Was Paul Josephus?

[neilgodfrey]

That's why people insist on talking about Josephus when talking about the supposed historical background of Paul. But that means that for all practical purposes Paul is Josephus. The abrupt ending of Acts is because of Nero's damnatio. That's the simplest assumption.

People insist on talking about Hittite treaties when talking about the supposed covenant between Israel and God. That means for all practical purposes Israel was the Hittite Kingdom. People insist on talking about Philo when talking about the theology of John. That means for all practical purposes John the beloved disciple was Philo. The abrupt ending of Acts is because the author died of lead poisoning. (Being with Paul two years in Rome he was drinking water conveyed through lead-lined aqueducts and lead pipes.) That's the simplest assumption.

[ghost]

People insist on talking about Hittite treaties when talking about the supposed covenant between Israel and God. That means for all practical purposes Israel was the Hittite Kingdom. People insist on talking about Philo when talking about the theology of John. That means for all practical purposes John the beloved disciple was Philo. The abrupt ending of Acts is because the author died of lead poisoning. (Being with Paul two years in Rome he was drinking water conveyed through lead-lined aqueducts and lead pipes.) That's the simplest assumption.

Are these analogies valid?

[ghost]

Interesting ...

Is it wrong?

[neilgodfrey]

People insist on talking about Hittite treaties when talking about the supposed covenant between Israel and God. That means for all practical purposes Israel was the Hittite Kingdom. People insist on talking about Philo when talking about the theology of John. That means for all practical purposes John the beloved disciple was Philo. The abrupt ending of Acts is because the author died of lead poisoning. (Being with Paul two years in Rome he was drinking water conveyed through lead-lined aqueducts and lead pipes.) That's the simplest assumption.

Are these analogies valid?

It is the logic that is invalid.

[neilgodfrey]

People insist on talking about Hittite treaties when talking about the supposed covenant between Israel and God. That means for all practical purposes Israel was the Hittite Kingdom. People insist on talking about Philo when talking about the theology of John. That means for all practical purposes John the beloved disciple was Philo. The abrupt ending of Acts is because the author died of lead poisoning. (Being with Paul two years in Rome he was drinking water conveyed through lead-lined aqueducts and lead pipes.) That's the simplest assumption.

Are these analogies valid?

It is the logic that is invalid.

One of the most elementary rules is that correlation does not necessarily mean causation or any particular relationship between the two entities. That fallacious reasoning is the foundation of what is sometimes called parallelomania.

It's the same logic and enthusiasm that is used to argue the validity of astrology and astrotheology.

[MrMacSon]

Interesting ...

Is it wrong?

Not necessarily - it needs to be assessed, analysed, and discussed.

There's plenty of commentary that Acts & Luke align with some of Josephus's writings; it needs to be looked at, especially in light of Josephus's admiration for 'the divine' & his directly making prophecies.

I certainly think it's more likely Paul was a literary character than a single real person.

[ghost]

Are there any scholars who have studied the relationship between Josephus and Paul?

[steve43]

why don't you study it yourself?

the New Testament and the works of Josephus that bear on this question are very easy to read.

My opinion is that Hagan in "Fires of Rome" uses the best sources possible and comes to the most reasonable conclusions that can be had on this subject.

[neilgodfrey]

Interesting ...

Is it wrong?

Not necessarily - it needs to be assessed, analysed, and discussed.

Almost anyone can find reasons to argue a case for a thesis. One can argue for astrotheology, another for Jesus being a healer, another for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, another for Jesus being a myth, or Caesar. . . .

Just piling up more and more arguments can be done by anyone. Do we then judge between them all by measuring which one has the highest mountain?

To assess an idea we need to stop and think through what we would expect to find in the evidence if that explanation were true. That's where a more profitable discussion would be directed.

If Paul were Josephus what would we expect to find in the letters attributed to Paul and in the writings of Josephus about early Christianity? Would we expect similar agendas in their writings?

[outhouse]

Argument from ignorance
Argumentum ad ignorantiam

There are lots of stories of shipwrecks in ancient literature. It would be almost impossible for any literate person not to have some knowledge of the common formula they use.

Agreed.

Add the rhetorical prose they were al trained to wrote in, there really is no mystery here.

Aristotle's influence was far and wide