the war of 66-70 with that of 132-135, and makes all kinds of statements that are hard to credit. But it does not purport to be historical, and as you know even its earliest codifications are in the early third century -- the same distance from 70 CE as I am from the confederation of Canada. There is no reason to credit any purely oral tradition, in the absence of corroboration, concerning things that happened well over a century -- some 4 centuries in the case of Bavli -- before the anecdote was recorded. No historian would give much weight to purely oral traditions about our founding prime minister in 1867 (or even about much more recent ones), being committed to a traditional book of some kind just now.



At any rate, if rabb. lit. somewhere insists that 'there was only one Agrippa', as you say, I would be pleased to learn of the passage. That it speaks of 'King Agrippa' without elaboration is very different, of course, from claiming positively that there was only one. Are you thinking perhaps of the passage in which R. Abbaye claimed of the Hasmoneans that Yannai and Yohanan were the same person (in b Ber)? But that is demonstrably incorrect -- and symptomatic of the ahistorical character of rabbinic lit.
>
>
>
> As for Josephus’s clear assertion that there were two Agrippas, this is close in form to his duplication of Simon the Just. In the same way as he has nothing much to say about one Simon, he has nothing much to say about one Agrippa.

I don't follow you. First, it's not an assertion (like Abbaye's): it is both asserted many times and assumed and explicated throughout his complex and detailed narratives. These are not at all the same in form as his few references to the Simons. Both Agrippas are much more prominent throughout his narratives -- War, Antiquities, and Life -- than either Simon, as a glance at Feldman's indices will show. 'Nothing much to say about one Agrippa'? Which one? He says a lot about both characters, though more about his contemporary (Agr II), and vastly more than about the Simons. As he says pointedly in Ant 17 (with echoes throughout 18-20), he has a great interest in the descendants of Herod in Ant., as part of that work's general moralizing programme. In War too, both men are conspicuous in the intertwined stories of Judaea's and Rome's political histories.



There were many family connections, with other eastern kings, with Philo's family, and with prominent families in Rome -- including those with roots in Claudius' court such as the Flavians. As everyone knows, Berenice was reportedly Titus' lover, and Agrippa received praetorian ornamenta under Flavian sponsorship. None of this is remotely like the situation with 'Simon the Just'. These are not meaningless names to Josephus' Roman audience. There were many members of local elites throughout the eastern Med. who knew the Herodian family very well, especially its main figures from Herod to Agr II. The prospect that Josephus, writing in Rome (where Agrippa II also seems to have spent much of his time post-war), and within the whole social-networking context of ancient 'publication', could simply fiddle around with the Herodian family tree and add an Agrippa as the current king's father: well, almost anything's possible, but it will need careful and detailed argumentation if one wishes to show that it was more likely than the story Josephus tells. (It's not enough to observe problems with Josephus' stories: there are loads of problems with them, and with most ancient narratives. But the historian who wishes to advocate a hypothesis must still show its explanatory power in relation to the evidence.)


>
> Historians of the period often disagree about recent events. To take a salient example, Josephus warns against accepting what Justus says, but regardless of who was more accurate, both were read. Splitting one figure into two is not something that would readily be picked up, if the facts recorded were otherwise true or plausible.

I rather think that it would be readily picked up, given my observations above. Books in antiquity were not written in vacuo, but very much with the authors high-powered friends and their circle in view. My point from the beginning has been that these things cannot be settled in the abstract (X could happen; Y might happen; who knows?). Historians who wish to advocate hypotheses need to explain all the evidence. Other historians critique the hypothesis according to how well it explains the evidence. The default position is that we do not know, until someone makes a convincing explanation of the evidence.


>
>
>
> None of this proves there was only one Agrippa. I merely point out that the evidence that there were two reduces to Josephus, since no-one else ever says “this Agrippa that I’m telling you about was the second”. Josephus has nothing distinctive to record about the second Agrippa. He says that what is distinctive about the second Agrippa is that there was nothing distinctive about him, whereas the first one was distinctive, so they were distinct from each other. The Rabbinic tradition therefore has equal weight. What the answer is I don’t know. I only say that presenting a situation as being simple by ignoring some of the evidence is not the way. If even the existence of the evidence is not known, that is worse. So macht man nicht Wissenschaft.

That it reduces to Josephus has not been shown -- not until one works through the other evidence (Philo, Tacitus, Dio, Acts, coins...) and shows that it is all best explained on the hypothesis of a single Agrippa. Only then would be we be left with Josephus.



Josephus has compelling narrative reasons to separate the two Agrippas, which none of the other writers had. He is writing a comprehensive history of Judaea in the first century, and they are not. Where you think he says that there was nothing distinctive about the second Agrippa I can't imagine. In fact, everything he says about Agrippa II distinguishes him, surely, beginning with his explanation of the man's ancestry, youth, and political and military activities. There is not one passage alone in which he asserts the distinction. Even in the most unexpected places (such as Justus' speech to the Tiberians in Life), the two Agrippas are contrasted, as they are with respect to allegedly striking differences of character in the Antiquities. To say that Josephus makes Agr II not distinctive -- I can't follow your meaning.



What I tried to explain to Stephan from the start was that these two different Agrippas are intricately woven into the narratives that surround them, which involve many other lives and careers -- their family members, other Judaean politicians, and Roman military and political leaders. And many of these people or their children formed Josephus' ongoing circle of friends and acquaintances, including the people to whom he read, gave, or sold his volumes. Any hypothesis about a single Agrippa will need to explain all of that evidence (as well as the non-Josephan), showing why this makes better sense of the evidence than the hypothesis of father and son.



The proposition that Josephus' intricately connected historical narrative to 75 CE (for all its limitations) should be put on the same level as 3rd to 6th century halakhic and haggadic literature for evidence of pre-70 realia would not find many takers among historians of this period. This has nothing to do with defending Josephus; it has to do with what will need explaining in each case, which is very different in character/genre and date.




I can’t see how it could be thought that it had been proposed that Josephus had made up a second Agrippa as an amalgam of different people. What was proposed was that the components of the account of the death of one person could have been taken from existing accounts.



I was merely responding to Stephan's own (apparent) claims:
>
> I always knew that ancient writers couldn't have simply invented stuff up about people. If you are going to create a person named 'Agrippa I' you have to take known stories from Marcus Agrippa and Herod the Great (i.e. real historical figures) and adapt them so that someone reading it in antiquity would say 'I heard something about Herod Agrippa dying from the appearance of a bubo.'



That sounded like an amalgam to me: borrowing elements from other characters to build or 'create' this one. I can only respond to what I read.




The answer to the question of which is right, the Rabbinic tradition or Josephus, will have to come from the coins.

The coins are crucial, it is true. But it's not a question of an assertion made in rabbinic lit. (is there really such an assertion: only one Agrippa?) over against an assertion in Josephus (where these two figures and their many personal connections dominate important stretches of the narrative -- so, not an assertion). Any hypothesis will need to explain all the evidence for a Judaean king Agrippa, showing how that evidence makes best sense if there was only one.
>
>
>
> As to Agrippa’s symptoms. Either there never was an Agrippa I, and Josephus made the symptoms up; or otherwise there was an Agrippa I, but Josephus has embellished the symptoms of his fatal ailment. The list of symptoms fits no known ailment, according to my inquiries.

It's a given that Josephus made up his narratives as they stand, their structure and language, embellishing them with all sorts of dramatic features, and especially the deaths of men who had displeased God. That's common in Graeco-Roman literature. I don't see what the problem is.




Anyone suffering from kidney failure will not have the other symptoms listed, and what is distinctly missing from the list is the skin discolouration and the lassitude. Adding gangrene to the list still does not cover all the symptoms.

Josephus does not give an empirical medical assessment. I mentioned renal failure, quite incidentally and FYI, as the diagnosis of Herod's death (not Agrippa's), as I remembered it, from a high-level panel of American medical specialists who meet annually to discuss the death of some great ancient figure based on reported symptoms. A few years ago they did Herod.

I have no horse in this race; again, I was simply responding to Stephan's unqualified statement -- he seemed to be inviting a response by mailing it to me -- that Herod (not Agrippa) was said to have died of syphilis, from which he made a connection with Agrippa's bubo. 'Was said' by whom, I asked? (Not by Josephus.) But the problem with all such medical analyses (akin to the problem of psychoanlyzing, which Schalit had attempted for Herod) is that it depends on highly rhetorical, tragically influenced, colourful narratives, not on observed facts. In general, there is little point in getting into discussions of 'all the symptoms', which we have no way of recovering.
>
>
>
> Now we come to something really serious. The triple question marks against the reference to Agrippa having had the title of Christ really perturb me.

There's no need to be perturbed, or to read so much into question marks. I never doubted that Agrippa (or any number of others -- some Hasmoneans, Alcimus, Herod, JBap, Jesus, some 1st-cent prophets) had been considered a Messiah by some. That was not the reason for my ??? Yet again, I was merely responding in puzzlement to Stephan's statement:


>
> In short the bubo disproves that Agrippa was Christ.



That's all he said on the matter. Since I could see no logical connection with what preceded or followed, I supplied ??? to my equally brief observation that the bubo was surely not needed, or even obviously relevant, for such disproof. This intensive-interrogative symbol ??? does not mean 'I reject proposition X as nonsense', as you gloss it. If I had meant that, I'd have said it. I meant something like: this is confusing on several levels, and I don't see the connection.

The reason for going into this last point at such length is that it is not sound scientific method to reject a proposition as nonsense before you know what it is that is being said.

I would never pretend to be a scientist. But I am a historian. Sound historical method requires that the one advocating a hypothesis show how it would explain all of the relevant evidence, better than other hypotheses. The onus lies only on the one making the case. When the hypothesis fails to explain a given piece of evidence very well, or actually generates problems that the advocate seems not to have noticed, it is not only my right but my professional responsibility to point that out. I can't be responsible for what the advocate doesn't tell me, and I have been very careful (a) to respond only to what Stephan does disclose while (b) endlessly pointing out that, to be formulated as a hypothesis for scholarly interaction, it will need to say much more -- and explain the whole range of relevant literary and material evidence.

If Stephan publishes a book on this subject, we may expect that historians will respond to him much as I have been responding to the small bits that he has disclosed. Since my own publishing schedule is rather heavy, among other duties, I thought that I was doing him a courtesy in pointing out problems in advance of publication. (Why else did he bring it to me, if not for critical feedback?) But perhaps I misunderstood that too. There's no reason other than trying to help for me to have spent time in this discussion.

Although grateful for your efforts to clarify and supplement, which I have tried to honour by responding at some length, I now have no time at all to continue this; I hope that what I have said is helpful for whatever purposes Stephan first invited it for, and for your own scholarship.

Sincerely,

Rory Boid's response to Steve Mason (part 1)

There is too much here to respond to in one go, so what follows is not to be regarded as systematic.

I thought the question was whether what is given in numerous sources about Agrippa I and Agrippa II actually referred to a single person. The veracity of the evidence from multiple sources, including Philo, that there was an Agrippa that did what Josephus says was done by the first Agrippa neither proves nor disproves the hypothesis that there was only ever one Agrippa. The argument is circular, unless I have missed something.

There is still the Rabbinic tradition that there was only one Agrippa. This is a statement in a systematic treatise of early date based on older tradition, as well as the implication of all relevant pericopes or notices in early texts. The fact that this datum is left out of the handbooks neither proves nor disproves its truth or falsity, but it does illustrate the sloppiness of much historical writing. I won’t name the systematic record, or cite the main loci in other texts, because all are as accessible and familiar as Josephus’s Against Apion.

As for Josephus’s clear assertion that there were two Agrippas, this is close in form to his duplication of Simon the Just. In the same way as he has nothing much to say about one Simon, he has nothing much to say about one Agrippa. Historians of the period often disagree about recent events. To take a salient example, Josephus warns against accepting what Justus says, but regardless of who was more accurate, both were read. Splitting one figure into two is not something that would readily be picked up, if the facts recorded were otherwise true or plausible.

None of this proves there was only one Agrippa. I merely point out that the evidence that there were two reduces to Josephus, since no-one else ever says “this Agrippa that I’m telling you about was the second”. Josephus has nothing distinctive to record about the second Agrippa. He says that what is distinctive about the second Agrippa is that there was nothing distinctive about him, whereas the first one was distinctive, so they were distinct from each other. The Rabbinic tradition therefore has equal weight. What the answer is I don’t know. I only say that presenting a situation as being simple by ignoring some of the evidence is not the way. If even the existence of the evidence is not known, that is worse. So macht man nicht Wissenschaft.

I can’t see how it could be thought that it had been proposed that Josephus had made up a second Agrippa as an amalgam of different people. What was proposed was that the components of the account of the death of one person could have been taken from existing accounts.

The answer to the question of which is right, the Rabbinic tradition or Josephus, will have to come from the coins.

The reminder about the special ominousness [pun intended] of the horned owl for Romans is valuable. At this point I am outside my culture area. All species of owls are regarded as neutral or beneficent in Syria-Palestine. I will have to find out when the medical term bubo came to be used in Latin.

As to Agrippa’s symptoms. Either there never was an Agrippa I, and Josephus made the symptoms up; or otherwise there was an Agrippa I, but Josephus has embellished the symptoms of his fatal ailment. The list of symptoms fits no known ailment, according to my inquiries. Anyone suffering from kidney failure will not have the other symptoms listed, and what is distinctly missing from the list is the skin discolouration and the lassitude. Adding gangrene to the list still does not cover all the symptoms. You could add measles or scarlet fever to explain the fever and chickenpox to explain the itching and Crone’s disease to explain the irritation of the gut. Some of the symptoms fit secondary syphilis, the stage appearing fairly suddenly several years after the first infection. This could be called a disease of the groin, I suppose. The most obvious symptom is flushing or redness over large parts of the body, which Josephus does not mention. This is not a complete answer. Some of the symptoms don’t fit syphilis. Syphilis at the secondary stage is not yet fatal. My personal opinion is that Josephus added symptoms from his own imagination so that it would seem that this was no ordinary syphilis, but a unique ailment miraculously brought into existence to show that Agrippa had been slain by divine wrath for his impiety. That would then prove to the readers that what he had said must have been impious.

Now we come to something really serious. The triple question marks against the reference to Agrippa having had the title of Christ really perturb me. The entire Jewish tradition, together with all Christian commentators of the first centuries, agree that the Christ mentioned in ch. IX of Daniel was Marcus Agrippa. None of these Christian authors confused the identity of Jesus with Agrippa. This was because they knew what the title meant in each regard. Later Christian commentators are divided. Of those that say it is Jesus, none are offended by the other view. To my knowledge, the very first Christian author to be offended by this interpretation was Calvin, when he found the identification with Agrippa in Rashi’s commentary on Daniel. He was all the more annoyed because he knew Rashi is authoritative unless there is evidence otherwise in a particular case, and he had found out that there was no disagreement. My observation is that modern American evangelicals are offended in the same way as Calvin for the same reason, once they find this out, but I digress. [To be scrupulously exact: Sa’adya Ga’on dissents, but has no tradition to cite, and gives a personal reasoned opinion. Maimonides avoids being explicit but implicitly agrees]. That does not mean Daniel has been correctly read. There is the obvious difficulty of anachronism. A point of dogma is not in itself proof of a historical fact, though it can, as in this case, be an indicator of an old tradition as to how people thought. This is certainly how Daniel has been read from soon after Agrippa’s death. The question is whether Agrippa considered himself to be the Christ or Mashiaḥ of Daniel, or in other words, whether the tradition goes back as far as Agrippa. Tracing it back to soon after his death is straightforward. Confusion with the title Christ applied to Jesus is not productive. The title did not come into existence with Jesus. Two persons could be called Christ in the time of Agrippa: a real King and a real High Priest. (I say “real” because the anointment of a High Priest in the full sense was not possible for Jews or Samaritans at the time. For Samaritans it has to do with the occultation of the Tabernacle and for Jews it had to do with the absence of a visible sign of Divine participation in the Temple service after the end of the First Temple . Essentially both Samaritans and Jews agreed. Jesus was given the title for complicated reasons that need not be brought up here).

The reason for going into this last point at such length is that it is not sound scientific method to reject a proposition as nonsense before you know what it is that is being said.

I hope all this is useful.