Was Paul Josephus?

[neilgodfrey]

Most of the evidence for Paul is contained in ACTS and the Letters- oops, forgot your don't accept them!

We are at an impasse.

Was this directed to me? I don't accept what? The letters of Paul and Acts?

[steve43]

No.

[ghost]

At least one thing is indicated by these parallels - the NT figure of Paul is a literary creation. As for Josephus - my thinking is that 'Josephus' is a pseudonym - and that many of the Josephan stories are just that stories. Hence, making any case for a Paul/Josephus identification is pointless. What one can propose is that the NT writers and the Josephan writer were working with the same agenda. An agenda which, to my mind, had its raison d'être, in Hasmonean history.

I think it matters whether Paul was Josephus because Josephus defected to the Romans, which means the NT could have been written under the Romans and thus could have had a Roman agenda, so that it's just the employed writer who was Hasmonean. I mean that it seems to me the idea that the NT has a Hasmonean agenda is dogmatic, and that it's not clear to me where the evidence is for a Christianity prior to Josephus's defection. That's more or less how I see the matter.

[steve43]

Do some history reading.

Hagan's "Fires of Rome" and "Year of the Passover" are good beginnings.

[maryhelena]

Do some history reading.

Hagan's "Fires of Rome" and "Year of the Passover" are good beginnings.

Much better to read books by Daniel Schwartz:

Agrippa I. The Last King of Judea

Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity

Reading the First Century
On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History
of the First Century

[steve43]

Do some history reading.

Hagan's "Fires of Rome" and "Year of the Passover" are good beginnings.

Much better to read books by Daniel Schwartz:

Agrippa I. The Last King of Judea

Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity

Reading the First Century
On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History
of the First Century

You actually read through Hagan's stuff?

Good for you.

So what was it that you found lacking?

[ghost]

Hagan and Schwartz say Jesus existed in 1st century AD Israel, so of course they're going to say there was a Jewish Christianity before Josephus. But as far as I can tell Jewish Christianity is in the person of Josephus. That's why people insist on talking about Josephus when talking about the supposed historical background of Paul. But that means that for all practical purposes Paul is Josephus. The abrupt ending of Acts is because of Nero's damnatio. That's the simplest assumption.

[steve43]

Hagan and Schwartz say Jesus existed in 1st century AD Israel, so of course they're going to say there was a Jewish Christianity before Josephus. But as far as I can tell Jewish Christianity is in the person of Josephus. That's why people insist on talking about Josephus when talking about the supposed historical background of Paul. But that means that for all practical purposes Paul is Josephus. The abrupt ending of Acts is because of Nero's damnatio. That's the simplest assumption.

For all practical purposes?

Where did that come from.

They are two separate people, of course. The author of Luke and Acts might have mistaken some of Josephus' exploits with that of Paul, and also Jesus for that matter. Josephus had some fame as the rising Jewish Priest-Scholar, and Nero's wife was quite taken by him in his trip to Rome in A.D. 63. Many interesting other people were in Rome in A.D. 63, including Paul, Peter, Josephus, and Luke of Macedon

[ghost]

Yes. For all practical purposes. There's at least a bit of evidence for, and none against. Let's see…

Why were precisely those two shipwrecks mistaken, and not some others? To me the simplest explanation is Paul is based on Josephus, or, more simplistically speaking, Paul is Josephus.

So how do you know they're two separate people other than because one is imaginary and based on the other? We have no evidence Paul is but a literary character.

Josephus as Jewish priest-scholar, that's approximately the same as Paul.

Nero's wife was consecrated, but Nero himself damned. Acts ends abruptly just before Paul arrives where the emperor is.

Isn't it weird how these apostles are supposedly in the same spacetime as Josephus? The simpler explanation is they were in Josephus's imagination.

[MrMacSon]

... But as far as I can tell Jewish Christianity is in the person of Josephus. That's why people insist on talking about Josephus when talking about the supposed historical background of Paul. But that means that for all practical purposes Paul is Josephus. The abrupt ending of Acts is because of Nero's damnatio[n]. That's the simplest assumption.

... Why were precisely those two shipwrecks mistaken, and not some others? To me the simplest explanation is Paul is based on Josephus, or, more simplistically speaking, Paul is Josephus.

... We have no evidence Paul is but a literary character.

Josephus as Jewish priest-scholar, that's approximately the same as Paul.

Nero's wife was consecrated, but Nero himself damned. Acts ends abruptly just before Paul arrives where the emperor is.

Isn't it weird how these apostles are supposedly in the same space/time as Josephus? The simpler explanation is they were in Josephus's imagination.

Interesting ...