Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:22 pm

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:10 pm

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 1:59 pm

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 1:35 pm I personally have no problem thinking that the Paul of Acts is a cut and paste by 'Luke' from the writings of Josephus. Makes sense actually. 'Luke' obviously used Josephus heavy, numerology and all.

This doesn't mean that a person named Paulo's didn't write some of the material in the NT collection, the core of the Corinthian letters for instance, just that to flesh out a historical person that 'Luke' obviously had no clue about 'Luke' resorted to (probably) the only Jewish writing he had access to.

Paul in Acts is fiction to be sure and a great deal of the material attributed to him is most likely written by others in the second century to bring Paul into line with evolving Orthodox XCanity being developed from the Gospel stories. Doesn't mean he never existed, just that he was added to over time.

Lane

Someone, some people, wrote the NT stories. The question is this person, these people, the people named in the NT. Literary figures can of course reflect historical figures.

Page: 146/7

The idea that that Paul was a literary figure did not remove the possibility
that behind the epistles lay one outstanding historical figure who was central
to the inspiring of the epistles, but that is not the figure whom the epistles
portray. Under that person's inspiration--or the inspiration of that person
plus co-workers-the epistles portray a single individual, Paul, who incorporates in himself and in his teaching a distillation of the age-long drama of God's work on earth.

Page: 153

The production of the thirteen epistles bearing Paul's name may, perhaps, have drawn special inspiration from one individual, but, if so, that individual's name and history are probably irretrievable, and the available evidence indicates rather that the thirteen epistles came not from one person but from some form of group or school. This accords partly with occasional suggestions about a possible Pauline school and with the view that 'Paul's letters were not an individual enterprise'-E.E. Ellis.

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the search for the historical Jesus

Any chance of discerning a historical Paul, in my opinion, is futile at this point, but, and this is important, why create a Paul in the first place?

A core "historical" Paul, with the material available to us is irretrievable, but we can't rule it out nonetheless. IMO.

Lane

Why create a Paul in the first place ? Why create a Jesus - same answer - literary figures to tell a story. An origin story for what has become known as Christianity. Many people are happy with that origin story - others want a more logical - and historically relevant - account of what in history contributed to, was relevant to, the writing of that origin story.

Why create a Jesus, or IC XC? To try to make sense of letters written by Paulos. Letters perhaps written so long ago that the contents were no longer obvious to the people that found them. Written by a man that no one knows anything about any longer.

But that wasn't enough. As the IC story grew over time it became more complex and required a rewrite of the original letter writer, Paul.

This seems to me to be the simplist solution.

Personally, I am of the opinion that this Paulos may actually be writing to Romans and Greeks about the deified Roman general Iulios Xrestos, IC XC, during and after the civil wars of the 1st century BCE. To the military retirement areas of Corinth, Troas, Philippi and Rome.
Julius Caesar was a big deal at that time and the retired veterans of these conflicts, as well as the Jewish people, owed a lot to him and his memory.

Screwy, I know but there it is.

Lane

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:55 pm

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:22 pm

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:10 pm

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 1:59 pm

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 1:35 pm I personally have no problem thinking that the Paul of Acts is a cut and paste by 'Luke' from the writings of Josephus. Makes sense actually. 'Luke' obviously used Josephus heavy, numerology and all.

This doesn't mean that a person named Paulo's didn't write some of the material in the NT collection, the core of the Corinthian letters for instance, just that to flesh out a historical person that 'Luke' obviously had no clue about 'Luke' resorted to (probably) the only Jewish writing he had access to.

Paul in Acts is fiction to be sure and a great deal of the material attributed to him is most likely written by others in the second century to bring Paul into line with evolving Orthodox XCanity being developed from the Gospel stories. Doesn't mean he never existed, just that he was added to over time.

Lane

Someone, some people, wrote the NT stories. The question is this person, these people, the people named in the NT. Literary figures can of course reflect historical figures.

Page: 146/7

The idea that that Paul was a literary figure did not remove the possibility
that behind the epistles lay one outstanding historical figure who was central
to the inspiring of the epistles, but that is not the figure whom the epistles
portray. Under that person's inspiration--or the inspiration of that person
plus co-workers-the epistles portray a single individual, Paul, who incorporates in himself and in his teaching a distillation of the age-long drama of God's work on earth.

Page: 153

The production of the thirteen epistles bearing Paul's name may, perhaps, have drawn special inspiration from one individual, but, if so, that individual's name and history are probably irretrievable, and the available evidence indicates rather that the thirteen epistles came not from one person but from some form of group or school. This accords partly with occasional suggestions about a possible Pauline school and with the view that 'Paul's letters were not an individual enterprise'-E.E. Ellis.

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the search for the historical Jesus

Any chance of discerning a historical Paul, in my opinion, is futile at this point, but, and this is important, why create a Paul in the first place?

A core "historical" Paul, with the material available to us is irretrievable, but we can't rule it out nonetheless. IMO.

Lane

Why create a Paul in the first place ? Why create a Jesus - same answer - literary figures to tell a story. An origin story for what has become known as Christianity. Many people are happy with that origin story - others want a more logical - and historically relevant - account of what in history contributed to, was relevant to, the writing of that origin story.

Why create a Jesus, or IC XC? To try to make sense of letters written by Paulos. Letters perhaps written so long ago that the contents were no longer obvious to the people that found them. Written by a man that no one knows anything about any longer.

But that wasn't enough. As the IC story grew over time it became more complex and required a rewrite of the original letter writer, Paul.

This seems to me to be the simplist solution.

Personally, I am of the opinion that this Paulos may actually be writing to Romans and Greeks about the deified Roman general Iulios Xrestos, IC XC, during and after the civil wars of the 1st century BCE. To the military retirement areas of Corinth, Troas, Philippi and Rome.
Julius Caesar was a big deal at that time and the retired veterans of these conflicts, as well as the Jewish people, owed a lot to him and his memory.

Screwy, I know but there it is.

Lane

Yes.... I know you have your Paul theory. At the end of the day we all have to find a theory that satisfies our own questions. Offer it up and let the pieces fall where they may.... main thing is to keep asking questions...

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:22 pm Why create a Paul in the first place ? Why create a Jesus - same answer - literary figures to tell a story.

• Yep.
  
  What became a key origin story for Christianity.
  
  Along with another key origin story almost-certainly based on those stories of Paul ie. the Gospel attributed to Mark

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:12 pm

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:55 pm

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:22 pm

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:10 pm

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 1:59 pm

Someone, some people, wrote the NT stories. The question is this person, these people, the people named in the NT. Literary figures can of course reflect historical figures.

Page: 146/7

The idea that that Paul was a literary figure did not remove the possibility
that behind the epistles lay one outstanding historical figure who was central
to the inspiring of the epistles, but that is not the figure whom the epistles
portray. Under that person's inspiration--or the inspiration of that person
plus co-workers-the epistles portray a single individual, Paul, who incorporates in himself and in his teaching a distillation of the age-long drama of God's work on earth.

Page: 153

The production of the thirteen epistles bearing Paul's name may, perhaps, have drawn special inspiration from one individual, but, if so, that individual's name and history are probably irretrievable, and the available evidence indicates rather that the thirteen epistles came not from one person but from some form of group or school. This accords partly with occasional suggestions about a possible Pauline school and with the view that 'Paul's letters were not an individual enterprise'-E.E. Ellis.

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the search for the historical Jesus

Any chance of discerning a historical Paul, in my opinion, is futile at this point, but, and this is important, why create a Paul in the first place?

A core "historical" Paul, with the material available to us is irretrievable, but we can't rule it out nonetheless. IMO.

Lane

Why create a Paul in the first place ? Why create a Jesus - same answer - literary figures to tell a story. An origin story for what has become known as Christianity. Many people are happy with that origin story - others want a more logical - and historically relevant - account of what in history contributed to, was relevant to, the writing of that origin story.

Why create a Jesus, or IC XC? To try to make sense of letters written by Paulos. Letters perhaps written so long ago that the contents were no longer obvious to the people that found them. Written by a man that no one knows anything about any longer.

But that wasn't enough. As the IC story grew over time it became more complex and required a rewrite of the original letter writer, Paul.

This seems to me to be the simplist solution.

Personally, I am of the opinion that this Paulos may actually be writing to Romans and Greeks about the deified Roman general Iulios Xrestos, IC XC, during and after the civil wars of the 1st century BCE. To the military retirement areas of Corinth, Troas, Philippi and Rome.
Julius Caesar was a big deal at that time and the retired veterans of these conflicts, as well as the Jewish people, owed a lot to him and his memory.

Screwy, I know but there it is.

Lane

Yes.... I know you have your Paul theory. At the end of the day we all have to find a theory that satisfies our own questions. Offer it up and let the pieces fall where they may.... main thing is to keep asking questions...

True enough.

Interesting comment from Valliant and Fahy.



So who is bowing down to Josephus today ? Seems to me it's all those Jesus historicists who would not have a historical leg to stand on if not for appealing, bowing down to, Josephus.

And no - I've no time for Roman conspiracy theories regarding early Christian origins. The issue before us is Josephus - a man so the story goes - says he went over to the Romans.................or to be more precise - he went over to the gentiles. The gentiles being the core of Paul's teaching - neither Greek nor Jew i.e. a whole new philosophical approach to include gentiles in God's plan - internationalism with a root in nationalism. Body and spirit. (or political speaking ....the somewhere or the anywhere people... )

Perhaps you have covered this but what parallels are there in the letters attributed to Paul and the writings of Josephus?

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 7:29 am Perhaps you have covered this but what parallels are there in the letters attributed to Paul and the writings of Josephus?

The interesting parallel is the one regarding circumcision. Both Paul and Josephus uphold the idea that circumcision is not necessary for gentiles living among Jews. Paul was caught away to the third heaven. Josephus interpreted his dreams. What is interesting is that while Paul is focused on spiritual matters, theology or philosophy, Josephus is focused on social/political issues. ( a number of other parallels are noted in an earlier post).

I think however, that the main connection is biographical. It is the biographical parallels that suggest that both figures are cut from the same cloth. Biographical parallels that suggest connection but not assimilation of the two figures. Paul is the earlier figure. The earliest dating for his conversion, if the Jesus crucifixion is dated towards the end of Pilate's rule and the death of Tiberius, would be around 37 c.e. That is the year Josephus indicates he was born. Wikipedia says Paul died sometime prior to the death of Nero (68 c.e.) If that is so Paul would have had around a 30 year ministry. Josephus also had around a 30 year 'ministry' since he 'went over' to the Romans/gentiles in 67 c.e. His 'ministry', his writing, ended towards the end of the lst century.

So, slowly but surely - perhaps I'm coming to the idea that Josephus is a literary figure - that he is in actuality a re-boot of Paul....as Paul himself was a reboot of Jesus. OK - neither Paul nor Josephus were crucified - but they were both imprisoned and in danger.

What the parallels between Paul and Josephus, and the biographical details, indicate to me, is that both stories, the story of Paul and the story of Josephus, arose from the same school of thought. Perhaps a philosophical school attempting to make sense of what befell the Jews under Roman occupation. An understanding that now was the time for a new inclusive dispensation. Political reality pushing forward a new intellectual comprehension.
============

I've not read these books - but the fact that the relationship/connection between Paul and Josephus is being investigated is most welcome.


===============

Yes, of course - it goes without saying - that parallels do not establish historicity or non-historicity, they do not establish 'truth'. What they do is suggest questions that have to be answered by other means.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 9:43 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 7:29 am Perhaps you have covered this but what parallels are there in the letters attributed to Paul and the writings of Josephus?

The interesting parallel is the one regarding circumcision. Both Paul and Josephus uphold the idea that circumcision is not necessary for gentiles living among Jews. Paul was caught away to the third heaven. Josephus interpreted his dreams. What is interesting is that while Paul is focused on spiritual matters, theology or philosophy, Josephus is focused on social/political issues. ( a number of other parallels are noted in an earlier post).

I think however, that the main connection is biographical. It is the biographical parallels that suggest that both figures are cut from the same cloth. Biographical parallels that suggest connection but not assimilation of the two figures. Paul is the earlier figure. The earliest dating for his conversion, if the Jesus crucifixion is dated towards the end of Pilate's rule and the death of Tiberius, would be around 37 c.e. That is the year Josephus indicates he was born. Wikipedia says Paul died sometime prior to the death of Nero (68 c.e.) If that is so Paul would have had around a 30 year ministry. Josephus also had around a 30 year 'ministry' since he 'went over' to the Romans/gentiles in 67 c.e. His 'ministry', his writing, ended towards the end of the lst century.

So, slowly but surely - perhaps I'm coming to the idea that Josephus is a literary figure - that he is in actuality a re-boot of Paul....as Paul himself was a reboot of Jesus. OK - neither Paul nor Josephus were crucified - but they were both imprisoned and in danger.

What the parallels between Paul and Josephus, and the biographical details, indicate to me, is that both stories, the story of Paul and the story of Josephus, arose from the same school of thought. Perhaps a philosophical school attempting to make sense of what befell the Jews under Roman occupation. An understanding that now was the time for a new inclusive dispensation. Political reality pushing forward a new intellectual comprehension.
============

I've not read these books - but the fact that the relationship/connection between Paul and Josephus is being investigated is most welcome.

''The following is an extended interview with Felix Asiedu regarding his new book, Paul and His Letters: Thinking with Josephus (Lexington Books/Fortress Press Academic)

https://www.logos.com/grow/finding-paul ... ix-asiedu/


So let us just say that I have done what Wright is calling attention to, not only in Paul and His Letters: Thinking with Josephus but also in its companion volume that preceded it, Josephus, Paul, and the Fate of Early Christianity: History and Silence in the First Century. I have provided a lot of details, not just by reading Josephus as background for the New Testament but by showing that any number of themes in Josephus’ biography help to explain certain aspects of Paul’s life.

===============

Yes, of course - it goes without saying - that parallels do not establish historicity or non-historicity, they do not establish 'truth'. What they do is suggest questions that have to be answered by other means.

While I really enjoy our conversations I have to admit that I find the highlighted above to be some very shaky logic. I'll read that interview and get back to you.

Lane

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 12:53 pm

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 9:43 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 7:29 am Perhaps you have covered this but what parallels are there in the letters attributed to Paul and the writings of Josephus?

The interesting parallel is the one regarding circumcision. Both Paul and Josephus uphold the idea that circumcision is not necessary for gentiles living among Jews. Paul was caught away to the third heaven. Josephus interpreted his dreams. What is interesting is that while Paul is focused on spiritual matters, theology or philosophy, Josephus is focused on social/political issues. ( a number of other parallels are noted in an earlier post).

I think however, that the main connection is biographical. It is the biographical parallels that suggest that both figures are cut from the same cloth. Biographical parallels that suggest connection but not assimilation of the two figures. Paul is the earlier figure. The earliest dating for his conversion, if the Jesus crucifixion is dated towards the end of Pilate's rule and the death of Tiberius, would be around 37 c.e. That is the year Josephus indicates he was born. Wikipedia says Paul died sometime prior to the death of Nero (68 c.e.) If that is so Paul would have had around a 30 year ministry. Josephus also had around a 30 year 'ministry' since he 'went over' to the Romans/gentiles in 67 c.e. His 'ministry', his writing, ended towards the end of the lst century.

So, slowly but surely - perhaps I'm coming to the idea that Josephus is a literary figure - that he is in actuality a re-boot of Paul....as Paul himself was a reboot of Jesus. OK - neither Paul nor Josephus were crucified - but they were both imprisoned and in danger.

What the parallels between Paul and Josephus, and the biographical details, indicate to me, is that both stories, the story of Paul and the story of Josephus, arose from the same school of thought. Perhaps a philosophical school attempting to make sense of what befell the Jews under Roman occupation. An understanding that now was the time for a new inclusive dispensation. Political reality pushing forward a new intellectual comprehension.
============

I've not read these books - but the fact that the relationship/connection between Paul and Josephus is being investigated is most welcome.

''The following is an extended interview with Felix Asiedu regarding his new book, Paul and His Letters: Thinking with Josephus (Lexington Books/Fortress Press Academic)

https://www.logos.com/grow/finding-paul ... ix-asiedu/


So let us just say that I have done what Wright is calling attention to, not only in Paul and His Letters: Thinking with Josephus but also in its companion volume that preceded it, Josephus, Paul, and the Fate of Early Christianity: History and Silence in the First Century. I have provided a lot of details, not just by reading Josephus as background for the New Testament but by showing that any number of themes in Josephus’ biography help to explain certain aspects of Paul’s life.

===============

Yes, of course - it goes without saying - that parallels do not establish historicity or non-historicity, they do not establish 'truth'. What they do is suggest questions that have to be answered by other means.

While I really enjoy our conversations I have to admit that I find the highlighted above to be some very shaky logic. I'll read that interview and get back to you.

Lane

Shaky logic? All I've done there is use dates - dates generally viewed as relevant for both Paul and Josephus. Obviously, viewed from your Paul theory, dated if I remember correctly, to a b.c. date, the generally viewed dates for Paul are not acceptable. However, the NT timeline is what it is and needs to be addressed on its own merits. History is one thing and the NT timeline something else entirely. Methinks attempting to mix or harmonise the two is counter productive. The NT story is not history. Moving Paul prior to or post the story timeline achieves nothing.... It can't bestow historicity on Paul, or Jesus for that matter, by moving him outside the NT timeline.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 2:07 amAnd no - I've no time for Roman conspiracy theories regarding early Christian origins.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 2:36 pm ///

However, the NT timeline is what it is and needs to be addressed on its own merits. History is one thing and the NT timeline something else entirely. Methinks attempting to mix or harmonise the two is counter productive. The NT story is not history.

The NT story is (most likely) a work of historical fiction - its timeline is pseudo-historical.


Writing historical fiction is not fraud and/or is not a conspiracy.

However ...

Moving Paul prior to or post the story timeline achieves nothing.... It can't bestow historicity on Paul, or Jesus for that matter, by moving him outside the NT timeline.

The Nicene Church industry in the 4th century took care of the historicity of Paul by the forged letter exchange between Paul and Seneca, Jerome's "closet Christian", Roman stateman, Stoic philosopher, a writer who's literature was pillaged by the NT authors (especially "Paul").

For a thousand years the church industry education system circulated this letter exchange as a preface to the literature of Seneca. Everyone knew Seneca. Nobody knew Paul. The forged letter exchange solved that problem for the church industry for more than a thousand years.

Now if this is not to be classifiable as a Roman conspiracy theory regarding early Christian origins what is? We must not seek refuge in presentism. Yes we know (like the TF) it is a "Rank forgery and a very stupid one too". But this is how the 4th century Nicene church industry went about their business. Paul was cemented on the early Christian time-line by his letter exchange with Seneca. And in such an inconvenient position he remains to this day.