Tenorikuma

Well, considering that Luke and Acts both show literary dependency on Josephus, and therefore must have been written some time afterward…

In theory, Josephus could have seen a Pauline epistle (though it is highly unlikely), but he probably would have gotten the idea from those, as the mythicists do, that Jesus was some kind of mystery religion figure and not a Galilean preacher.

Toto

Because the above reconstruction is not authentic. It is a hypothetical version of the text that might have existed before it was corrupted by a later editor.

aa5874

Your claim is flawed since there is no credible corroborative evidence whatsoever to show that the Pauline writings were written before the mid 2nd century.

1. The Paul/Seneca letters to place Paul in the 1st century turned out to be forgeries.

2. The Pauline letters themselves have been deduced to have been manipulated so it is NOT even reasonable to make PRESUMPTIONS about the time Paul wrote and lived.

3. Apologetic sources, Origen and Eusebius, claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke which is considered to have been written AFTER the Fall of the Temple and perhaps written some time AFTER mid 2nd century

4. The first writing to mention gLuke was "Against Heresies" supposedly written c 180 CE.

5. Another Apologetic source, the Muratorian Canon, claimed Paul wrote his Epistles AFTER Revelation was composed.

6. The earliest Gospels, the Short-ending gMark, the Long Ending gMark and gMatthew do NOT show any awareness of the Pauline writings.

7. P 46, the Pauline writings, have been dated by Paleography to the mid 2n-3rd century.

8. Apologetic sources, Justin and Aristides, considered 2nd century were NOT aware Paul evangelised the Roman Empire.

9. Non-Apologetic sources did NOT mention Paul.

The Abundance of evidence is stacked against an early Paul.

No Presumptions about an early Paul can be accepted as credible.

spin

One of the things that bugs me about internet is that few ever seem to check their references. I'm interested in ancient philology regarding Nazareth so I started here by looking up Jerome's letter 47, which I found didn't have seven paragraphs. It was addressed to Desiderius and it said nothing related to Isa 11:1, so I eventually searched internet for the sentence ("There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.") and so many people repeated 47.7 as the reference. It was not until I found the sentence in a googlebook that I finally got the right reference in a letter to Pammachius on translation, 57.7.

And I'm pretty certain that netzer = branch is only a secondary connection--from appearance.

stephan huller

I second that assumption. On another note - tsemach is often translated 'branch' on the internet, it means sprout, bud = like the eye on a potato.

andrewcriddle

The word "Christ" IIUC is not used at all by Josephus apart from the Christian refererences.

Andrew Criddle

MrMacSon

Cheers. I was concerned in short-cutting I could have relied on a wrong source.

Do you mind posting the letter to Pammachius on translation, 57.7. or a url for it? Is it Ep.57.7?

spin

Yes, that's Epistle 57. See here for example.

Chaucer

Wrong. This "reconstruction" is in fact very much like the extant cite found in a Syriac source that happens to predate any extant ms. of the complete Antiquities. This earliest Syriac source is very much extant, not hypothetical, and reads as follows --

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. --

-- You were saying?

Chaucer

Toto

Your Syriac source dates to the 10th century. It is not original; and it was probably produced the same way the modern reconstructed version was - by removing the obviously Christian language - to make the passage more acceptable to Muslims.

But the important part is that the Syriac version does not explain that Christians were named after Christ. So those 10th century editors were at least consistent.

Did you bother to read and understand the point of the OP?