Agrippa I and Palestinian Judaism in the first century
A number of scholars have argued that Agrippa I, upo? becoming king of Judea, aligned himself with, or at least followed the practices of, the Pharisees. While by no means the unanimous opinion of modern scholarship, this assertion has found its way into almost all recent reference work.1 The religious orientation of Agrippa is significant not just for the biography of the king. It is relevant to issues in the history of first-century Judaism. Affiliation with the Pharisees on the part of a popular ruler would support the widely-held view that the former were an extremely influential group and/or that Pharisaism was the dominant form of Palestinian Judaism. A shrewd politician like Agrippa would be unlikely to adopt religious practices rejected by the majority of his Jewish subjects or to align himself with a peripheral faction lacking broad appeal. While such a posture is not impossible ? especially if Agrippa's motivation was genuine conviction rather than political pragmatism ? a Pharisaic orientation that involved "swimming against the stream" would presumably be reflected in the popular standing of the king,or at least in the sources concerning him. So if we were able to prove that Agrippa followed the Pharisees we would have a strong argument for the dominant position of the Pharisaic party.2 But if, as I hope to show, the Judaism of Agrippa was not Pharisaic in character our understanding of the religion of first-century Judea will be different. I shall argue that the practices of Agrippa in fact reflect the common form of first-century Judaism, but that the common form was not Pharisaic. I shall return to these issues below; first we must examine the available evidence concerning the Judaism of Agrippa. I begin with the testimony of Josephus and then I shall discuss the evidence of rabbinic literature. An appendix follows my conclusions in which I argue that a well known source about "Yannai the King" actually refers to Agrippa I.
THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF IRAN UNDER THE ARSACIDS
The first fixed point in Parthian history is provided by the startingpoint of the Arsacid era, the vernal equinox of 247 BC. The significance for the Parthians of this moment in time has been variously explained: by Gardner it was seen as the date of a Parthian revolt against Seleucid suzerainty; by Tarn, as the coronation year of Tiridates I, the second Parthian king. The incursion of Antiochus III had interrupted the Arsacid control of that part of the province of Parthia which lies south of the Alburz Range around Damghan and Shahrud. This chapter discusses the the consolidation of the Parthian kingdom. The reign of Mithradates I came to an end in 138/7 BC, the first precisely established regnal date of Parthian history and the campaign of Carrhae. The chapter also discusses the "Roman peace" and its consequences.
THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE AND COLONIALISM: REASONS FOR AFRICA’S UNDERDEVELOPMENT?
It is probably an understatement to assert that Africa, the world’s second largest continent, is underdeveloped compared with other continents. Two major exogenous factors often cited for Africa’s development crisis are the so called ‘dual historical injustices’ – the Atlantic slave trade and colonialism. It is often pointed out that while the former almost completely arrested and retarded Africa’s demographical growth for more than three centuries, evoked a perennial state of acrimony and warfare and created a tense and unprecedented atmosphere of insecurity which hindered economic activities and stifled local entrepreneurship and technological drive and dislocated Africa’s socio-economic and political structures and institutions; the latter tied African countries to the apron strings of western imperial powers thereby rendering the pre-conditions necessary for socio-economic and political transformation unachievable. This paper contends that while the history of Africa’s underdevelopment may be traceable to the Atlantic slave trade and colonialism, African leaders had made enormous contributions to the continent’s underdevelopment and backwardness. The paper concludes that irresponsible and irresponsive leadership, vampirism and prodigality, corruption, lack of respect for democratic ideals, insecurity, endemic civil wars, nepotism, etc are the fundamental causes of Africa’s underdevelopment.