Agrippa as Viceroy to Jesus

Here is a first go at explaining why the death or removal of Agrippa meant the inevitability of the end of the Tamid sacrifice and then the destruction of the Temple.

Look at the start of Deuteronomy XXXIII. Moses became King upon the revelation and acceptance of the Torah. No Torah, no King. No King, no Torah. No King, no nation. No Torah, no nation. No Torah, no Tamid. No Torah, no Mikdash. Look at the end of the chapter. Israel is saved by God. God is the Saviour. Moses is the means of salvation. The successor to Moses is the means of salvation. Go back to the start. It says Moses became King upon the unification of all the tribes of Israel. His successor is to unify the tribes. What does the Yosippon say caused the destruction? At great length, it says it was the use of the Temple and the Torah by the Zealots for the aggrandisement of their Stalinist Godless utopia, and the aggrandisement of the sacred Party. Agrippa wasn’t just killed, he was killed by malicious divisive slander fuelled by this Godless utopian vision. This is like what killed Jesus, only worse. Come back to the question of Moses’s successor. This is to be Judah. “And this is Judah’s”. Judah was not a second Moses, and the person from Judah envisaged is not necessarily equal to Moses. This is because the Torah is still accessible.

This Torah is, however, imperfect. The perfected Torah or fully accessible Torah was brought by Jesus, the second and greater Moses. Like Moses, he was Lawgiver, Priest, Prophet in the full degree, and King. Upon his death, a Viceroy, Agrippa, took over as King while Jesus remained Priest in the Heavenly Tabernacle. Agrippa’s status was like that of the King from Judah or Joseph and Priest not descended from Aaron mentioned in the Psalms. His existence was needed for the functioning of the earthly Tabernacle. No Agrippa, no Temple service. His actual presence was needed on the day when the King read from the Torah.

Agrippa was the only King to have been commissioned by Jesus. No-one else from the tribe of Judah could have that status. Agrippa might not have been killed a week before the end of the Tamid, but his removal would have been enough. The presence of some other King descended from Judah would not have been enough because such a person could only function under the old Torah, and the old Torah had been superseded. No-one could be appointed by Agrippa because he was kept out of the way somehow. The sole person appointed by him, Monobaz, had been moved away and couldn’t appoint anyone.

Coming back to Daniel. After the word “will be cut off” (one word in Hebrew), there are two words, .ואין לו These words have two meanings. First, “he won’t have anything” or “he won’t have it” That means (a) he won’t have a designated successor, (b) he won’t function in the role of Anointed. Second, it means “he won’t be there any more”, meaning he will have gone away or vanished.

We can see how Monobaz could be called Agrippa’s son in this context. He was appointed to the role that would have been inherited by Agrippa’s son. As for saying they were both killed, this is for convenience, to avoid a long explanation. Besides, it’s true, since they were both made unable to function as the King in the Temple. This would have been done by stopping them from going back from Rome to Jerusalem. It might also have been made certain by some form of physical mutilation.

What has been described as the role of the King was carried out by Baba Rabba. He, too, was stopped from functioning by being detained in the Roman capital.

I conclude that there was a form of Christianity incompatible with what later became the Catholic Church. In this form, Jesus was the second and greater Moses, whose second and greater Torah had never been publicly accepted. He was also the Priestly King of the Psalms. The Anointed King was Agrippa. While Agrippa was King the new Torah was compatible with the observances of the old Torah. He was the successor as Priestly King. Upon his death or disappearance without any successor, the Tamid service ended and the Temple was destroyed. The new and the old had become incompatible. The new wine had split the old wineskin.

I conclude that a form of Christianity and Judaism is argued for at length in the Yosippon, and that this is the purpose of the book. The purpose is well disguised. The reader is given signposts, but you have to take notice. First, Agrippa states a lot of this at length in his speech, Titus gives more of it, and the anonymous author says the same at even greater length. Second, you have to work out how Monobaz could have been Agrippa’s son. The statement itself can’t be missed. (Though everyone passes over it, as the author knew they would). You have to work out how their absence from Jerusalem was equivalent to their death. (The author knew everyone pass over this too). Third, the connection between the death of Agrippa and the end of the Tamid and the destruction is explicit. The reader has to work out what the connection is, but the fact of the connection is utterly certain. Third, the identification of Agrippa with the Anointed of Daniel is not only explicit, but connected with the end of the Tamid.

The author belonged to a movement with a lot of members. There were the Priests that discontinued the Tamid service. There was the person that put the statement in the Tosefta about Monobaz being Agrippa’s son. The editor of the Sifre on Numbers agrees with the speeches by Agrippa and Titus. Everyone Jewish authority except Sa’adya accepts the position of Agrippa. (Maimonides avoids the question, but his silence tells a lot). This means a part of this structure must have been accepted by nearly everyone. Such agreement amongst Jews is unheard of. All early Christian authorities agree with the Jewish authorities. This is absolutely unheard of. This unanimous Christian position and Jewish position is the relic of the religion differing from both later Judaism and later Christianity posited by you. It has survived because ON ITS OWN it seems innocuous. Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism accepts the impossibility of re-building the Temple except by Divine help and even then without the sacrifices. Maimonides says explicitly that the sacrifices have ended forever. The Samaritans agree with the Jews that the sacrifices have ended forever. No explanation is given by Samaritans or Jews.