Was Paul Josephus?

[Jayson]

Please consider the following as an earnest inquiry of the hypothesis.

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.

What is this proposal's position on the assertions of Steve Mason that Josephus was an orthodox Aristocrat-Priest and not a member of the Pharisee party?

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

Is this specifically unique to just these two textual bodies of work?

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.

Are these two characters going to the same place and meeting the same person, as well, are both of the settings and motivations for going to the desert reflective of the same character of remark?

Are these the only two texts in which arrive around from this time period and include a protagonist who goes to the desert for a period of time with some level of reverence involved to the experience within or surrounding the event?

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

Is the third heaven outlined by Paulinism as a source of prophetic visions?
Are Josephus and Paul the only personalities of their various times to include relations to variations of prophecies?

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

I don't know whether I accept the chronological order ascribed here; I will need to eventually look at the raw Greek of both and match them to the grammatical pattern of the texts elsewhere respectively and see if both sections firstly match each other closely enough and then secondly determine if the section sympathizes with one out of the two textual body's grammatical identity, or neither.

I will eventually do so, but I'm not going to do that at the moment due to the length of the process.

Yet, one notice I so far simply wish to convey is that premise 5 consequently provokes the question of whether or not this proposition understands Acts as a unique text from other Pauline texts, as well as what does this proposition understand as the authenticity (meaning: by whom) of both Acts and the Pauline textual body?

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

Do they wreck in the same place?
Were they heading to Rome for the same purpose or style of character?
Are these two personalities the only two in literature around this time period to involve shipwrecks around the Mediterranean while heading to Rome?

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

Can you illustrate the value of premise 7?
For clarity, what I mean is that there were several writers in New York during Sept. 11th 2001.
Is there a specific value that I do not yet understand which produces the relevancy of this consideration?

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.

Was Caesarea a standard holding for perceived theocratic violators?
Was 2 years a standard term for a category of type of charge?
Were both brought for relatively the same character or constitution?

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.

Are these descriptions specifically unique to these two textual personalities?
Is this like noting an attribute of Dennis Rodman, or is this more characteristic of noting an attribute of "Silicon Valley" entrepreneurs?

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

I apologize, but I simply cannot seem to be capable of categorically unifying these two identities.
Is it simply the action of flipping enemy to ally and ally to enemy which is being compared, or is there a relation of note regarding that it was Rome for Josephus in some related fashion whereby Rome is characteristically akin to Christianity for Paul?

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.

Is this position on circumcision culturally rare so as to richly define unique notice among two textual identities and no other, or is the backdrop filled with stars - so to speak?

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.

Can the value of this be conveyed, for I am not understanding the value here?
To my comprehension and imagination it would seem that many must have appeared before Agrippa as Defense on their own behalf or the behalf of some enterprise of association; is there a unique note of relation between the identity of event of Josephus' appeal and Paul's?
Were they received by Agrippa II the same?
Do both events produce the same temperament and summation of the protagonist's character as well as the character of the duress - do both share the property of duress?

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

Was Herod Agrippa unknown to individuals such as either of these two identities represent of the period that both of them knowing him is a remarkable note of value as statistically anomalous?

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

Is the character of Epaphroditus of the same essential narrative nature in both textual bodies, or is it that both knew an academic named Epaphroditus that is of value?
If the latter, is Epaphroditus a common or rare name for the period for academic individuals?

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

If Curtus means Small and Josephus' forefather was this identity, then would this not reason that Paul was a patriarch of Josephus?
Is it just that both this Curtus and Paul have a rendering of meaning "small" that compels the confirmation of association between these two?
If so, is a common hagiographic practice of the time to render names in variation only bound by their meaning as retaining the identity?

Cheers,
Jayson

[MrMacSon]

I think you missed my earlier posts where I did discuss some of those in detail but you certainly missed my subsequent ones where i discussed three of the points in great detail just for you:

Point 8: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=777&start=80#p17632

A detailed response to the 2 year imprisonment parallel between Paul and Josephus as one piece of evidence that Paul was Josephus. . .

The first time the 2 year imprisonment of Paul struck me as potentially interesting was its parallel with Old Testament narratives. We know the author of Acts knew and used and imitated in part some of the OT narratives. Acts ends in a manner remarkably like the ending of 2 Kings -- the conclusion of what is called Israel's "Primary History", Genesis to 2 Kings. 2 Kings concludes with king Jehoiachin being sent as a prisoner to Babylon where he is raised to a comfortable state of imprisonment. This reminds us of Paul being sent as a prisoner to Rome where he also is set up in a somewhat comfortable imprisonment at the end.

Another biblical hero who likewise is sent as a prisoner to the major gentile kingdom of the day and imprisoned for "two years", during which time he also speaks God's words to others. Joseph.

Both are figures of persecution and it is not at all unlikely that the author of Acts knew of these stories. It is reasonable to raise the question whether he modeled his own story of Paul, the persecuted one whose story ends in house arrest, free to preach, for 2 years, to some extent upon them, or at least with them in mind. We do know that the author viewed Christianity as an extension or fulfilment of the OT and that he did use the OT as the basis for other stories so it is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

Now Joseph's 2 years imprisonment. We also know he to some extent liked to compare himself with OT figures. We have seen discussion of his self-perception as a prophet not unlike Jeremiah, warning his fellows that they ought to submit to Rome, etc. There are other instances of comparison, too. Is it plausible that he, too, attempted to present his imprisonment as one like Joseph's two years? Did he fiddle the figures to make it "two years" exactly? Or maybe "two years" was just what it was in reality.

Josephus is writing a biography and is a known historical person.

Paul's story in Acts is in many ways contradictory to his letters and we can see a strong tendency by the author of Acts to depict Paul in a certain theological light that was not the true Paul from the letters. That is, Acts is largely fiction. There are many other reasons for seeing Acts as fiction that I have written about elsewhere. It is quite reasonable to suggest that Paul's 2 years imprisonment was modeled by its author upon the OT and/or Josephus. (We also have good reasons to believe that the author of Luke-Acts knew and used Josephus at times.) And one could supply a range of supporting arguments for this.

But I cannot think of any supporting argument that uses this same data to suggest that Paul himself was Josephus. I just can't see any reason to think that on the basis of this 2 year imprisonment parallel. I have given arguments here for the author of Acts copying the literary sources of the OT (and/or Josephus possibly, but only remotely). If you can think of any arguments that support this 2 years imprisonment being a reason to suspect the identity of Paul and Josephus then can you explain them?

Why would the author of Acts have transferred the 2 years of Josephus in Caesarea(?) with Paul's 2 years in Rome -- especially given the quite different reasons for the imprisonment etc? If that can't be answered then I suggest my argument above is the only one left standing because I have given reasons for my interpretation.

So this point, I contend, adds absolutely zero weight to the argument that Paul was Josephus.

I also suggest the same can be said for each of the other points listed.

If so, then we have absolutely no reason to suggest Paul was Josephus.

you point out alignment with OT narratives, a common theme to the NT

2Kings imprisonments
Acts has Paul imprisoned

Joesph was imprisoned? -

Another biblical hero who likewise is sent as a prisoner to the major gentile kingdom of the day and imprisoned for "two years", during which time he also speaks God's words to others. Joseph. ????

Now Joseph's 2 years imprisonment. We also know he to some extent liked to compare himself with OT figures. We have seen discussion of his self-perception as a prophet not unlike Jeremiah

I presume you mean't Josephus, not Joseph.

you confirm 'Josephean writings' say Josephus was imprisoned


Here ...

It is quite reasonable to suggest that Paul's 2 years imprisonment was modeled by its author upon the OT and/or Josephus. (We also have good reasons to believe that the author of Luke-Acts knew and used Josephus at times.) And one could supply a range of supporting arguments for this.

But I cannot think of any supporting argument that uses this same data to suggest that Paul himself was Josephus. I just can't see any reason to think that on the basis of this 2 year imprisonment parallel.

... You deny the antecedent, your antecedent; a fallacy.


You also deny your preceding point about imprisonment being a theme of the OT transferred to the NT, and a theme that you say Josephus transferred to himself
.

[MrMacSon]

.
As requested, a detailed response to two more of the points set out as supposed evidence that Paul was Josephus:

Points 6 and 7: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=777&start=80#p17639

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

The shipwrecks: We have already seen in detail the similarities between the shipwrecks of Paul and Josephus (they were originally sourced from my blogpost). Josephus is writing his biography. That gives us prima facie grounds for assuming it was an historical event. We read of many shipwreck stories in ancient literature and it is evident that Josephus had some of these in mind when he composed his own biographical narrative since we know that one of the purposes for which ancients wrote histories and biographies was to entertain readers. (The rhetoric of entertainment was well established in relation to shipwrecks.) That is all very plausible and what we would expect from someone of his literacy and status who had been involved in a shipwreck.

Acts is evidently (for many reasons addressed elsewhere) a work of historical fiction, an entertaining and instructive story in the mould of ancient "novels". We see many indicators that the author was modeling his Paul on other characters -- Peter, Jesus, in particular -- and using other literature (e.g. Euripides, Maccabees, Genesis, 1-2 Kings, Homer, Josephus) to draw upon to craft his story. His use of Josephus also applies to his depictions of Jesus especially when he visited the temple as a boy. Would we therefore argue Jesus was Josephus? I doubt it.

So all of this is very good grounds for thinking Luke has drawn inspiration from Josephus's shipwreck story. This explanation is far simpler and more evidence-based than the alternative argument that Paul was Josephus. In fact the differences between the accounts throw up what I think are insurmountable obstacles to any attempt to identify the two.

First you say Josephus is writing his biography ie. it should be factual; but, then you imply he added narrative to entertain.

You say the author of Acts used Josephus. Your point about Jesus is a red-herring to the highly-significant point that the author of Acts used Josephus in composing the narrative about Paul's shipwreck.

You support my point - you virtually confirm it.

7. Both were in Rome during the well-known fire in 63/64CE
The fire of Rome: We have no reason at all to think that Paul was in Rome during the time of the fire -- except for much later tradition. (His own rented house was obviously not burnt down during his two years there, and if he was really confined to it at the time of the fire, and our author was able to tell us how long he lived there -- up to two years, after which time the author evidently knew he was no longer living there. So evidently the author would have had time to have told us what led to his release if he had wanted to --- trial, fire. . . .)

That doesn't make sense to me.

More significantly, we need more than the detail that two people are in the same city around a certain time to be able to draw an inference that they may be the same people. This detail of itself counts for zero weight towards the thesis that Paul was Josephus for more than one reason, therefore.

I don't think Paul was a person - I think he is a literary character, based on a number of scriptorium activities, including components of Josephus.


So, I disagree with you assertion that

I show you there exactly why they each = 0 as a contribution to the thesis that Paul is Josephus.

I think it is likely there are components of the Josephean narrative in the narrative about the NT Paul-character
.

[DCHindley]

.

Well said.

Many words lead to exhaustion.
It is better to center on the true essence within.
[Tao te Ching, Ch 5,
http://www.with.org/tao_te_ching_en.pdf ]

DCH

[Jayson]

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

Is there a citation for the drama in which "hard to kick against the goad" originates?
I need to have the title of the drama and passage in which the term appears if you could please.

[neilgodfrey]

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

Is there a citation for the drama in which "hard to kick against the goad" originates?
I need to have the title of the drama and passage in which the term appears if you could please.

It's in the play Josephus wrote about Banus. He wrote it under the name of Euripides and called it Bacchae and conservative reactionary scholars have been fooled ever since. It's around line 795.

[Jayson]

Thank you.

[Jayson]

Strictly speaking; I am unfortunately left with an undetermined result by grammatical comparison due to the entries of proposal being too short for a unique identifier to exist from which to apply comparison.

Bacchae line 795
θύοιμ᾽ ἂν αὐτῷ μᾶλλον ἢ θυμούμενος πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζοιμι θνητὸς ὢν θεῷ.

Source Used: http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/eyripedes/ ... hes07.html

Acts 26:14
πάντων τε καταπεσόντων ἡμῶν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἤκουσα φωνὴν λέγουσαν πρός με τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, Σαοὺλ Σαούλ, τί με διώκεις; σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν.

Source Used: http://greekbible.com/index.php

The only means by which I can conceive to draft a form of comparison is by comparing how Acts and Bacchae employ the 2nd person.
At cursory review, it appears to me that in Acts 26 the hand employs the 2nd person directly and overtly employs "you" (σε) more often than employing the accusative.
In Bacchae, it appears to employ the accusative more often and also appears to employ "you" less often than Acts.

This is not a solid case, even if verified by another, as context could be argued for the differences.
If there are any others capable, I would appreciate a second opinion of this comparison.

As it stands currently; they appear independent of each other - more seeming as one who is familiar with the phrase employing it into the text than one copying directly from one to the other or being of the same hand.

Cheers,
Jayson

[neilgodfrey]

It could have been a saying that free-floated just as many sayings from Shakespeare do today. What adds weight to its ultimate derivation from Euripides is the larger similarities of Bacchae found in Acts. The theme of the drama and motifs of the unrecognized god coming to his own people and being rejected -- and also his followers being persecuted unjustly by authorities -- has obvious resonances with the gospel and Acts narratives, and then we have the prison escape scenes in Acts that have often been noted for their similarities to the escape of Dionysus in Bacchae. When seen in this broader context the likelihood of saying also deriving from the play increases. It doesn't have to be a literal copying. One can be influenced by literature/live theatre that one has read/seen some time before or that is simply well-known and referenced among the literate elites as Shakespeare is among similar groups today.

[Jayson]

That seems to me to be a very sensible understanding of the relationship between the texts.

In so doing, does this present a queer relationship in comparing Paul of Acts to Josephus in that Paul is a character within the story, such as Dionysus in Bacchae, whereas Josephus is external of the Bacchae tale?

This would seem as though we are stating that Ragle Gumm is William Shakespeare because Time Out of Joint clearly draws from Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Would it not be more appropriate to compare Paul to a character of the Bacchae in this comparison, rather than the author?