My friend shook his head and said that Muslims wouldn't be interested in someone who wasn't witnessed in the Koran.
Whatever the case may be I refuse to believe that there isn't an Islamic scholar somewhere that wouldn't be interested in hearing about what I discovered about Marcus Agrippa. At the very least I present a precursor of Mohammed within a few years of Jesus' crucifixion.
Yet until the day I would like to take the opportunity to scold rabbinic scholars for not seeing the messianic import of the famous passage about Agrippa in the Mishnah and Talmud. For Jews the story is only a question about whether or not Agrippa was Jewish enough to be considered a Jew.
Rashi however long ago established the rule that Agrippa had to be considered Jewish because his mother was Jewish.
I would like to argue that Maimonides report about the Islamic application of Deut 18:15 was exactly what was lurking behind the surface of the famous story in Sotah 41 about Agrippa.
Let's see if I am right.
I will cite the story from the Mishnah and then follow it with Maimonides attack against the Islamic application of the same scripture to Mohammed. All the reader has to do is apply the original Muslim argument to the figure of Agrippa who was the descendant of the Arabian king Herod the Great.
Eusebius already demonstrates a justification for thinking Herod was the messiah because he was an Arab.
The story in Sotah 41 reads:
what was the procedure in connection with the portion read by the king? At the conclusion of the first day of the festival (of the tabernacles) in the eighth (year), i.e. the end of the seventh, they erect a wooden dais in the temple court, upon which he (the king) sits; as it is said, at the end of every seven years, in the set time etc. [Deut. XXXI, 10] The hazzan takes a Torah scroll and hands it to the synagogue president, and the synagogue president hands it to the (high priest's) deputy. He hands it to the high priest who hands it to the king. The King stands and receives it, but reads sitting. King Agrippa stood and received it and read standing, for which act the sages praised him, when he reached, thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, [Ibid. XVII, 15] his eyes ran with tears. They said to him, 'Fear not, Agrippa, thou art our brother!' [ibid XVIII:15f]
The reason that Agrippa is portrayed as standing rather than sitting is deliberate. This is a story which is deliberately crafted to hide an important historical truth. As I note in my book the scriptural passage which lies behind this narrative is Deut 18:15f where:
The LORD your God will stand [יָקִים] for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him ... I will stand for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
Do you have any idea how many stupid - and I mean stupid, stupid, stupid - interpretations of this passage have been written? Not one of them ever bothers to explain the thread which develops from Agrippa 'standing' to the sages acknowledging him as a 'brother.'
Anyway compare this to Maimonides' attack on the application of the same passage to another Arabian:
You write in your letter, that some people were duped by the argument that Mohammed is alluded to in the verse "A prophet will the Lord thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren" (Deuteronomy 18:15), while others remained unconvinced because of the phrase "from the midst of thee." It is most astonishing that some folks should be deluded by such specious proof, while others were almost persuaded, were it not for the phrase "from the midst of thee." Under these circumstance it is incumbent upon you to concentrate and understand my view in the matter ...
You will not be compelled to go in search after him from country to country, nor to travel to distant parts, as is implied in the phrase, "from the midst of thee." Moreover, another notion is conveyed in the words "from the midst of thee from thy brethren like unto me," namely, that he will be one of you, that is, a Jew. The obvious deduction is that you shall be distinguished above all others for the sole possession of prophecy. The words "like unto me" were specifically added to indicate that only the descendants of Jacob are meant. For the phrase "of thy brethren" by itself might have been misunderstood and taken to refer also to Esau and Ishmael, since we do find Israel addressing Esau as brother, for example, in the verse, "Thus saith thy brother Israel" (Numbers 20:14). On the other hand, the words "like unto me," do not denote a prophet as great as Moses, for this interpretation is precluded by the statement "And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses." (Deuteronomy 34:10). The general drift of the chapter points to the correctness of our interpretation and will be confirmed by the succession of the verses, to wit "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire etc.," (Deuteronomy 18:10), "For these nations, that thou art to dispossess, hearken unto soothsayers, and unto diviners; but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do ." (Verse 14). "A prophet will the Lord why [sic] God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of they brethren, like unto me," (Verse 15). It is obviously clear that the prophet alluded to here will not be a person who will produce a new law, or found a new religion. He will merely enable us to dispense with diviners and astrologers, and will be available for consultation concerning anything that may befall us ...
The point of course is that Maimonides does say in an early passage that someone has to be considered to be Jewish if their mother is Jewish - a line of reasoning which convinced Rashi that Agrippa was indeed fully Jewish and thus - by implication - 'a brother' worthy of acceptance as the prophet hailed by Moses.
Rashi does not say this but it is impossible not to see the implication of the passage.
The Talmud interesting has an anonymous witness comment on the sages praising Agrippa for standing saying "since they praised him, it follows that he acted rightly." The dissenters to this original opinion (which by its placement is necessarily the accepted interpretation). The first cited is R. Ashi (352–427 CE) who says:
Even according to him who maintains that when a Nasi forgoes the honour due to him one may avail himself of the permission, when a king forgoes the honour due to him one may not avail himself of the permission; as it is said: Thou shalt set a king over thee [Deut. XVII, 15] — that his fear may be over thee! — It is different [with the fulfilment of] a precept.
Yet look carefully at the passage which is at the heart of the controversy:
When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite ... when he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left.
The rabbanites want to make the passage about whether or not the Jews were justified in accepting the legitimacy of Agrippa's rule. Yet this is stupid. It neglects to explain why Agrippa was standing rather than sitting which is the original context to the 'praise' heaped on Agrippa by the sages.
The truth is that it is impossible to separate the idea of 'legitimate king' and 'anointed one.' A king was necessarily a mashiach and vice versa. You can read more about that here.
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $3? BUY IT HERE
