Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

[Secret Alias]

It has to be the Agrippa that lived close to the destruction. It's a chronology.

[maryhelena]

It has to be the Agrippa that lived close to the destruction. It's a chronology.

Will keep an eye open for developments in this regard. A re-write on the way ?

[Secret Alias]

Nope

[maryhelena]

Nope

But don't you owe it to your readers, especially any who may have accepted that your Agrippa theory is valid, to correct the book? Surely you don't want people believing that there was only one historical Agrippa. Would not your publisher allow you to add a new forward to the book correcting the historical error the book is promoting. Thus allowing you to state your current position of two historical Agrippa figures and how your new position invalidates many of your Agrippa arguments while maintaining Agrippa II as your messiah figure.

Would not this be the best way to achieve a scholarly reputation. Youtube is not going to be much help while amazon is still selling the book.....my first reaction after listening to the video.

[Tonto Goldstein]

This was an unpleasant exchange? I thought my last comment was quite witty. Not often something original is said at this forum. Thank you for allowing me to be entertaining.

I thought it was funny. Maybe that says something about me, not sure.

[maryhelena]

Stephan, I've been through your book. No point in making any comments on it bar the fact that the book does provide a link to your blog.

http://marcusjuliusagrippa.blogspot.com/

If we are to believe Josephus’ text Agrippa coins should simply disappear after ‘year 8’ of his rule (or 44 CE). The facts however demonstrate that Agrippa coins with Claudius as Emperor continue through years 9, 10, 13 and 15.

Are you able to provide a link to these coins - or an article discussing them?

I find it odd that your blog, via an old post, is still upholding the position the book takes - that Josephus is wrong re two historical figures. Surely, since your change of mind - re the Youtube video - it might have been better to remove this old blog post. Replacing it with your corrected position now of two historical Agrippa figures. I'm beginning to wonder if your comment on the Youtube video was simply an acknowledgement that there is a view that Josephus has two historical Agrippa figures - but that your book, your one Agrippa position still stands - that you could have written the book without having a 'fight' with Josephus. Particularly so as you have so far not attempted to reframe your one Agrippa theory in view of the position you stated on the Youtube video - i.e. two historical Agrippa figures. So, the question really is - have you incorporated the two Agrippa figures into your theory - rather than what your book has done, fusing these two historical figures together ?

History might not be everyone's cup of tea - but the history of the years of Agrippa I and Agrippa II are years very relevant to the development, the origins, of early christianity. Necessitating that their history - as far as it can be ascertained - be put on the table. Your book, after all, is entitled:

The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity.

[maryhelena]

Stephan, a reminder....

If we are to believe Josephus’ text Agrippa coins should simply disappear after ‘year 8’ of his rule (or 44 CE). The facts however demonstrate that Agrippa coins with Claudius as Emperor continue through years 9, 10, 13 and 15.

Are you able to provide a link to these coins - or an article discussing them?

I appreciate that perhaps you don't care to have the theory in your book open for discussion. Maybe your embarrassed by the book - but you went on youtube to tell the whole world about it. Since watching the video I bought the book. A book having a link to your website/blog - which makes the above statement regarding coins of Agrippa during the time of Claudius. Surely, it's not so big a request that you can't respond. Yep, on internet forums one can ignore whatever displeases one. But this request, Stephan, is not about theory - it is about an historical enquiry. Agrippa I is an interest of mine - you stated the above re coins - please let me know any information you have regarding these coins.

=============

For anyone interested - the history of Agrippa I and Agrippa II is of interest to NT interpretations, hence to research into early Christiaan origins. Consequently, any historical problems regarding these two figures is relevant to that research.

For instance - what is the author of Acts, understood to be Luke, of the gospel of Luke, doing with his Agrippa I story. A suggestion by Frank Dicken is that the story in Acts 12.

Composite “Herod” in Luke-Acts


The name “Herod” appears for three different Herodian rulers in Luke-Acts. The essay explores unique features of the Lukan depiction of two of these Herodian rulers at Luke 1:5 and Acts 12:1-23 in relation to the description of the rulers found in other ancient sources. Drawing upon these unique features and applying a text-oriented, narrative-critical interpretive strategy to Luke-Acts, this essay will explain the recurrence of this name in Luke-Acts as the amalgamation of three historical individuals into a composite character.

=========

The second anomaly in Luke’s depiction of the Herods is much simpler to handle: the appearance of the name “Herod” for Agrippa I in Acts 12. There is no extant documentary, epigraphic, or numismatic evidence that testifies to the name “Herod” for Agrippa I.

=========

Rabbinic literature sometimes makes use of composites such as “Antiochus,” drawn from the dynasty of Seleucid rulers (Bickerman 2007: 528-529), and “King Agrippa,” a conflation of two Herodian rulers, Agrippa I and II (Schwartz 1990: 158-170).

===========

Conclusion

Luke-Acts has gone beyond the hard-partying, over-promising King Herod of Mark 6:14-29 (par. Matthew 14:1-12) and the infant-slaughtering King Herod of Matthew 2:1-12 by conflating three Herodian rulers into a gospel-rejecting, prophet-executing, Messiah-mocking, apostle-decapitating composite “Herod.” Positing a composite character, not only in Luke-Acts but also other ancient texts, gives us a new way of understanding various historical anomalies with regard to events and characters. The various examples listed above may provide evidence of ignorance or confusion on the part of the authors. Or they may demonstrate that greater ideological (or theological) concerns have led to the presence of a composite character. In light of the care with which Luke-Acts appears to have been composed, I believe in the case of composite “Herod” the latter is operative.

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... /dic398023

Article related to Dicken's book, his doctoral thesis.



Perhaps, the rabbinic literature has conflated the two historical figures into one figure - just as your book has fused two historical figures together - and as Acts, re Dicken, has done with its 'Herod' figure. In this case conflating Agrippa I with King Herod. Agrippa I being accused of being against the church - just as King Herod was against the Hasmoneans. Perhaps, at the end of the day - using, creating, composite figure is not just about storytelling - but, in the case of the NT story - widening out the scope of that story to include the history from which it sprung.

[lclapshaw]

After reading J.P. Holding's review on Amazon I have decided to save my coupon for a footlong at Subway for another day and just have a couple bananas for lunch today, and order a copy of SA's book.

It cracks me up that the coupon for the sandwich for 5.99 is immediately followed by a coupon for two of the same size sandwiches for only 13.99. God! Some people really need a basic grounding in simple math. But I digress.

[maryhelena]

After reading J.P. Holding's review on Amazon I have decided to save my coupon for a footlong at Subway for another day and just have a couple bananas for lunch today, and order a copy of SA's book.

Best of luck finding a useful argument in that book. Keep well in mind that historically there are two Agrippa figures - figures with relevance to the NT.

Also, be aware that Stephan has fused two historical figures together - thus making little sense of Herodian chronology for the two kings, Agrippa I and Agrippa II. Stephan indicated above - when asked if he had managed to salvage anything from his book - that he keeps Agrippa (Agrippa II ) as a messiah figure. However, todate, Stephan has not suggested how this is possible once his Agrippa figure is un-fused i.e. how does he understand the role of Agrippa I in connection to his messianic theory regarding Agrippa II.

I do find it strange that Stephan, on this forum, is very quick to find fault with theories presented by others. (thinking of his thread on mountain man/Pete ). When the shoe is on the other foot - Stephan runs from being questioned. Mountainman/Pete being the very essence of a gentleman. Yes, Stephan has said his book is 'horrible' - which surely would allow some empathy for another who, re Stephan, is pursuing a faulty theory.

[lclapshaw]

After reading J.P. Holding's review on Amazon I have decided to save my coupon for a footlong at Subway for another day and just have a couple bananas for lunch today, and order a copy of SA's book.

Best of luck finding a useful argument in that book. Keep well in mind that historically there are two Agrippa figures - figures with relevance to the NT.

Also, be aware that Stephan has fused two historical figures together - thus making little sense of Herodian chronology for the two kings, Agrippa I and Agrippa II. Stephan indicated above - when asked if he had managed to salvage anything from his book - that he keeps Agrippa (Agrippa II ) as a messiah figure. However, todate, Stephan has not suggested how this is possible once his Agrippa figure is un-fused i.e. how does he understand the role of Agrippa I in connection to his messianic theory regarding Agrippa II.

I do find it strange that Stephan, on this forum, is very quick to find fault with theories presented by others. (thinking of his thread on mountain man/Pete ). When the shoe is on the other foot - Stephan runs from being questioned. Mountainman/Pete being the very essence of a gentleman. Yes, Stephan has said his book is 'horrible' - which surely would allow some empathy for another who, re Stephan, is pursuing a faulty theory.

Hell, if it weren't for shipping, I could have gotten the book and a single scoop on a yummy waffle cone at Bask&Robbins.

We all have been reading SA's stuff here for quite some time now so I have a pretty good idea what to expect from the book. I'll give it a close but fair read.