Chris Weimer

D'oh! Josephus wrote in Greek too. And like the NT, the name is Σαυλος.

aa5874

The name in English in the NT(KJV) is Saul, not Saulus. The translators for KJV are the ones who used the word Saul.

Chris Weimer

Who cares about the English? We're talking about the Greek here, remember?

S.C.Carlson

That only means that if the KJV translators also happened to have translated Josephus they might have translated Σαυλος with "Saul" instead of "Saulus." This is why it is important to compare the texts in their original language (here, Greek), not in their inconsistent English translations.

Stephen

rlogan

One of the interesting tidbits was the Jesus mentioned by Josephus who led a band of fishermen and other "blue collar" types in Galilee, whacking Greeks and burning down at least one palace.

More on that in a jiff here:

One of the frustrating things for me with the whole HJ (or in this case "historical Paul") approach is that we propose stripping away the obvious inconsistencies and mythic qualities, leaving us with - what, exactly?

That there were once preachers? That someone named Jesus or Paul existed at some time? That there was a preacher named Paul of some stature? Wow. So what? Whatever is left is so far removed from the myth that IMHO calling it a "historical kernel" or whatever is meaningless.

In my mind, the Jesus mentioned by Josephus above serves as a lesson that if we propose stripping away the obvious mythical qualities from Paul or whomever, we have only done half of our job. We also need to know the actual historical qualities of the person that were removed in fashioning the myth.

The Jesus above was a military leader who killed Greeks and burned down buildings. If he is the historical Jesus that is the model for the mythical Jesus then he bears almost zero resemblence to the myth and thus the "historic Jesus" is an oxymoron in that respect.

The conversion of name and persona from from "Saul" (meaning big shot guy we pray for; first King of Israel; Zealous Jew and prestigeous persecutor) to "Paul" (meaning little one; humble servant of Christ) just reeks of religious symbolism and obvious theological propaganda value to me. Suggestive of fable and not reality.

In similar vein to the model for the HJ above, I see the "Historical Paul" as an oxymoron.

ynquirer

In similar vein? Surely you mean in dissimilar vein? For the HJ never wrote a word while the “Historical Paul” did write a few letters containing a thorough theology. That makes a difference, doesn’t it?

Chris Weimer

Don't you know - the French wrote the Pauline epistles after World War II.