Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

Post by Secret Alias »

If we are looking at matters from an objective point of view (and it's been roughly fifteen years since I thought or wrote about this stuff) what is intriguing is that both Jews and Christians share the idea of Agrippa as messiah from Daniel 9:26. What does karath mean here? What was original? There was an ahistorical understanding that Agrippa being "cut off" means that he died in the lead up to the Jewish War. This doesn't fit with any of the known historical models. "Agrippa I" does die suddenly but Acts and Josephus time the death to a period which is outside the Daniel timeline, perhaps because Jesus is the "only Christ" according to the Christian tradition. Josephus's work, I have noted, understands at least implicitly the "cutting off" of Agrippa as meaning the rejection of Agrippa by the Jews before the revolt. This fits the Daniel timeline perfectly and the shades of meaning of karath in Hebrew. The speech that Agrippa gives to the Jews once "cut off" is important for it implies that had they listened to him the destruction wouldn't have occurred. I like that solution. It also fits the idea that Josephus's entire "history" is connected to the traditional theological understanding of Daniel 9 playing out in the destruction of the Jewish temple. The abomination of desolation being the mass crucifixion of Jews facing the city somehow "effecting" the destruction. Titus as the prince etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

Post by maryhelena »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 5:25 am I am not particularly found of Acts or Josephus as source material. I don't have any better sources except Justus which I would prefer over all others. It is however no longer extant. Not sure what to do. I don't believe that Josephus knew Jesus. I am suspicious of Josephus's account of John the Baptist and James. Acts is a second century pseudepigraphon. I don't believe its account of the early Church. So I am in a little bit of a bind. All we have is coinage. Don't remember what it tells us.
Well said. However, my advice would be to not give up on Josephus. That does not mean accepting his words without backup argument or evidence. Josephus is my priority and where my focus remains. Josephus, whoever he was, wrote at an important time in regards to early christian origins. I don't think he can be written off - maybe it's up to us to dig deeper, to get a handle on what his 'game' is in regard to Herodian history. Yes, maybe he cooked the books - but if so - all the more so for those interested in early christian origins to put him in the dock. He has to be challenged not accepted as some sort of sanction on gospel stories. Yep, it's the coinage that holds the key to Josephus...we need an historical argument and maybe the coins might suggest a way forward...

The first century CE is like an ancient monument. It is a place of interest with riches that the visitor wants to stand among, their ambience to imbibe. Unfortunately, access to the site is limited to one point of entry. Most of the sources only provide a mere glimpse of the site. The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus. The problem is that, once inside, we are offered an ‘official’ guided tour of the site. Josephus takes us to the various locations that he deems are the highlights. Our excitement at entering the site, therefore, is balanced by the requirements of Josephus that he shows us the official tour. It is time we left the official tour party. We have been given access to the site by Josephus but to ensure we are able to explore its contents in detail we must stand apart from him. As such, our visit to the site may take more time than the official tour program allows. But who wants to stay on a tour that does not let you stop and take your own pictures? James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE.

User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

Post by maryhelena »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 5:43 am If we are looking at matters from an objective point of view (and it's been roughly fifteen years since I thought or wrote about this stuff) what is intriguing is that both Jews and Christians share the idea of Agrippa as messiah from Daniel 9:26. What does karath mean here? What was original? There was an ahistorical understanding that Agrippa being "cut off" means that he died in the lead up to the Jewish War. This doesn't fit with any of the known historical models. "Agrippa I" does die suddenly but Acts and Josephus time the death to a period which is outside the Daniel timeline, perhaps because Jesus is the "only Christ" according to the Christian tradition. Josephus's work, I have noted, understands at least implicitly the "cutting off" of Agrippa as meaning the rejection of Agrippa by the Jews before the revolt. This fits the Daniel timeline perfectly and the shades of meaning of karath in Hebrew. The speech that Agrippa gives to the Jews once "cut off" is important for it implies that had they listened to him the destruction wouldn't have occurred. I like that solution. It also fits the idea that Josephus's entire "history" is connected to the traditional theological understanding of Daniel 9 playing out in the destruction of the Jewish temple. The abomination of desolation being the mass crucifixion of Jews facing the city somehow "effecting" the destruction. Titus as the prince etc.
Josephus has Agrippa I dead in 44/45 ce. Interestingly, 45 ce is around 490 years from the 20th year of Artaxerxes in 446/445 bc – the year in which Nehemiah goes to Jerusalem to rebuild it’s walls….Nehemiah 1:1-3, 2:1).

Tacitus says Agrippa of Judaea died in 49 c.e. So - has Josephus 'cut off' Agrippa I to suit an application of Daniel ch.9. .....?

Tactius Annals 12.

In the year of the consulship of Caius Pompeius and Quintus Veranius,
....
Ituræa and Judæ, on the death of their kings, Sohæmus and Agrippa, were annexed to the province of Syria.

Stephan, using Daniel ch.9 is all very well - but it can't be the only argument in deciding which Agrippa is the one that messianic ideas might have been attributed to.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

Post by Secret Alias »

Ituræa and Judæ, on the death of their kings, Sohæmus and Agrippa, were annexed to the province of Syria.
Was Josephus Tacitus's source here? That's was the problem for me.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

Post by maryhelena »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 7:28 am
Ituræa and Judæ, on the death of their kings, Sohæmus and Agrippa, were annexed to the province of Syria.
Was Josephus Tacitus's source here? That's was the problem for me.
I can't see how Tactius, having Josephus in front of him, is going to place the death of Agrippa I in a different time slot than Josephus does. Unless, of course, he was aware of what Josephus was doing with Daniel. ch.9......i.e. realized Josephus was applying an OT application to his dating of the death of Agrippa I.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

Post by Secret Alias »

You're asking me how I came up with my thesis from 20 years ago. I am not defending it. I am trying to answer your question.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

Post by Secret Alias »

44/45 CE doesn't fit Daniel.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

Post by Secret Alias »

And to be fair, my main reason for hating this book was that I had this moronic obsession with the idea that Mark lived and met Jesus. That's what led to this Agrippa I/II difficulty. Live and learn.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

Post by maryhelena »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 7:49 am 44/45 CE doesn't fit Daniel.
That is a matter of interpretation. Josephus has Agrippa I rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem - hence applying Daniel ch. 9, 490 years after the OT story of Nehemiah would not be out of order. After all, Danial 9 is a theme in variations of the number seven...... Multiple applications are possible or useful. It's not a one off interpretation.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

Post by maryhelena »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 7:55 am And to be fair, my main reason for hating this book was that I had this moronic obsession with the idea that Mark lived and met Jesus. That's what led to this Agrippa I/II difficulty. Live and learn.
No historical Jesus and the road is open to research into Christian origins.... An historical search that takes one into Jewish history. A history Josephus has mixed up with his own OT interpretations. The OT Joseph story being used for his Agrippa I story. Seems to me Josephus has laid his messianic cards on the table re Agrippa I.
Post Reply