Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

"It is difficult to quantify how significant the rediscovery of the ancient Christian relic is. As I understand it, the throne is nothing short of a Rosetta Stone filling in the gaps in our historical knowledge...of earliest Christianity." Stephan Huller



Agrippa's Messianic Code:
Stephan Huller, the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith, started with an alabaster throne, and concluded with the Agrippa Messianic thesis that resurrects the ancient hope of his people, the Samaritans narrated in his intensive book,'The Real Messiah,' The Throne of St. Mark and Origins of Christianity!
He wrote, "What is recognized now with this throne is that the Gnostics were indeed right. There was indeed a secret and ultimately cryptic message within Christianity which had been buried by centuries of persecutions. Now at last with the Real Messiah those original messianic truths are about to speak for themselves. I discovered something utterly amazing - a reference to an Old Testament prophesy which proved that St. Mark rather than Jesus was the Real Messiah...it became clear that something else about St. Mark was also revealed - he was Marcus Julius Agrippa, the last king of the Jews."

Marcus Agrippa:
The grandson of the Edomite Jewish king Herod the Great, and later ruler of his kingdom, was educated and lived in Rome since early childhood, up to 23 CE. He was imprisoned by Tiberius in 36, then appointed Tetrarch of territories NE of the Sea of Galilee. In 39 the Jewish areas of Galilee and Peraea, under Herod Antipas until then, were added. Agrippa's appearance passing through Alexandria, provoked anti Jewish riots. Yet, Claudius, added Judaea and Samaria to his kingdom in 41. Agrippa shows up in the NT book of Acts, mentioned in dialogue with St. Paul, does not seem to conceive of a personal messianic role replying, "Are you so quickly persuading me to become a Christian?" Agrippa's dramatic death in the amphitheatre of Caesarea is embellished in tradition, and Acts of the Apostles makes him responsible for the execution of James, John's brother, and for Peter's imprisonment.

Messiah for the Samaritans?
John's Gospel describes Jesus encounter with the Samaritan woman, is quoted saying to her, "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." This was the Jewish, and still is Coptic firm belief in the Jewish messiah. As a lay Alexandrine Coptologist, I find it admirable that the author found his way to Coptic culture, writing, "I can't believe it but the day has finally come when my article on the Cattedra di San Marco being the original Episcopal throne of Alexandria is available from the Journal of Coptic Studies."
While no Coptic scholar will buy any of his speculations, and the majority of his research which lacks both depth and precision, the book revives interest in Coptic Tradition of the Church of Alexandria. As a young kid, I learned most of Huller's stories, when I was 12, but none of them connected St. Mark with a throne, Bernice, or the Catechetical school, whose first dean was Panthenus the Sicilian Bee.

Book's Overall Review:
Stephan Huller used historical facts, but he twisted them, submerging the main thesis into a great many unrelated issues, repeatedly curving in alternate directions, manipulating dates, that cannot fit. Readers who were impressed with the story or author's apparent command of the subject matter, are novices to the Markan tradition.

The Annals: The Reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero (Oxford World's Classics)

"I took it upon myself to solve this mystery and quite literally spent hours trying to find anything resembling a hidden inscription buried in the carving." Stephan Huller



Prologue to a review:
I sympathize with Lisa, the authors wife, who he says putt up with the financial consequences, and years lost in realizing his confusedly interpreted dream. He became overwhelmed with unrelated addenda to his main research, and confused himself with its secondary links. For me the entertaining chapters of the weakly inter related book was a kind of a challenge, trying to debug the heavily entangled lines of his thought, short of becoming thus another 'Da Vinci code', or 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'. Huller failed to join the dots, distracted by some unrelated facts.

Marble Throne of St. Mark:
The marble cathedra of St. Mark: in his church at Venice, is of great antiquity (Secchi, La catedra di San Marco, Venice, 1835). The term cathedra was applied to the see of a bishop. The earliest use of the word in this sense occurs in Tertullian, Ca 160.
This episcopal throne (6th century), known as the Chair of St. Mark is of carved marble, Egyptian in workmanship, and doubtless brought from St. Mark's at Alexandria. ... This chair was brought from Alexandria to Constantinople at an early date, and sent in 630 by the Emperor Heraclius to the Patriarch of Grado, whence it was transported in 1520.

Coptic Tradition:
Canon Pasini believes that it was constructed to contain, the wooden seat used by St. Mark when he presided over the church at Alexandria, is not agreed by most Coptologists. The first Bishop of Alexandria was clearly Anianus, a shoemaker kobbler. The first to be called Papa was Archellaus, thirteenth bishop and ex-dean of the Catechetical school. Following the tradition of St Peter (the Seal of the Martyrs), the 17th Pope of Alexandria, Pope Kyrillos (1959-71) would refuse to sit on the papal throne of St. Mark, preferring to sit at the foot of the Throne.

A Samritan Discovery:
The presence of Samaritan letters on an Alexandrian holy relic was particularly intriguing, writes Huller, "I knew that most of the early heretics in Christianity were converts from this northern Israelite community. Alexandria also happened to represent both the largest Samaritan community outside of Palestine and was a virtual Mecca of Gnostic culture in the first two centuries of Christianity. [Indeed as Walter Bauer noted, we know so very little about Alexandrian Christianity before the end of the second century precisely because of its inherent Gnostic heretical bent.] Little by little all the separate lines of inquiry I was developing were coming together. ... It seemed everyone before us had recognized that this image on the backrest was messianic or at least apocalyptic. Yet we struggled to find anything interesting about this tamarisk tree. ... It was only when I began to pay attention to the obvious asymmetry in the way the tree was represented that it all came together for me."

The Bible of St. Mark: St. Mark's Church, the Altar & Throne of Venice

"The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark" presents a very half baked delusional theory that never should have been put forth into writing. This theory is that a man named Marcus Agrippa, being only 8 years old at the time, was by the side of Jesus when he was arrested, by his side at the trial, and was actually the Barabbas that was set free by the people while Jesus was condemned to death. This book claims that " Christians go to their churches today to recognize Jesus as the messiah is thanks to the perverted testimony of church fathers who had their own agenda most likely with a burning political need to modify the developing religion". The book claims that Jesus was a better option than Marcus Agrippa because he was meek and mild and easy to manipulate and could be made to appear that he had always intended his kingdom not to be of this world but of another.

This book claims that little Marcus was there to watch Jesus be crucified and the claim is even made that his sister/wife, Berenice, most likely wiped the face of Jesus as he was being executed. It goes on to say this little Marcus was the true messiah and that Jesus died so that little Marcus could go on to fulfill the prophecy. The real messiah had been standing in front of the Jews throughout the ministry of Jesus and this was Marcus also known as Barabbas. "The Real Messiah" claims that the Jews were blinded by god in getting the wrong man so that the real messiah would survive. It states in the book: "Jesus was offered up as the sacrifice so that Marcus could go free and show himself to be the messiah."

"The Real Messiah" then claims that Marcus went on to write ALL four gospels and that Ireneaus was the one to split it up into four gospels. It claims that Irenaeus took it upon himself to split up the gospels this way. Irenaeus is referred to as the "slick car salesman of his time". The book claims that this one gospel written by Marcus Agrippa was the "super gospel." From the book it says: " it is my contention that there was indeed only one original gospel and that it was, as experts agree, written by a man called Mark". And who are these experts? None are given. I suppose Mark wrote all the other gospels and gnostic gospels too that never made it into the canonized bible?

According to the book, this super gospel contains an acrostic which is a series of lines that contain certain letters that are intended to spell out a significant word (only in the mind of this author) that forms a secret code. Matthew is the symbol M. Mark is the symbol R. Luke is the symbol Q. and John is the symbol H. As quoted in the book: "in the parallel Latin text the letters derived from each name are M, R, K, and A." The claim is then made "It isn't too hard to piece together what the original editor is really saying, the super gospel was written by Mark". It says then " it is obvious that the fourfold gospels were produced at the same time and in the same place". Even though there have been tons of scholars that have proven beyond a doubt that the gospels were not all written by the same person and definitely not at the same time.

"The Real Messiah" then claims that this Marcus watched and approved of the Romans destroying the Jews and their temple in 70ce as part of his plan of being the messiah. It says in the book: "there will be those who quite understandably suggest that a messiah of the Jews who supervises what amounts to a holocaust upon his own people is something of a departure from a redeemer...it was prophesized that the messiah would bring peace to the world though there is nothing to suggest that this state of affairs would be achieved without bloodshed and misery... in short the task of the messiah was to start again from scratch". It then goes on to say that this act by Marcus of watching the destruction of the temple and slaughter of the Jews in 70ce was all part of his messiah plans! The book claims that it is sure that Marcus was there to watch all the innocent Jews get slaughtered by the Romans but yet he did nothing because "it was quite clearly the work of god". According to this book, the same Marcus that is a devout Jew also ends up helping with the destruction of the temple in 70ce.

In the book, it states about little Marcus being next to Jesus at his trial: "by his side was the 8 year old Marcus - probably one of the most embarrassing prisoners the roman authorities could have held without express orders from Rome." What's embarrassing is the publication of this delusional book. It also states that " In at least one of the surviving gospel narratives, it is claimed that there was an established roman tradition of allowing one prisoner of the people's choice to go free at the time of the Passover." This is simply not true. Why would the Romans do that? There is not one historical record of the Romans ever doing this. This is another example of how this author takes the bible way too literally and as historical fact.

"The Real Messiah" also talks a lot of Philo of Alexandria which actually works against this theory. Philo should never have been brought into this but with this delusional theory it was unavoidable. The book claims that Philo was the uncle of Marcus. But the author fails to mention one extremely important fact: Philo, in all the many writings that he wrote and we still have he never ONCE mentions anything about a man called Jesus preaching and being crucified. The claim is made that Marcus went to see Philo right after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus, but Philo never writes anything about it?? The book makes the claim that the family of Marcus were followers of Jesus. That would include Philo but Philo never ONCE mentions anything about following a man named Jesus. The book says " in the mind of Philo everything was quite straightforward, Jesus appeared as a herald and a teacher, his primary role was to announce the coming of the promised messiah". The author never addresses why Philo said absolutely NOTHING about this in any of his writings. He never ONCE mentions Jesus. A life changing event such as this would surely have made it's way into Philo's work.. that's because it didn't happen.

On page 47 it states "yet it is important to note what Philo doesn't say". Yes, it is important to note that Philo never says anything in his writings about this event. Then it says on page 134 "fortunately for us, much of what Philo wrote in an apparently long lifetime still exists". That is true and of course Philo says NOTHING of his nephew Marcus returning from Judea with this awesome story of his buddy Jesus had just been crucified! The book claims that " Philo and his fellow Jewish thinkers must have been convinced that something incredible was about to happen in the period leading up to Marcus Agrippa's arrival.. the skies were shouting that the promised messiah was at hand.. and then in 37ce, their prayers were answered." And does Philo ever write one word about this world changing event? NO! The book says: "Philo is as good as admitting here that there was indeed an enthronement in the city during Agrippa's visit, but his version doesn't involve Agrippa". That's because it didn't happen like this author desperately wishes that it did.

In this book, the veracity of Philo and the historian Josephus are discredited many times. It consistently makes the claim that the most important historian of this time, Josephus, was wrong. Josephus wrote that there were two Marcus Agrippas instead of the just the one that this author attributes everything to. Josephus clearly makes more sense here and why would he make that up? Marcus was a VERY popular name in these times and that is something that the author of this book has a real hard time understanding. Every time the name Marcus comes up anywhere around this period of history, the claim is automatically made that it must be Marcus Agrippa.

According to Josephus the Marcus that the author is referring to would have been in his 50s when he came to Alexandria so the book refutes Josephus and makes Marcus only 8 or 9 years old being born around 29ce. Josephus claimed that Pilate was removed from office in 36ce due to his poor handling of a Samaritan messianic meeting which this book then claims that meant the trial of Jesus. The year of 36ce messes up the 37ce year based in this book so Josephus is once again refuted. The book states: " why should I consider that my opinion is correct when it flies in the face of one of the most fundamental texts (writings of Josephus) dealing with this period of history?" It then says "well, first of all there can be no doubt that the throne is too small for an adult". This is because it was not created to actually be sat upon! There is a body of scholarly literature that claims the throne was not designed to be sat upon.

This brings us to the throne. And what is provided as the evidence of these absurd claims? On a vacation the author took, he saw the throne of Mark and comes up with this story. He says "I asked myself, how did a wandering disciple of Jesus such as Mark, sworn to a life of modesty, ever end up being enthroned?" The throne is small. It is a miniature sized throne that was obviously not created to actually be sat upon. The book claims that this throne was actually made for a little boy (Marcus) to sit in. It claims that this little boy was sent to Alexandria to scatter the enemies of the Jews and be their messiah. It says: "it is easy to see how the vast majority of Jews living in and around Alexandria would have seen Marcus as being the very savior they had been promised for so long" Umm... no, it would not be easy to see why they would accept an 8 year old boy claiming to be their king. Once again showing the author's belief in taking the Old Testament stories literally the claim is made: "was not king David only a small child when he killed the giant Goliath?"

"The Real Messiah" claims that this chair was made just one year after the crucifixion that occurred in 37ce. Even the exact day of the crucifixion of Jesus is given in the book. It claims that Jesus was nailed to a cross on March 23rd in 37ce and the resurrection was the 25th even though NO historical writing outside the gospels describes this happening on this day at all. The Gospel of Matthew states that the sky darkened and there were earthquakes, splitting rocks, and the graves of dead saints were opened and yet there is no mention of these things happening by any source outside the gospels. The exact date is given and then it claims that the catholic church covered it up. As quoted from the book: " Tiberius died on March 26th 37ce. Two days later the imperial throne was handed to Caligula. The crucifixion of Jesus had taken place three days earlier on march 23rd. This means that the date of Christ's resurrection must have been on march 25th, just a day before Tiberius death." Yet, there is NO mention of this event happening on this day by any historian or writer during this time at all outside the gospels.

Even though this book claims that the throne was created in 38ce, most academics place the throne at least as old as the 4th century CE. There is a reason for that. One very important clue that is missed in this book is that there are two crosses on this throne. One cross is at the top of the throne which the book claims was a later addition but the other cross is not even mentioned. This is the cross on the book of scripture that the eagle is holding in it's beak on the backside of the throne. The cross was not used as a symbol of Christianity until at least the mid 200s CE. The backside of this throne clearly shows an eagle holding a book with a cross on it. This point is never mentioned by the author at all. There is NO WAY a cross would have been used in 38CE.

"The Real Messiah" goes into an elaborate secret coding message from the throne. It states that "the figure of the ram caught in the bush carved into the backrest shows that those who ordered its creation knew full well what had happened in Judea the previous year that Jesus the sacrifice had died so that Marcus the messiah could survive and fulfill his mission". It is even suggested that there is a hidden code in the measurements of the chair! Like how many inches long and wide and high actually spell out a secret code! The author states that he came up with this symbolism while standing in his kitchen starring at pictures of the throne. He was looking at the tree on the backrest of the chair which has several branches of fruit. He then numbers each fruit and then attributes a Hebrew number to each group. Then because the Hebrew letters he comes up with doesn't amount to anything, he claims that it does mean something in Aramaic. He searches the bible over and over until a person he knows at some college suggests that it means the ninth vision of Zechariah which doesn't say anything about Mark and just talks of "He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne" and Huller takes this as meaning, of course, that it is about Marcus Agrippa.

On page 7, the book states that the throne's claim to ancient antiquity depends almost entirely on an inscription in Hebrew found at the front of the seat. The Samaritan letters in this script and the Samaritans in general that are referred to don't even appear anywhere in the Gospel of Mark. All this inscription says, according to the book, is "the sitting of Mark evangelist of Alexandria". Once again, the name Mark or anything similar to it was very popular. There could have been many evangelists in Alexandria with that name. It could have been just a reliquary dedicated to the legend of Mark and not actually meant to be sat in and used as an actual throne like the author claims is was designed for a kid. Later on in the book, the code created from the number of fruits on the trees is a word in Aramaic and not Hebrew. So Huller has a Hebrew/Samaritan inscription with an Aramaic coding of the fruits.

About the person Mark, the book claims "the true nature of Mark, alias Marcus Agrippa, as he originally appeared in the gospel we have nothing...this is hardly surprising since those who chose to alter the very mystery religion that Marcus had created cannot be expected to have left us glowing accounts of his presence alongside Jesus." It is even admitted on page 101 "unfortunately there is no historical reference to St. Mark the evangelist outside the gospels themselves". That's because writings were often just placed with a legendary name to give them more credibility. Just because a writing is attributed to a certain name like Mark, doesn't mean that an actual man named Mark wrote it. This is something that this author clearly does not understand. The book claims that Marcus Agrippa and St. Mark are the same. Every time someone with a name similar to Mark does something the book claims that it's Marcus Agrippa. As quoted in this book: "it is not simply a coincidence that the names Marcus and Mark are so very similar." YES IT IS!

Another person in these times named Marcus is claimed to be this Marcus Agrippa. This would be the Gnostic Marcus that was a contemporary of Irenaeus. Irenaeus lived until around 202ce and Marcus Agrippa died, according to Photius, around 100ce. Ireanaeus clearly speaks of the Marcus that he is referring to as though he is still living and teaching. Irenaeus is directing his criticism towards this Gnostic Marcus who was living during the late 100s with him not some Jewish king (Marcus Agrippa) that lived way before Irenaeus! The Marcosians were a Gnostic sect founded by Marcus, active in Lyons and southern Europe from the second to the fourth century CE. In Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" he is clearly speaking of THIS Gnostic Marcus as someone living in the same exact times as himself and not someone like Marcus Agrippa who lived many, many years before. It's obvious that "Against Heresies" of Irenaeus was not even properly read before jumping to the conclusion that this is the same Marcus as Marcus Agrippa. Once again, every time the name Marcus or something similar comes up then the association is made that it must be Marcus Agrippa. The book offers this explanation of why Irenaeus never mentions the name Marcus Agrippa: "Irenaeus never directed his criticisms specifically at Marcus Agrippa either because he was confused as to Marcus' identity or because he had reason to side such knowledge!"

The claim is also made that Irenaeus definitely saw this throne of Mark. Irenaeus describes a throne of God as described in Revelations, not Mark. These same exact animals are referred to and used several times in Christian symbolism. Christian tradition has long connected the authors of the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) with the four "living creatures" that surround God's throne, as described in Rev 4:7. Various traditions about four heavenly creatures, are already found in several older old testament biblical texts. What this book describes certainly does not mean that Ireneaus saw this throne of Mark. He was describing the throne of God as described in Revelations, not Mark.

There is a also a quote that the book attributes to Marcus Agrippa about him warning the people about the Old Testament scripture warning what would happen when the temple is destroyed and the author says that this is the smoking gun. The book says that this proves that Marcus is the messiah predicted by Daniel. It says that Marcus made this statement at the same exact time that the gospel of Mark was created. It then absurdly states "could there have been two Marks living in the same place and at the same time using the same words from Daniel to predict the destruction of Jerusalem and it's temple? I hardly think so".

From the title of this book it would appear that this author might even be an atheist but let me assure you he takes the bible very literally and believes strongly in the historical existence of a real person such as Jesus, Moses, David, and Solomon. He takes most of his historical data straight from the gospels. He takes the gospel account of the trial of Jesus and Pontius very literal. He believes the Old Testament stories of the exodus, he believes that St. Mark was actually Marcus Agrippa that followed a physical man named Jesus. He believes there was an actual first temple of Solomon, even though there has been no archaeological evidence ever found, and he also believes that the ark of the covenant is a real artifact too.

In my opinion, this irresponsible and improperly researched book should never have been written. It even says on page 184: "perhaps all this business about secret codes is just a product of having too little understanding and too much imagination". YES, that's exactly what this is and this alone should have stopped this author from actually publishing this work. It also says on page 185: "in my search for this lost tradition I went as far as visiting Coptic churches all across America armed with pictures of the throne and hoping that somehow, somewhere some light might be thrown on the problem. After thousands of miles of travel and countless questions asked, I eventually had to admit that nothing was forthcoming.... I had worked for so long without any concrete results on my theory about St. Mark that I had resigned myself to never being able to express my ideas to other people in a meaningful way." But he persists and goes on to create his own secret code of the throne.

In my opinion, this is the real purpose for writing this delusional book, as it states on page 220: " The Da Vinci Code has sold millions of copies worldwide and eventually became a blockbuster movie that has captivated tens of millions more. How strange then that the throne of St, Mark should reveal its secrets at this specific time". It then states "the problem for the church is now going to be what henceforth it does with the throne". Like this delusional book has turned the world upside down and the church is now looking at the throne as they don't know what to do with it because of this book! It's clearly obvious that this author is seeking the same worldwide exposure and financial gain from such nonsense. Do not fall for this incredibly irresponsible delusional piece of work.

Filled with wild leaps of logic to justify a preconceived notion, this book has little concrete evidence after all is said and done. Written in a schizophrenic style half doubting and unsure and then defiantly confident challenging any other explanations, the author works very hard to piecemeal History into conforming to his scenario.

The best I can say about this book is that it gave me a lot of laughs, and it introduced me to history's most consummate toadie, Marcus Agrippa II. I was particularly amused by Huller's descriptions of the friendship between "Little Marcus," a lad of 8, and Caligula. One shudders to think what that would have entailed. And to add to the hilarity he supposes with complete naive innocence that the child's mother must have fostered this friendship... Perhaps that's where Agrippa II got the idea to pimp off his sister/wife Berenice to the future emperor Titus. And everything Huller supposes "must" be true. With stunning certainty he makes huge leaps of quasi-logic from one unlikely supposition to the next. "Berenice" and "Veronica" are the same name in different languages, and St Veronica had a shrine in Caesarea Philippi where Agrippa and Berenice had a palace. Therefore, Berenice "must" be St. Veronica! "No doubt" she was present at the crucifixion of Jesus as a little girl and wiped his brow as he passed. Philo was a rich man in Alexandria with connections to Herodians. He also wrote books synthesizing Jewish religion and Greek philosophy. Therefore, "it could be no other than Philo" who arranged for the enthroning of "Little Marcus" as messiah in 38 CE. He goes on from there to describe Philo lifting the child into the air and citing the same Bible verse quoted by Elizabeth I upon her release from imprisonment at the hands of her sister. Too bad Huller didn't become a novelist instead of a faux scholar.

This book is written with all the misplaced surety of a true zealot. How an acknowledged established scholar such as Robert Eisenman could recommend the book and suggest that the author "...has come up with some startling conclusions about Mark. Well-researched and well-written. An academic thriller that reads like a murder mystery. Well done!" is an even bigger mystery.

The book is making irrelevant point to its title. It should be called "Secret code illustrates new facts".
If you like historic fiction with a hint of "new evidence suggest" this book is for you.

Huller's book is full of half-truths, obfuscations, poor reasoning, and insufficiently documented claims, which is no doubt why he's been promoting it with multiple blogs, spamming of other people's blogs, and so on: He's out to make a fast buck before anyone notices that it's nonsense.

Let's just look at three examples of how Huller tries to buffalo the reader.

On page 88, it is claimed that the rabbinic Mishnah "has a story of how the ancient sages actually acknowledged Marcus Agrippa as (Messiah)". Huller provides a long list of authors who supposedly acknowledged Agrippa as the Messiah on page 238, but not one quote or specific line reference is given. Why not? It appears that Huller is doing all he can to avoid having his work checked.

On page 106, Huller discerns a secret code proving that Mark (eg, Marcus Agrippa) ultimately wrote all of the Gospels:

"Matthew the elect, whose symbol is M, Mark the chosen, whose symbol is R, Luke the approved, whose symbol is K, and John the beloved, whose symbol is H."

According to Huller, the Latin parallel letters are M, R, K, and A, and this is a secret code informing us that Mark was the author of all four gospels. Unfortunately, Huller neglects to mention that the manuscript (Borgian Diatessaron) that has this opening is in Arabic, and dates to around the 14th century AD. Why didn't he reveal this important fact when trying to convince his readers about the authorship of documents written over 1000 years before?

On pages 116-7, an extended passage said to be a "smoking gun" for connecting Mark with Marcus Agrippa is presented as from "a "Latin copy of Jewish Wars" in which Agrippa, in a speech, warns the Jews that their rebellion will lead to disaster. Huller perhaps wishes to leave the reader with the impression that this comes from Josephus, but it does not: It comes from a "very free and Christianized" translation of the Wars, which is wrongly ascribed to the second century author Hegesippus, but was more likely done in the fourth century. Thus, Huller's use of this reference is dishonest, and his argument that it is too coincidental that Mark in his Gospel could have made comments about the destruction of the Temple, and Agrippa could have done the same at roughly the same time, is misplaced.

Huller is nothing but a huckster who is trying to sell books. Indeed, you can see this on one of his blogs where he says:

BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $5?

If I were you, I'd hold out till he offers to pay YOU to "buy" it. But to answer the question "what can you buy today for $5": Really good used books on Amazon, including much better historical scholarship. A 12-pack of Green Tea or soda of your choice. 2 scoops of peanut butter cookie dough in a waffle cone at Ben and Jerry's. A footlong sandwich at Subway. Do I need to go on? Any of those is a better use of $5 than The Real Messiah.

The author claims to be a Frankist and that I can believe with page after page of drivel, poppycock, pulp fiction which amounts to verbicide. The author needs to join his Frankist brethren in running the world into the ground as they are doing instead of writing stuff like this. Frankists really do hate Orthodox Judaism and Christianity and wish to destroy both with disinformation disguised as so-called scholarship. The world has been blessed with many brillant minds... but the author is not one.

One of the weakest and most absurdly presented books on the early origins of Christianity that could be imagined. The book surely raises more points than it answers. Author Huller has no historical training -- and it shows