Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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

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.

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:02 am

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

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.

Any theorys of mine aside, that is irrelevant, generally viewed dates are really just guessing and therefore imo shaky logic.

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 5:50 pm

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.

'The grammarian Asclepiades of Myrlea (1st century BCE) defined three kinds of stories: history (historia), fiction (plasma), and mythos.

History, he said, is “an exposition of true things that actually happened”;

fiction is an exposition of things that did not happen but could have;

mythos is an exposition of things that could not have happened,
such as the winged horse Pegasus’s springing from the severed head of the gorgon Medusa.

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

However ...

]p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:


1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

The form of exposition they choose for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.



http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/arnal ... STIANS.htm

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.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:17 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:02 am

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

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

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

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.

Any theorys of mine aside, that is irrelevant, generally viewed dates are really just guessing and therefore imo shaky logic.

The dates are part of the NT timeline. Moving figures from that NT timeline is to cherry-pick the NT story. Yep, there are timeshift theories - the Egyptain or Jesus ben Saphat in Josephus. But these theories have not overturned the consensus - for what it's worth. Alternative stories and timelines indicate the continued fascination with the NT story - what's it all about etc. - trying to find some historical relevance to the NT story by moving it's timeline to one deemed to be more meaningful. Which basically boils down to a failure to provide an answer or understanding to the 2000 year old story that we do have. It's the 2000 year old story that interests me.....and motivates the continual digging into it....especially it's timeline.

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:17 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:17 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:02 am

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

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

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.

Any theorys of mine aside, that is irrelevant, generally viewed dates are really just guessing and therefore imo shaky logic.

The dates are part of the NT timeline. Moving figures from that NT timeline is to cherry-pick the NT story. Yep, there are timeshift theories - the Egyptain or Jesus ben Saphat in Josephus. But these theories have not overturned the consensus - for what it's worth. Alternative stories and timelines indicate the continued fascination with the NT story - what's it all about etc. - trying to find some historical relevance to the NT story by moving it's timeline to one deemed to be more meaningful. Which basically boils down to a failure to provide an answer or understanding to the 2000 year old story that we do have. It's the 2000 year old story that interests me.....and motivates the continual digging into it....especially it's timeline.

From who's perspective?

A created Paul in Acts following a created IC of the Gospel stories makes perfect sense. Timewise it needs to be that way. But a created Josephus is really just useful to us.

Who do you feel is the creator of Josephus? And when?

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:56 am And where does Justus of Tiberius fit in?

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:26 am The NT is primary a philosophical/spiritual story.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 7:49 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:26 am The NT is primary a philosophical/spiritual story.

The NT, in the form that we have it in, as well as the form it was initiated by Mark, is purely political. That was the driver, even though the stories they took were spiritual - at least John was. Marcion? At least fairly political, if not entirely: aimed against Judeans and Judaism with vehement ferocity