The identification by the Yosippon of the Anointed one in Daniel with Agrippa and Monobaz

I’ve had a closer look at the wording. After saying Agrippa and Monobaz were executed three and a half years before the destruction and saying the Tamid ended 1,290 days before the destuction, there is an explicit quote of the last verses of Daniel XII, starting at verse 11. The figure of three and a half years is from Daniel IX, which is where the “anointed one” is mentioned. The figure of 1,290 days is from Daniel XII, which is where the “Abomination of Desolation” is mentioned. Notice how Monobaz, identified as Agrippa’s son, is brought in. The Anointed was cut off in the sense of being killed, and cut off in the sense of having no heirs. The death of Agrippa and Monobaz is the prelude to the permanent end of the Temple service marked by the symbolic desecration. It was their death along with the erection of the Abomination that marked the absolute end; whereas the ending of the Tamid service was only the provisional end, which theoretically might not have been permanent. The details of the timing of the demolition don’t matter very much after this. Although it might at first be thought this book doesn’t mention the erection of the Abomination of Desolation, it actually does do so, quite clearly, by quoting the start of Daniel XII: 11 directly and then saying “and so on, up to the end of the narrative”.

This text is unique in several respects. It is the only text to give the double explanation of the expression “cut off”. It neatly makes some of its unique features in a way only noticeable by a casual reader. This is probably done on purpose. When it says Agrippa and Monobaz were convicted on false evidence, it emphasises that this slander came from “wicked Israelites”. An implicit but clear reason for the slander is a long quotation a few chapters earlier of a long exhortation by Agrippa on the wisdom of choosing peace. Note carefully: this text attributes this effort at making peace, with the long clearly reasoned speech, to Agrippa, not Josephus. In the passage about the execution of Agrippa it says, not in words, but by its references to words in Daniel IX and XII not quoted but alluded to very clearly in more than one way in its choice of wording, that this collective slander brought about the absolute end of the Anointed line which immediately brought about the end of the Tamid offering and then eventually the erection of the Abomination of Desolation and the destruction of the building for ever. It is emphasised at great length later on that Titus was a deeply pious person who reverenced the Temple, and was forced by the unrelenting foolishness and misanthropy of the Jews to keep attacking because his every effort to restore normality was spurned. He prayed for Divine recognition of the honesty of his efforts. This is pretty well what early Christian theologians said was the result of the execution of Jesus by Pilate under threat of slander against him to Caesar made by the chief Priests, except that the timing and the circumstances work better.

Actually this narrative in the Yosippon reads like the policy of the State of Israel, and its fate.

This slander is said to have happened only a couple of days after the accession of Vespasian. This means Berenike or Veronike (Latin Veronica) becomes the main actor in relation to Vespasian and Titus in all that follows over the three and a half years. I will look up what is directly said about her over the next few days. I think the long and repeated passages on Titus’s efforts to make peace and the misuse of the Temple as a pretext for war by the Zealots give an implicit explanation of why the profanation marking the end was actually a pious act by the deeply religious Titus and Veronike. This is the only text to give an explanation of the profanation, even if only implicitly.