Was Paul Josephus?

[neilgodfrey]

.

[MrMacSon]

Fact - Josephus was not a character: he was almost certainly a real person, whose writings about himself may or may not be entirely true.

Josephus a real historical person? I have my doubts. 'Josephus' might just be a pseudonym. If this is so then the story about a figure called 'Josephus' is as much fiction as is the NT story about a 'Paul'.

Interesting. Certainly someone has said Saul is a pseudonym for Josephus, so I was going to revisit what the Josephean writings said about Saul/s.

Fact - Paul may or may not have been a real person. He may be a literary character (as may also be the case with Jesus of Nazareth).

Logic would indicate that since the gospel figure of Jesus is not a historical figure - therefore - the rest of the NT story, including the figure 'Paul', is likewise ahistorical.

The answer to the question of this OP - Was Paul Josephus? - is NO. Paul and Josephus are not historical figures. Both are literary creations. 'Paul' wrote epistles. 'Josephus' wrote history - and pseudo-history. Yes, someone wrote the epistles of 'Paul' and someone wrote the writings of 'Josephus'. That this someone, or some people, were named 'Paul' and 'Josephus' is hardly likely.

It is likely these works were reworked or redacted in scriptoria, whoever first drafted them, or how. ie. edited by groups of people ...

and likely edited serially ie. several times over many years or several generations; thus finally edited when the first editors were dead.

It seems likely that the 'less-substantive character' is based on the more substantive one.

That there are many parallels between 'Paul' and 'Josephus' does not equate these two literary figures to be one and the same figure. The connection, the correspondence, serves not to identify that these two literary figures are one - it serves to demonstrate that both figures derive their existence from the same source.

or, 'their' works were redacted in a single scriptorium or by closely related scriptoria;

or, one 'led' to the other ie. one was based on the other - more likely 'Paul' was based on Josephus (?)

Attempts to short-circuit the Paul and Josephus parallels as though these parallels are nothing but an example of paralleomania serves only one purpose - preserving the status-quo in NT studies - either from the historicist position or the Carrier-Doherty mythicist position.

it narrows enquiry/inquiry, that's for sure.


This is a good point -
Josephus, as I've written many times over the years, is the roadblock to finding, to understanding, early christian origins. The writings of 'Josephus' have to be put to the same rigorous testing as any NT writing.
.

[MrMacSon]

I should point out by reminder that Josephus was only one of the sources upon which the author of Acts drew for his narrative in both Luke and Acts. As I mentioned above there was also Euripides, OT books such as Genesis and 1 and 2 Kings, 2 Maccabees, Homer, possibly even Virgil . . . . Josephus was one of many. That doesn't mean his Jesus was Dionysus or Elisha, or that his Paul was Joseph or Heliodorus or Aeneas or Hector or Josephus.

his Paul? the Saul/Paul in the Josephean writings? is not necessarily the NT Paul?

[MrMacSon]

and address these points individually and collectively -

1. Both Josephus and Paul were hellenistic Jews, Pharisees, & [then] Roman citizens - Josephus and the apostle Paul (in Acts 26:5) are the only known examples of people who are identified in writings attributed to them as Pharisees.

2. Both are known for their literary works, and both their works were written with upper-class Koine greek.

3. Josephus mentions that he had been in the desert with a hermit named Banus for a period of three years when he was young. Paul disappears into the desert for three years after the Damascus incident.

4. Josephus made prophecies; had prophetic dreams. Paul is portrayed as 'caught away to the third heaven'.

5. Josephus tells that he knows many ancient dramas. In Acts, there's an episode that narrates Paul's "conversion"; and the saying "hard to kick against the goad", which has its origin in a drama written by Jospehus, is used - Acts 26:14

6. Josephus was shipwrecked when on his way to Rome; Paul was also in a shipwreck when he was on his way to Rome.

7. Both were in Rome during the well-known fire in 63/64CE (as noted in a previous thread-post by ghost)

8. Josephus was imprisoned for 2 years during the Jewish war in 67-69CE and he was apparently kept in Caesarea before he ended up in Rome. Paul also spent 2 years in imprisonment in Caesarea when waiting for his trip to Rome.

9. After the Jewish war, Josephus became a traitor in the eyes of the Jews, and he lived in Rome, apparently for reasons of safety, and wrote his apologies. Paul became a traitor and a 'renegade of the law' in the eyes of the Jews; and there were many attempts to kill him.

10. Both were former adversaries of their final advocacies: Josephus had been an enemy of Rome. Paul was a former persecutor of Christians.

11. Josephus maintained that non-Jews did not require circumcision in order to stay among Jews; Paul said that circumcision was not required for Gentile Christians.

13. Josephus appealed to Agrippa II to attest the truth of what he had written in his history of the Roman/Jewish wars. Paul made a defense of Christianity before Agrippa II.

14. Both Josephus and Saul/Paul knew Herod Agrippa http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS.htm

15. Both had a friend or publisher or both named Epaphroditus.

16. Josephus mentions Mathhias Curtus as his forefather. Curtus means "small". Paul (paulos) means "small".

I did but ... I addressed them collectively in the post that explained that adding up a lot of separate arguments that individually add nothing to the case at all does not produce a serious argument. That is, 0+0+0+0=0, not =1.

No. They are not an argument, or part of an argument by me, yet;

These points are not zeros - they have cumulative value; say ~0.1 + ~0.24 + ~0.8 + ~0.6 > 1

see my subsequent post - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=777&start=110#p17668

and, pls do not mention astrology, astrotheology or have another dig at [another member] on this thread, or any other pathetic red-herring ...


As for this -

All you have to do is take just one of those points and explain to me how it is evidence that Paul was Josephus. Not a single one of them does.

It is not about taking each of those points in isolation - they are likely to have cumulative/collective value ...


This is mere circularity -

As far as I can see every one of those points has a perfectly adequate existing explanation on the basis that Paul and Josephus were just whom most of us think they were.

[maryhelena]

or, one 'led' to the other ie. one was based on the other - more likely 'Paul' was based on Josephus (?)

Yep, since the Josephan writing is dated, Antiquites being around 94 c.e., it is more likely that the Josephan story was followed by the Paul parallels. That makes 'Paul' late - post 70 c.e. - or in this case - post Antiquities. However, as has been discussed at one time on FRDB - the possibility of an earlier, pre 70 Paul, is interesting. That would mean that the 'Paul' character is not simply a parallel with the Josephus character - 'Paul' is a composite figure: pre 70's Paul and post Antiquities 'Paul' (94 c.e.). Also keep in mind the chart I posted near the start of this thread. A chart dealing with parallels between the Paul figure and the Jesus figure. Bottom line: 'Paul' is the 'paper apostle'. Which means the NT story, all of it, is not dealing with early christian history - it is dealing with a christian origin story.

[neilgodfrey]

.

[MrMacSon]

or, one 'led' to the other ie. one was based on the other - more likely 'Paul' was based on Josephus (?)

Yep, since the Josephan writing is dated, Antiquites being around 94 c.e., it is more likely that the Josephan story was followed by the Paul parallels. That makes 'Paul' late - post 70 c.e. - or in this case - post Antiquities. However, as has been discussed at one time on FRDB - the possibility of an earlier, pre 70 Paul, is interesting. That would mean that the 'Paul' character is not simply a parallel with the Josephus character - 'Paul' is a composite figure: pre 70's Paul and post Antiquities 'Paul' (94 c.e.). Also keep in mind the chart I posted near the start of this thread. A chart dealing with parallels between the Paul figure and the Jesus figure. Bottom line: 'Paul' is the 'paper apostle'. Which means the NT story, all of it, is not dealing with early christian history - it is dealing with a christian origin story.

I think it is likely the composition of each of the biblical characters involved many layers over many generations.

It is possible the Christ-narratives of the Gospels and the Pauline texts began early, and transcended the whole period of development & embellishment before being finalised 4th-5th C (we know the Codices Vaticanus & Sinaiticus were further changed in the East and the West.

[neilgodfrey]

.

[MrMacSon]

.

[neilgodfrey]

.