On the Tradition that Agrippa was the mashiach nagid of Daniel 9:26

(a) First, all the early Christian commentators agree that the figure in Daniel is Marcus Agrippa. (b) The figure in Daniel is specifically a משיח נגיד so he is a King but not High Priest. (c) At some stage a false line of interpretation of the original Gospel has focussed on making Jesus a Davidic King. These days that seems to be the prevalent view. Notice the annoyance of Calvin and Luther over the traditional Jewish identification of the figure in Daniel. They were too preoccupied with blustering to see that the original unanimous Christian position is the same as the Jewish one. Over and over in the Gospels we are told how Jesus rejected this title except when he knew the person speaking was not thinkinging of some Davidic King. I am amazed at the thickwittedness of theologians that can’t see that the Samaritan woman in John IV could not possibly have been thinking of some Davidic King, and since Jesus accepted the title משיח as she used it, he could not have been thinking that way either. Besides, Jesus goes out of his way to deny that the anointed one could be a descendant of David. I don’t mean he says the person could not be descended from David: what he says is that this would be irrelevant. You have no conception of the rubbish that fills volume after volume, with speculation that doesn’t take account of these two basic facts. I would agree that a very minor element of a concept of Davidic kingship might be original in the Gospels, but it is far outweighed by the central concepts. If interpreted in its natural implication, the descent has stages going back to Adam, who is said to be the Son of God. The stages are Adam Judah Jacob Adam. Anyway, I needn’t go on. You know all this. (d) I agree that the original Imperial & Catholic Church probably seized on the concept of Jesus as High Priest briefly so that they could turn twelve special disciples into twelve apostles. After that they could go off on another tack and start developing the concept of Jesus as a Davidic King. The question is whether this concept of Jesus as king could be original, but misused by the Roman & Catholic Church so as to avoid acknowledging that Agrippa had been and gone. Part of the answer is that if Jesus is the new and greater Moses, then he must be High Priest but in the Heavenly Tabernacle. Moses was also King, but he only became King upon the revelation of the Torah. I think Jesus becomes King at the first Pentecost. But this is is not to deny that Agrippa was considered the anointed one mentioned in Daniel, and that he was a king. Specifically he was the last king. This is entirely compatible with Jesus being king as Moses was king, because the kingship of Moses is the consequence of his status as intermediary of the Torah. (d) What this comes down to is that the original concept was broken into pieces, and then the pieces were selectively accepted but without a context. Then it was easy to discredit Marcion with blatant lies. Remember what I quoted from Schmid’s book on the Epistles in Marcion’s version. The same lies were said about his text of the Gospel. Consider also what Schmid concludes about the Antitheses, and how their rhetorical structure was deliberately misrepresented.

So I come to the conclusion that part of the answer is that the original doctrine was deliberately obscured by breaking it into separate bits. Yes, Jesus did announce someone else still to be manifested, as the Moslems assert. But Jesus still has his own status as the second Moses. But his mission, like Moses’s, was not completed on earth, so a less satisfactory state under Joshua or Agrippa is all there can be. Then Joshua dies and so do his successors and then there is no legitimate king. When Agrippa died, the kingship was ended. You could say the most important thing about Agrippa was that he was cut off, and nothing followed, as it says in Daniel. (The Hebrew words translated “and he has nothing” in association with the term “cut off”, mean, if you have some intuitive feel for Hebrew, “there is nothing following on from him”. This is not to deny that your interpretation of “cut off” could be correct. Both could have been meant). The only reference to Joshua in the New Testament is in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Contrary to common belief, it is not made in relation to one section of the Epistle. Its implications affect the understanding of the central theme. Part of the secret of the Gospel is that Jesus was not the last king of Israel, it was Agrippa; but Agrippa became king because Jesus departed without completing his mission, just like Moses; AND AGRIPPA (the lesser king but nevertheless announced by Jesus) IS CUT OFF AND THERE IS NO KING EVER AFTERWARDS.