Stephan Huller's 'horrible' book

[lclapshaw]

Hell, I would love to have all of us have to sit down for a 45 min interview to answer for our current position with all of our previous statements to be used as fodder.

When I read the book a few years ago, I firmly said "No!!!" to Stephan's conclusions, but along the way I learned a whole bunch of interesting facts that I didn't know before. That's not the worst!

You know, this is what I find to be the norm for me in this subject.

[lsayre]

When I read Stephan's book a number of years ago I thought it was rather decently presented. It held my interest and educated me. I've never understood why Stephan has considered it an embarrassment for so many years now.

[Secret Alias]

I'm an obsessive perfectionist. I'm also impulsive. That's an odd mix. That's the mix of my German parents (one Jewish, the other normative German at the time). It leads to creativity and at times productivity (although in endeavors my father would call useless). I had to write a book before my parents died. One because my mother wanted a son that was a published author (although she never understood why it had to be in the God-awful field) and my father because he thought I was mentally retarded. In Germany dead tired. Love this country. Good night

[maryhelena]

I'm an obsessive perfectionist. I'm also impulsive. That's an odd mix. That's the mix of my German parents (one Jewish, the other normative German at the time). It leads to creativity and at times productivity (although in endeavors my father would call ues...seless). I had to write a book before my parents died. One because my mother wanted a son that was a published author (although she never understood why it had to be in the God-awful field) and my father because he thought I was mentally retarded. In Germany dead tired. Love this country. Good night

All well and good Stephan. However, your book is still for sale on amazon - and you've been willing to talk about it on a Youtube video recently. The obvious question to you is what else, apart from the major Agrippa issue, do you now reject from your book ? What do you maintain you got right about the theory in your book.

After all, Stephan, this is a forum where our ideas get taken to task. Since the recent video interview - perhaps it would be interesting to all on the forum to know what your position now is in connection to the overall theory in the book.

======
added later

I've just downloaded Stephan's book. Years ago I downloaded a sample from amazon but never got past the first few pages. I already knew Stephan's position - that he believed there was only one historical Agrippa (in spite of the fact that the Herodian coins indicate two historical Agrippa figures). Anyway, since some on this list say they found the book interesting or educating - I'll give it a read.

However, I think Stephan needs to clarify how accepting two historical Agrippa figures impacts upon the one Agrippa theory of his book. He says he could have written the book without a fight with Josephus - over two Agrippa figures - so lets have it from Stephan - how does his theory now stand up against two historical Agrippa figures.......since, the book is using dates relating to Agrippa I for his Agrippa II theory.


From video transcript:

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
=======

[Secret Alias]

Most authors or propagandists come to forums like this hawking their ideas like a harlot flashing tit (excuse my language). Maybe I have developed this diabolical plan to further my thesis by going in a different direction. Publicly disowning it so others will try to convince me of its efficacy. Maybe this is all part of an ingenious master plan. Passive aggressive book marketing.

[maryhelena]

Most authors or propagandists come to forums like this hawking their ideas like a harlot flashing tit (excuse my language). Maybe I have developed this diabolical plan to further my thesis by going in a different direction. Publicly disowning it so others will try to convince me of its efficacy. Maybe this is all part of an ingenious master plan. Passive aggressive book marketing.

I had really hoped for a pleasant exchange...obviously it's not to be. Sadly but not wholly unexpected.

[Secret Alias]

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.

[maryhelena]

For the record:

I think Stephan needs to clarify how accepting two historical Agrippa figures impacts upon the one Agrippa theory of his book. He says he could have written the book without a fight with Josephus - over two Agrippa figures - so lets have it from Stephan - how does his theory now stand up against two historical Agrippa figures.......since, the book is using dates relating to Agrippa I for his Agrippa II theory.

Stephan has given an interview on Youtube. In effect promoting his book, which he has labeled as being 'horrible'. Yet, when taken to task re his statement on that Youtube video re having a fight with Josephus over two Agrippa historical figures - he has so far failed to respond to the obvious follow on question - as set out above.

[Secret Alias]

Julius Marcus Agrippa was according to rabbinic tradition the messiah who was "karathed" in Daniel's 49 weeks prophesy.
The word means "cut off." Agrippa is "killed" in various traditions. In Josephus he is just "cut off."
The idea that Agrippa was the Mark who wrote the first gospel ostensibly about a man named Jesus but secretly about himself was an attractive idea. For me at least.
The rest of the book shows my naivete at the time.
Shows why people should go to school and received proper training before attempting to engage in serious activities.
I think Agrippa might be the Mark that wrote the gospel. He was a kind of philosopher king. Would explain the Platonic mix in early Alexandrian Christianity. There simply isn't a lot of evidence to support the suspicion.
Happy?

Enthusiasm is often misplaced.
When I was 18 I would tell every woman I found attractive "I love you." Got nowhere.
Once I stopped loving the people I slept with I was more productive.
Kind of like scholarship.
Got to temper your enthusiasm if you want to go anywhere.
Fuck em and leave em.
(I have a lot of fun with this)

[maryhelena]

Julius Marcus Agrippa was according to rabbinic tradition the messiah who was "karathed" in Daniel's 49 weeks prophesy.
The word means "cut off." Agrippa is "killed" in various traditions. In Josephus he is just "cut off."
The idea that Agrippa was the Mark who wrote the first gospel ostensibly about a man named Jesus but secretly about himself was an attractive idea. For me at least.
The rest of the book shows my naivete at the time.
Shows why people should go to school and received proper training before attempting to engage in serious activities.
I think Agrippa might be the Mark that wrote the gospel. He was a kind of philosopher king. Would explain the Platonic mix in early Alexandrian Christianity. There simply isn't a lot of evidence to support the suspicion.
Happy?

Not really an answer but it'll do...

Rabinic tradition.... re Daniel Swartz is unable to identify which Agrippa is being referenced. I take it that your theory is related to Agrippa II.... thus removing your book's position that he was at the gospel Jesus crucifixion under Pilate and Tiberius. Particularly so if your upholding the Acts of Pilate crucifixion date in 21 c. e.

Two historical Agrippa figures was always the Achilles heal of your one Agrippa theory. I'm pleased that eventually you let history have it's say. Would be interesting to know if you managed to salvage anything from it...
.