Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MrMacSon wrote:So, we have views/propositions/arguments that either

• Josephus was Saul/Paul (or vice-versa), or
• the biblical Paul was based on a Saul that Josephus referred to, or
• the biblical Paul is a compilation of both Josephus and his Saul?

Bottom line in all this: There is no historical evidence for the NT figure of 'Paul'. I think, open to correction, that it was Robert Price who called Paul the 'paper apostle'.

It really amazes me, stuns me, that mythicists can maintain a historical Paul while rejecting a historical Jesus. Both these figures come from the NT story - debunk the main figure in that story and there is no logic in retaining the second figure. No logic at all. Ah, but the Carrier-Doherty apologists require a historical Paul to create that fictional historicized cosmic Pauline christ figure. A non-historical Paul places the Carrier-Doherty mythicist therory in the non-starters position for research into early christian origins.

A non-historical Paul requires a different approach to the NT story.

maryhelena wrote: Bottom line in all this: There is no historical evidence for the NT figure of 'Paul'. I think, open to correction, that it was Robert Price who called Paul the 'paper apostle'.
... <snip>
A non-historical Paul requires a different approach to the NT story.

We certainly need another approach to assessing the NT Paul-character, or alternative propositions/theories/hypotheses to the development of the narrative around him.

I think this is an interesting comment wrt to a *Paul - Marcion - eventual-NT* alignment -

I think [Robert] Eisenman is correct [in] identifying Saul/Paul as the Saul of Jospehus, kinsman of Costobarus.

However, the first to collect the works of Paul is said to be Marcion and there the trouble starts: the earliest reliable evidence for anything Marcionite is a synagogue outside Damascus, which is dated securely to 318/9 CE.

Put paleography aside: what is the earliest textual mention of Marcion, dated reliably? -- I think you will find it is medieval.

My feeling is that Marcion is a construct of the early 4th century and the Pauline canon is also of that period, using Josephus to provide a historical framework.

http://www.project-reason.org/forum/vie ... 37/#237086

although Eisenman actually refers to

• 'a person Josephus calls "Saulus," a "kinsman of Agrippa," the probable descendant of the Idumaean convert Costobarus'

In Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran (Brill, 1983), I identified at least those indicated under the circumlocution "Violent Ones of the Gentiles" with renegade Herodian Men-of-War (also probably partially identifiable with those Josephus calls "Idumaeans") who first support the uprising and then desert it. Along with John the Essene, they are in the early days among the revolution's bravest military commanders and would appear to take their "war" policy even further than so-called "Zealots." Among these I would include Queen Helen's son Monobazus, who was killed in the attack on Cestius, Niger of Perea, a leader of Josephus' "Idumaeans," Silas (also close to the Herodian family — possibly brought up with Agrippa I and in the final analysis a deserter from Agrippa II's army), and perhaps even Philip (the head of Agrippa's bodyguard in Caesarea). At the same time, they were probably on intimate terms with a person Josephus calls "Saulus," a "kinsman of Agrippa," the probable descendant of the Idumaean convert Costobarus (the real "Idumaean" in Herodian genealogies), though he was a principal member of the opposing pro-Roman "peace" coalition and the go-between for Agrippa II and "all those desirous for peace" who actually invited the Romans to send their soldiers into the city to suppress the revolt.

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

[

I thik Stephan Huller has made some interesting posts recently about works referred to or redacted by Iraeneus - Martyr, Marcion, or both?

MrMacSon wrote:

maryhelena wrote: Bottom line in all this: There is no historical evidence for the NT figure of 'Paul'. I think, open to correction, that it was Robert Price who called Paul the 'paper apostle'.
... <snip>
A non-historical Paul requires a different approach to the NT story.

We certainly need another approach to assessing the NT Paul-character, or alternative propositions/theories/hypotheses to the development of the narrative around him.

Indeed. Reading stuff written by those who have gone before one is necessary - but so too is thinking independently. Sometimes, to move things forward, thinking outside the box becomes vital. So, while there might be a 101 theories out there regarding the NT story and one might be able to find fault with specific ideas - this should not discourage independent thinking but, on the contrary, encourage it all the more. Any attempts to contain mythicist ideas to the Carrier-Doherty theory would be to fight a lost cause......christianity has not been know as the 'mother of heretics' for nothing.....

When I first started doing science I was fascinated by the idea that if one started science all over again, or one started science in a community which was disconnected from the current civilization, would the same concepts come out? Would we look at the universe in terms of atoms and electrons and so forth? Would it be completely different? As a 12-year-old child, one does odd things. I actually decided that I would attempt to do this myself and not listen to the teacher and see if I could formulate things myself. It didn't last very long of course. I didn't get very far. I did have this concept that you should think independently before reading everything that is already know. You may come up with something fresh. Nobel Prize winner. John Pople

.
Yes, avoid Conformity Bias

& avoid Conservatism bias

or the Bandwagon Effect
.

.

.
We can consider the views/propositions/theories/hypotheses that either

H1 that Josephus wrote some fore-runners texts to what we now know as Luke-Acts or the Pauline epistles or both (ie. he wrote some "proto-Paulines").

H2 That Josephean texts or commentary were used by later writers of Luke-Acts or the Pauline-texts or both; or by redactors of the Pauline texts or Luke-Acts


H3 That Josephus wrote some of the Pauline texts or Luke-Acts or both -


H4 That Josephus and Luke derived their passages from a common Christian (or Jewish-Christian) source -

• http://www.josephus.org/LUKECH.html

H5 the Lukean-writer/s almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus - http://infidels.org/library/modern/rich ... ephus.html


Summary of Similarities -

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".

Preposterous.

.

neilgodfrey wrote:Ralph Ellis! Now the truth is out! So that's where all this baloney is coming from.

No! Finding Ellis's book came out of an internet search ("Josephus is Paul" or "Josephus and Paul" or similar)

As did this

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 in spired 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.

from here - http://vridar.org/2007/04/25/the-shipwr ... ul-part-3/

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

what Gnuse fails to do, is draw in all the other similarities between Saul and Josephus. Little things like they both retired to literary persutes, writing about Jewish religion, and both used the same ‘publisher’, Epaphroditus.

If you trace the details, and there are many of them, you will find that Saul is merely a pseudonym for Josephus – they were one and the same person. And the people who automatically claim that Josephus’ works are pseudographia are merely Judaeo-Christian apologists who want to deny the obvious truth.

Ralph Ellis http://vridar.org/2007/04/25/the-shipwr ... omment-599

This is also an interesting comment

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