Was Paul Josephus?

[neilgodfrey]

.

[MrMacSon]

.
The argument that Paul is Josephus ignores the first principle of rational inquiry: What existing explanations are there for the evidence and are they credible? Is the alternative idea at all plausible by comparison? They are also big on parallelomania.

The only people who go along with this nonsense are those who are ignorant of the existing arguments and accounts for what we already know, or who have only the most superficial awareness of existing knowledge without having done any serious reading to see what its foundations are.

Perhaps you might like to critique this, Neil?

Vita Apologetica: The Lives of Josephus and Paul in Apologetic Historiography
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, October 2002. vol 13, no 2; pp151-169
Robert Gnuse; Department of Religious Studies, Loyola University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA

Abstract
Paul and Josephus both were apologists for their religious communities and thus shared many attributes in common. Since the book of Acts, crafted in the late first century, was contemporary with Josephus's writings, some critical scholars have suggested dependence by one of these authors upon the other. This article suggests that the author of Acts may have been inspired by Josephan texts when crafting biographical narratives about Paul. The article evaluates possible connections between Acts and Josephan texts in regard to: (1) their references to the same political events in Palestine, (2) the broad educational experiences of both men, (3) shipwreck experi ences of both men and (4) visions of dream images, which communicated life-altering messages to both men.

http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/13/2/151.short

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".

or discuss the view that aspects of Josephus's accounts of himself, or his accounts of Saul, or both, were later conflated with the Paul-character -

Whatever people think of Josephus, it seems he was still before most of the Gospels and especially acts.

Huller, though, was looking at the possibility that WARS of the Jews, though, might have passed through at some stage the hands of the Christian Hegessipus (note the name very carefully). Josephan original, interpolated by a pretender with a variant name…with more interpolations added to bring about apostolic lists in the Hegessipus version.

Josephan originals in the 90s C.E. Hegesipus around 147 C.E. Acts and Luke some time after that. I’m going with Luke definitely appearing AFTER the Marcionite Gospel of the Lord.

Acts not being in Marcionite originals of the Gospel/Apostle. Swiping of a lot of detail from Josephus either directly or through Hegessipus. Paul in Acts not resembling much the one of the original in the Marcionite NT.

Ipso facto, small wonder Paul’s shipwreck resembled the Josephan one?

James references in Josephus? Possibly very debatable? Likewise even the Testimonium Flavium?

And have many readers of Josephus ever realized he’s speaking of a Galilean rabbi half a dozen times, but NOT under the Jesus name? Heck, freak out for Christians to find the best possible historical source of any Galilean rabbi story was a founder of the Zealots and that his name was Judas.

But if anyone wanted to create a man Jesus instead of a God/Angel-only one…probably the only good place to start.

And then there’s Acts 5 and the reference to Judas the Galilean taken directly from Josephus.

Does anyone appreciate the irony of that?

George Hall http://vridar.org/2007/04/25/the-shipwr ... ment-67078

rather than repeatedly making snide comments, or alluding to false-analogies, Neil?

[MrMacSon]

.

• Valuable Biblical Background

• • <snip>

All students of the Bible are indebted to Josephus for providing ... a wealth of historical information. His retelling of biblical narratives in Antiquities is a rich source of data on first-century Jewish biblical interpretation and traditions.

Josephus's description of the ministry and arrest of John the Baptist (Ant 18.v.2) are consistent with the Gospel accounts. Josephus adds the detail that John was imprisoned and executed at the fortress Macherus in Perea ...

the name of the daughter of Herodias who asked for John's head on a platter (Mark 6:22-25) ... is another detail for which we have Josephus to thank (Ant 18.v.4).

• <snip>

Although Josephus does not mention Paul of Tarsus, he does discuss the procurators Felix and Festus, about whom we read in the book of Acts. Josephus's descriptions of the layout of the Temple complex, including the "boundary signs" restricting the movements of Gentiles and the location where Roman soldiers were stationed, help us picture the events chronicled in Acts 21.

http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/maier2012.html

[steve43]

I would recommend Hagan's "Fires of Rome" for excluding most other nonsense and focusing on what Josephus adds to confirm the historicity of the NT. Secondary and tertiary characters in the NT are traced through Josephus and Tacitus and from this research a timeline is derived for major early Christian events.

One of the most interesting conclusions is that the High Priesthood was deeply involved in not only the execution of James the Just, but also likely behind the persecutions of Nero. In the persecutions of Nero, Paul the Apostle, a perpetual thorn in the side of the High Priesthood, was finally executed, along with Peter.

The pointing of the finger at the High Priesthood not only for the crucifixion of Jesus but for the Roman persecutions is not a popular conclusion to reach in these modern times- when Israel continues to have conflicts with the Arab world. But it is a very supportable one- as much as any conclusion can be made about those ancient times.

[neilgodfrey]

.

[neilgodfrey]

rather than repeatedly making snide comments, or alluding to false-analogies, Neil?

I'm really surprised you took my comments as "snide". I was taking the time to try to engage you to spell out what your argument is, to think it through, to try to discuss it from a perspective you may not have considered before.

If so many people do not accept your view it is important to ask why. You really could be right and others really might be all bigoted reactionaries, but you can't just assume that -- you need to really engage with other views and really get to understand what they are saying -- ask them if they are unclear to you, don't just tell them they are talking falsehood and nonsense and to fuck off.

[maryhelena]

How about the term 'parallel phobia' for those who run from any thought that parallels can suggest avenues for further research. I think this comment - from the quote below - has much to recommend:

"...we have only hit the tip of the iceberg in terms of what connections there are.."

There are connections between the NT Paul story and the Josephus story. These connections can lead to something relevant for early christian history - or they may not. What should not be done is turning away from these connections, these parallels, with cries of parallelomania. It could well be that those who so quickly turn to this term are themselves hindered by their own 'parallel phobia'.....

I hate parallelomania...
"I think maybe these two texts share a connection."
"I don't see it."
"Well, let me tell you why. A. Because of..."
"No. No. No. You just have parallelomania!"

It's not the process of parallelomania that I dislike but rather the term itself. It is not helpful and is dismissive in its nature. What has inspired this little, off the cuff rant? James McGrath's latest blog post about Tom Brodie's work (click here) throws out that word I hear more and more of. I dislike it because it is little more that name calling and is just bad scholarship. It is one thing to disagree with someone's research - that is perfectly fine and any scholar worth his/her salt should thrive on constructive criticism. Throwing around the term parallelomania is not constructive criticism. It is dismissive. If you disagree then take apart the other person's argument. This is not a pop at McGrath - his post was merely the catalyst for this post. I enjoy his blog and work immensely and agree with much he has to say.

Yes, Brodie goes too far in some of his claims. I'm all for connections between texts and I truly believe we have only hit the tip of the iceberg in terms of what connections there are but Brodie does push it at times. But this can be argued against quite convincingly without having to start throwing around unproductive terms which trivialises another's work. Come on scholarship - we can do better than that.

Rant over.

http://www.itsallrandommostly.com/2013/ ... mania.html

.
The argument that Paul is Josephus ignores the first principle of rational inquiry: What existing explanations are there for the evidence and are they credible? Is the alternative idea at all plausible by comparison? They are also big on parallelomania.

The only people who go along with this nonsense are those who are ignorant of the existing arguments and accounts for what we already know, or who have only the most superficial awareness of existing knowledge without having done any serious reading to see what its foundations are.

Perhaps you might like to critique this, Neil?

Vita Apologetica: The Lives of Josephus and Paul in Apologetic Historiography
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, October 2002. vol 13, no 2; pp151-169
Robert Gnuse; Department of Religious Studies, Loyola University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA

Abstract
Paul and Josephus both were apologists for their religious communities and thus shared many attributes in common. Since the book of Acts, crafted in the late first century, was contemporary with Josephus's writings, some critical scholars have suggested dependence by one of these authors upon the other. This article suggests that the author of Acts may have been inspired by Josephan texts when crafting biographical narratives about Paul. The article evaluates possible connections between Acts and Josephan texts in regard to: (1) their references to the same political events in Palestine, (2) the broad educational experiences of both men, (3) shipwreck experi ences of both men and (4) visions of dream images, which communicated life-altering messages to both men.

http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/13/2/151.short

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".

or discuss the view that aspects of Josephus's accounts of himself, or his accounts of Saul, or both, were later conflated with the Paul-character -

Whatever people think of Josephus, it seems he was still before most of the Gospels and especially acts.

Huller, though, was looking at the possibility that WARS of the Jews, though, might have passed through at some stage the hands of the Christian Hegessipus (note the name very carefully). Josephan original, interpolated by a pretender with a variant name…with more interpolations added to bring about apostolic lists in the Hegessipus version.

Josephan originals in the 90s C.E. Hegesipus around 147 C.E. Acts and Luke some time after that. I’m going with Luke definitely appearing AFTER the Marcionite Gospel of the Lord.

Acts not being in Marcionite originals of the Gospel/Apostle. Swiping of a lot of detail from Josephus either directly or through Hegessipus. Paul in Acts not resembling much the one of the original in the Marcionite NT.

Ipso facto, small wonder Paul’s shipwreck resembled the Josephan one?

James references in Josephus? Possibly very debatable? Likewise even the Testimonium Flavium?

And have many readers of Josephus ever realized he’s speaking of a Galilean rabbi half a dozen times, but NOT under the Jesus name? Heck, freak out for Christians to find the best possible historical source of any Galilean rabbi story was a founder of the Zealots and that his name was Judas.

But if anyone wanted to create a man Jesus instead of a God/Angel-only one…probably the only good place to start.

And then there’s Acts 5 and the reference to Judas the Galilean taken directly from Josephus.

Does anyone appreciate the irony of that?

George Hall http://vridar.org/2007/04/25/the-shipwr ... ment-67078

rather than repeatedly making snide comments, or alluding to false-analogies, Neil?

[neilgodfrey]

.

[neilgodfrey]

Many people on both sides do not understand what is meant by parallelomania. The term came into popular use through a 1962 article by Samuel Sandmel who explained it most clearly. The article can be read at http://vridar.org/other-authors/samuel- ... ania-1962/ I have a briefer outline of the difference between a genuine and valid study of Parallels and Parallelomania at http://vridar.org/other-authors/samuel- ... ania-1962/

Where we have good strong grounds for arguing that parallels are actually connected consciously by the author then we have a valid study on our hands. So if we find several supporting reasons to think that the parallel details are really a matter of literary borrowing then we can proceed on that basis. Other reasons are set out by a number of scholars who list criteria: density, contexts, ideological motives, structures of the two pieces of writing, conformity with the usual methods of classical imitation, etc etc etc.

What is not valid, and where parallelomania kicks in, is where we take items in two different works and without any further reference to other contextual details in those works surrounding that particular item itself, that is -- just take the 2 items in isolation from their contexts -- and assume they must somehow be connected in the mind of one of the authors.

It's not about any phobia. It's about understanding the term and the logic of what is and what is not a valid parallel for genuine comparison.

How about the term 'parallel phobia' for those who run from any thought that parallels can suggest avenues for further research. I think this comment - from the quote below - has much to recommend:

"...we have only hit the tip of the iceberg in terms of what connections there are.."

There are connections between the NT Paul story and the Josephus story. These connections can lead to something relevant for early christian history - or they may not. What should not be done is turning away from these connections, these parallels, with cries of parallelomania. It could well be that those who so quickly turn to this term are themselves hindered by their own 'parallel phobia'.....

I hate parallelomania...
"I think maybe these two texts share a connection."
"I don't see it."
"Well, let me tell you why. A. Because of..."
"No. No. No. You just have parallelomania!"

It's not the process of parallelomania that I dislike but rather the term itself. It is not helpful and is dismissive in its nature. What has inspired this little, off the cuff rant? James McGrath's latest blog post about Tom Brodie's work (click here) throws out that word I hear more and more of. I dislike it because it is little more that name calling and is just bad scholarship. It is one thing to disagree with someone's research - that is perfectly fine and any scholar worth his/her salt should thrive on constructive criticism. Throwing around the term parallelomania is not constructive criticism. It is dismissive. If you disagree then take apart the other person's argument. This is not a pop at McGrath - his post was merely the catalyst for this post. I enjoy his blog and work immensely and agree with much he has to say.

Yes, Brodie goes too far in some of his claims. I'm all for connections between texts and I truly believe we have only hit the tip of the iceberg in terms of what connections there are but Brodie does push it at times. But this can be argued against quite convincingly without having to start throwing around unproductive terms which trivialises another's work. Come on scholarship - we can do better than that.

Rant over.

http://www.itsallrandommostly.com/2013/ ... mania.html

[neilgodfrey]

.