Toto

What are you talking about? Who do you identify with Paul in Josephus' writings?

IamJoseph

Its common knowledge, and there is loads about St. Paul [saul of Tarsus] in Josephus, including his entire trial with Agrippa and Queen Berenice in the judges place. But we have no proof the writings ascribed to Paul were by him or in his time.


This too comes from Josephus:

show_no_mercy

Isaiah 53 is vague enough to fit just about every messiah claimant ever. Even worse, how easy would it be for a Christian evangelist to recreate the Passion sequence basing it on his reading of Isaiah 53? Considering how badly the evangelists quote mine and make a midrash out of the LXX to further their evangelistic purpose this is the most likely scenario.

However, I think I'll go with the Jew's interpretation of the book that they themselves wrote; Isaiah 53 is about the Jews themselves, not a single person.

Furthermore, "Jesus" and his execution might be in the Jewish Talmud under "Yeshu ha-Notzri".

This depends on which translation of Psalm 22 you're reading. Some say "like a lion they're at my hands and feet", some say "they peirced my hands and feet", some say "they bound my hands and feet".

show_no_mercy

2 Peter is pseudepigraphal. It was written in the mid 2nd century. Even Eusebius acknowledges this in his Church History written in the 4th century, but it was kept in the NT because of its "spiritual value".

Toto

This is not common knowledge. Because it's not true.

Only Eisenmann identifies Paul with a character Saul in Josephus, but this is not well accepted.

Again - where exactly does Josephus say anything about someone you identify as Paul? Who is this character in Josephus?


What does this have to do with anything?

IamJoseph

The character is Saul of Tarsus - a relative of Agrippa and his sister Berenice. The trial records his statements denoting he began what is called Pauline Christianity. The dates allign with St. Paul and his history, namely his beliefs which he proclaims before the court, and that of his imprisonment in Ceasarea and eventual transfer to Rome - as he requested. Josephus is regarded as one of the greatest historians by almost all scholars, even notwithstanding the dispute over the Jesus passage.



It is historicaly vindicated concerning Berenice, who Titus' father claims was a relative of Saul.

I've no idea why you are disputing Josephus' references of Saul - it does not conflict with anything else. In fact, it remains the most credible evidence Saul was a real historical figure; the same cannot be said of the other apostles.

Toto

There are only a few fringe scholars who identify the Saulus in Josephus with Paul. Saulus was hot headed and divisive, but was not recorded to have been a Christian or a missionary or a preacher, or to have written letters.

Those who do think that Josephus' Saulus was Paul have an elaborate conspiracy theory that says that Paul was part of a Roman plot to keep the Jews pacifistic and/or weak and divided. There is just no evidence of this.

IamJoseph

If this contradicts the Gospels it does not infer Josephus, an historical document, is wrong. FYI, when Josephus wrote, christianity or christ or christian - never existed.

Conspiracy theories are mostly alligned with religions in conflict with another religion - which is not the case here. Nor is it a fringe which acknowkedges Jsephus' writings - I can post 100s of scholars vouching for his accuracy in his dates, sizes and names of his subjects and topics.

There is also no plausable reason to assume this was not describing Saul/Paul - the trial speeches made by Paul allow no other figure as an alternative; the dates and place also confirm this, as well as the genealogy of Paul and his original residence as a greek citizen, and his final deportation to Rome for a trial - where he was crucified or executed along with masses of other jews. Rome did not tolerate heresy from Jews or any new jewish groups: the reason I find a trial conspiracy of Jesus to be against the grain of this point of history. How would Jesus have escaped the charge of heresy - when millions of other Jews, including all the temple preists - never did? :constern01:

Toto

Paul is not mentioned in the gospels, of course.

You miss the point - the Saul in Josephus has nothing much in common with the Epistle writer.

What the hell are you talking about?

If Josephus is accurate, his Saul does not fit the Biblical Paul.

Please provide details from Josephus with references (Josephus is online.)

Realize that the transport of Paul to Rome and his trial is probably legendary and never happened.

show_no_mercy

In fact, since the writer of "Acts" knew about Josephus, then we might even infer that the writer of "Acts" purposefully based his character Saul/Paul on this Saul in Josephus.

Paul himself never mentions his "previous" name Saul in his own letters (or that he was from Tarsus), this seems to be an invention of the writer of "Acts".