I recently came across this video:
Who is Saint Mark? - Stephan Huller
From the transcript:
36:32
the question sorry it's on the screen right there you can read it
36:37
um how does Mark who could have been example um oh yeah one of the shortcomings of
36:43
the book was that um when you get older you don't pick stupid
36:49
fights and I the book picks a fight with Josephus
36:54
so Josephus says that there's two agrippus there's a group of one and
37:00
there's a group of two and the uh ax of course mentions the two
37:05
agrippas it first mentions you know the one Agrippa who who uh you know I know
37:11
he dies suddenly you know for no reason and then uh it mentions I think the 26th
37:16
chapter uh the guy we know is Marcus Agrippa and um
37:23
it didn't fit my thesis so for some reason I spent a lot of time arguing
37:29
against the existence of two agrippas and that there was only one and it is
37:35
one of the faults of the book I think I could have written the book in such a way that I don't pick a fight with
37:42
Josephus because it it it's unnecessary but I wanted it this way uh uh it's the
37:49
book could still have worked if I didn't do this but for whatever reason you know foolish youth I um decided to pick a
37:57
fight
===========
What interested me and made me curious is what made Stephan change his mind from upholding just one Agrippa to deciding after all there were two Agrippas. Perhaps Stephan could explain his reasoning. Over 10 years ago I said this to Stephan:
Stephan, whatever are the interpretations that one can come up with re rabbinic traditions/writings regarding Agrippa - the fact remains that Herodian coins do exist - coins which relate to two Agrippa figures. It's not traditions we should be relying on for historicity but material evidence. And in this case, as Schwartz points out, the issue is not over whether there was one or two Agrippa figures mentioned in the rabbinic writing - its a case of, in the rabbinic writings, of how to tell which traditions refer to which Agrippa. In that case, as Schwartz says, there is no unambiguous solution to the problems raised in the rabbinic literature. But that does not mean that the question of whether there was one or two Agrippa figures cannot be settled historically - with the Herodian coins, for instance.
The issue regarding any messianic speculation re Agrippa II is a secondary issue. It surely is an unnecessary burden to saddle your theory with issues of historicity.
The issue regarding any messianic speculation re Agrippa II is a secondary issue. It surely is an unnecessary burden to saddle your theory with issues of historicity.
Just curious Stephan, I'm not wishing to start a fight - ideas develop and we all grow intellectually.
(That issue aside, are we to take it that you still uphold your theory that St Mark is, or is linked to, Agrippa - now viewed by you as Agrippa II )
