Was Paul Josephus?

[steve43]

That Paul and Josephus are the same character is completely ludicrous on its face and hardly worthy of debate.

But the people who espouse that theory are not really interested in history, they are interested in the debunking of Christianity.

Neil seems to be only halfway there. He apparently accepts Josephus but dismisses the Acts of the Apostles.

from all indications what can be historically derived from Acts of the Apostles is accurate according to contemporaneous sources, as much as can be determined.

And from this we can conclude that both Paul the apostle and Josephus were in Rome in AD 63. It is not unreasonable to conjecture that they interacted in some way, possibly significantly.

[neilgodfrey]

That Paul and Josephus are the same character is completely ludicrous on its face and hardly worthy of debate.

But the people who espouse that theory are not really interested in history, they are interested in the debunking of Christianity.

Neil seems to be only halfway there. He apparently accepts Josephus but dismisses the Acts of the Apostles.

from all indications what can be historically derived from Acts of the Apostles is accurate according to contemporaneous sources, as much as can be determined.

And from this we can conclude that both Paul the apostle and Josephus were in Rome in AD 63. It is not unreasonable to conjecture that they interacted in some way, possibly significantly.

My "agenda" in this discussion is the same as it was when attempting to engage Robert Tulip: that is, to attempt to show why certain arguments are fallacious and better ways, more valid ways, to argue a case. I don't think very much is gained by simply ignoring what some of us might think as misguided efforts. Mere dismissal (of course we rarely have the time to engage in discussion's we'd like) only leaves ignorance and wrong-thinking festering and increases antagonisms. We may not succeed with everyone but I don't think it hurts trying from time to time. (Maybe I'm atoning for my own years mis-spent in wrong thinking.)

But you seem very cavalier with what you think we should "dismiss" and "accept". I don't "dismiss" Acts as history of certain types of events for very good reasons (I believe). I don't do it lightly.

Your argument that Acts is accurate in certain background details and is therefore accurate as history is fallacious. Even ancient novels and plays and mythical epics are sometimes very accurate as to background details geographical and historical. Acts is also inaccurate in details but so are genuine historical works. Background accuracy or otherwise is no basis for concluding a work narrates genuine history.

[MrMacSon]

.
the people who espouse the theory ["that Paul and Josephus are the same character"] are not really interested in history*, they are interested in the debunking of Christianity ...

That is both a misrepresentation of facts, and a misrepresentation of a thesis; a hypothesis: -

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

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).

Fact - most biblical scholars believe most of the Pauline epistles were not written by the person or persons who wrote those other 'authentic' epistles ...

Fact - Some scholars believe 4 or less are "authentic".

Theory - the narratives about Paul may be more embellished than real.

Likely Theory - that some of the Pauline texts talk about established churches (eg. Galatians 1) suggests that

• the Pauline character is likely 'set' after the church was established!

Theory/Hypothesis - Paul is mostly or all a literary character: possibly entirely invented, or possibly a compilation, or both

• (as may also be the case with Jesus of Nazareth).

Theory/Hypothesis - aspects of the Pauline literary character are based on aspects of the life of Josephus


* moreover, most of us are interested in discerning the real history, or probable theories about what the history really was/is

.
... from all indications what can be historically derived from Acts of the Apostles is accurate according to contemporaneous sources, as much as can be determined.

increasingly, scholarships thinks Acts 'borrowed' information from Josephus.

. And from this we can conclude that both Paul the apostle and Josephus were in Rome in AD 63. It is not unreasonable to conjecture that they interacted in some way, possibly significantly.

or, as hypothesizied above, aspects of "Paul" are based on aspects of Josephus.

[steve43]

I am close to giving anyone who brings up "scholars" or "scholarly consensus" my deaf ear.

In discussing what can be concluded about ancient times, what we are talking about is reasonable speculation.

Someone stated that he accepted Josephus as a real person. We know for a certainty that he wrote four works. As far as Paul the Apostle goes, we have 17 letters, or maybe 10 or 11 real ones, and also the book of Acts. upon which to verify his existence as a real person.That gives us a total of more than twice the number of sources that we have for Josephus. So I can argue that Paul is even more of a real and validated historical figure than Josephus was.

[MrMacSon]

.
Someone stated that he accepted Josephus as a real person. We know for a certainty that he wrote four works.

and, we know accounts about him. Whether those accounts of Josephus are 'primary sources', I don't know.

I understand the earliest-dated version of the 'Testimonium Flavianum' ie. Antiquities 18.3.3 is 11th century.

I don't know what dates are attributed to versions of Josephus's other works eg. The War, etc

.
As far as Paul the Apostle goes, we have 17 letters, or maybe 10 or 11 real ones, and also the book of Acts. upon which to verify his existence as a real person.

That is manifestly incorrect -

• of the 17 "letters/epistles", just 7 are described as "authentic" in the sense they have a common literary style.
• Some people think the number that have a commonality is just four eg. Ferdinand Christian Baur and Albert Schwegler
• The Dutch Radicals concluded they are all of dubious authorship
• None of these 4-7 so-called authentic letters/epistles verify the existence of Paul - Paul's existence has been assumed & asserted, largely by apologists.

also see Higher [Historical] Criticism
.

[neilgodfrey]

and also the book of Acts. upon which to verify his existence as a real person.

How does Acts verify Paul was a "real person"?

I trust you won't just say that Acts is reliable history because we can confirm lots of true details in it. Please see my response above to that point of yours before repeating that one.

(Note: I am not saying Paul wasn't real. I have no idea how Acts could be used to verify his historicity, however.)

[neilgodfrey]

.

[MrMacSon]

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 experiences 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

You don't critique abstracts. You critique arguments. But I can tell you I agree with the points made in the abstract. I simply fail to see how any of them add any substance to an argument that Paul was Josephus.

No. There are a number of hypotheses.

I was posting information & views provided by others, partly to see what others thought. This is pertinent -

"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 experiences of both men, and
  (4) "visions of dream images, which communicated life-altering messages to both men."

[neilgodfrey]

.

[maryhelena]

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'.

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.

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. It is searching for that source that should be uppermost in our concerns. 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.

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.