On Monobaz the Son of Agrippa in the Yosippon

The Yosippon has מונובז המלך בן אגריפס המלך twice. In both places it is clear that the link is relevant and goes back to the author: it can’t be a scribal error. The source is Tosefta Pe’ah IV: 18. Most mss. of the Tosefta, including all the ones used in the first critical edition of the Tosefta, by Mosheh Zuckermandel, have dropped the words “son of Agrippa” because this connection is not made in any other Tannaitic or Amoraic text. The superior critical edition by Saul Lieberman has the correct surprising reading. Lieberman, in his separate commentary vols. תוספתא כפשוטה Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, shows that the surprising reading is certainly the original.

The Sefer ha-Kabbalah also says that Titus was not the natural son of Vespasian, but his stepson. In that case, who was his natural father? Who was Vespasian’s wife married to the first time? Who was Vespasian’s wife? Does this make Agrippa and Titus relatives? The editor of the Sefer ha-Kabbalah refers to an argument by Lieberman in his book Greek in Jewish Palestine, to the effect that this statement is due to a misunderstanding of a Hebrew expression. As he can’t say Ibn Dâ’ûd made the mistake himself, he guesses that Ibn Dâ’ûd copied the statement without realising it had no foundation and without questioning it. This is not convincing. It is much more likely that Ibn Dâ’ûd used a real tradition, which he accepted. Have you any comments?

The Hebrew words משיח and משוח will both become משיח, definite משיחה, משיחא in Aramaic. The Aramaic word is therefore ambiguous: it can mean either a legitimate King anointed by the High Priest, or it can mean an Anointed High Priest, either in the earthly Tabernacle and of the order of Aaron; or in the heavenly Tabernacle and of the order of Moses; or of the earthly Tabernacle and heavenly Tabernacle together and of the order of Melchizedek. This last is the status of the risen and heavenly Christ (not Jesus as an earthly human), according to the Epistle to the Hebrews and standard Christian theology. This is the figure depicted in Greek churches as the Pantokrâtôr, the Ruler of the All. The Greek form Messias comes from the Aramaic definite form, NOT FROM HEBREW, so it is ALWAYS ambiguous. Nevertheless. When the Samaritan woman used the Aramaic form in John IV, there was no ambiguity, because the Samaritans were not waiting for a king: they were waiting for the reappearance of the earthly Tabernacle newly restored to connection with the heavenly Tabernacle. [This was to be brought about, in some lines of thought but not all, by the agency of the Tâ’eb. This title is generally taken to mean Restorer, which would not be the expected meaning but is possible. The more obvious grammatical meaning is “the one that has come back”]. What Jesus said was coming and in a sense was already present was the full union of the heavenly Tabernacle and the earthly one, with the earthly Tabernacle now being the worshippers or faithful, not a tent. In a few places Christian theology and some early Jewish theology interpret the Anointed in some of the Psalms as the heavenly Ruler of All, denying BY DEFINITION any connection with the Davidic line. The half verse “The Queen stands at thy right hand, clad in gold of Ophir” is used as a necessary part of the Order of Service in the longer form of the rite. It is understood that the Queen is the Heavenly Wisdom and the being that is addressed is the Creative Word, the Heavenly Torah, an aspect or manifestation of God the Son. You might like to consider an Anglican icon which is not secret but is not displayed publicly either for fear of misunderstanding, showing Mary as Wisdom (see the depiction of the High Priestess in the Tarot pack), with a potential child Jesus inside her (over the heart) depicted as a mature and composed five year old (as in the Infancy Gospels) holding an open scroll of the Torah and pointing to it