Freethought & Rationalism Archive

penumbra · 10-28-2002, 02:15 PM

This question may already have been addressed somewhere else in the forum, but I'll take a chance and ask anyway. Just finished reading "Jesus, Last of the Pharoahs" by Ralph Ellis. I know, I know, the author is pretty far out there and his hypothesis is based mostly on conjecture, innuendo, and questionable translations (hey, the book was free and helped my insomnia!), but I find myself strangely interested in his theory that Saul/Paul was actually Josephus by another name. Any of the learned forumites care to further my education by offering comments or evidence (either way)? Appreciate any input. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Toto · 10-28-2002, 02:34 PM

You mean <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0932813119/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Jesus: Last of the Great Pharoahs</a>?

The theory doesn't make a lot of sense to me, if there is anything to the usual dating. Paul would have been a lot older than Josephus, who was born in 37 or 38 CE, when Paul was probably already preaching.

But probably no one saw them in the same room together.

offa · 10-28-2002, 02:58 PM

Offa; Saul was born on A.D. 17 and Josephus was born in A.D. 25. Jesus was crucified in A.D. 33. When I get time I want to pursue Eisenman's claim that Paul (Saulus) was a descendant of King Herod.
Eisenman is mostly incorrect (fundie) but Saul being a Herod makes sense because "All" means Herodian and St. Paul converted Jesus from the "Many" (Samaritan) to the "All" (Herodian).

Thanks, Offa

penumbra · 10-28-2002, 05:09 PM

Thanks for the help. I know that Saul/Paul had always been thought to be older than Josephus, but wasn't aware that the actual year of his birth had been established.

Take care,
Mikey

Radorth · 10-28-2002, 06:22 PM

Quote:

I know, I know, the author is pretty far out there and his hypothesis is based mostly on conjecture, innuendo, and questionable translations (hey, the book was free and helped my insomnia!), but I find myself strangely interested in his theory that Saul/Paul was actually Josephus by another name.

So much for the pursuit of rational thought. I'm thinking we need a Misc Totally Unsupported Irrational Theories forum.

Rad

Toto · 10-28-2002, 07:52 PM

It is only because real information is so scarse that oddball theorists can have such a field day.

Who is to say that Paul = Josephus is any more unsupported and irrational than the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, and arose from the dead after 3 days?

Cretinist · 10-28-2002, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


So much for the pursuit of rational thought. I'm thinking we need a Misc Totally Unsupported Irrational Theories forum.

Rad

Um, the guy did say he thinks the author is "pretty far out there". For someone who is probably a total layman on the subject, I think it shows he is quite rational indeed, and shows a great deal of critical thinking on his part. Imagine yourself not knowing much about a certain subject and being first introduced to it by a quack. I highly, highly doubt you would show even the slightest bit of skepticism.

Geoff Hudson · 10-29-2002, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by offa:
Offa; Saul was born on A.D. 17 and Josephus was born in A.D. 25.

How do you estimate these dates?

Geoff

Vorkosigan · 10-29-2002, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


So much for the pursuit of rational thought. I'm thinking we need a Misc Totally Unsupported Irrational Theories forum.

Rad

The problem is that it would be dominated by Christian theology.

Geoff Hudson · 10-29-2002, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:


The problem is that it would be dominated by Christian theology.

A person's theology can determine what a person does or did. What a person does is history. So theology is an important consideration in relation to the history of biblical characters.

Geoff

10-28-2002, 02:15 PM	#1
penumbra Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 1,938	Saul/Paul as Josephus This question may already have been addressed somewhere else in the forum, but I'll take a chance and ask anyway. Just finished reading "Jesus, Last of the Pharoahs" by Ralph Ellis. I know, I know, the author is pretty far out there and his hypothesis is based mostly on conjecture, innuendo, and questionable translations (hey, the book was free and helped my insomnia!), but I find myself strangely interested in his theory that Saul/Paul was actually Josephus by another name. Any of the learned forumites care to further my education by offering comments or evidence (either way)? Appreciate any input. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-28-2002, 02:34 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	You mean <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0932813119/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Jesus: Last of the Great Pharoahs</a>? The theory doesn't make a lot of sense to me, if there is anything to the usual dating. Paul would have been a lot older than Josephus, who was born in 37 or 38 CE, when Paul was probably already preaching. But probably no one saw them in the same room together.

10-28-2002, 02:58 PM	#3
offa Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Monroeville, Ohio, USA Posts: 440	Offa; Saul was born on A.D. 17 and Josephus was born in A.D. 25. Jesus was crucified in A.D. 33. When I get time I want to pursue Eisenman's claim that Paul (Saulus) was a descendant of King Herod. Eisenman is mostly incorrect (fundie) but Saul being a Herod makes sense because "All" means Herodian and St. Paul converted Jesus from the "Many" (Samaritan) to the "All" (Herodian). Thanks, Offa

10-28-2002, 05:09 PM	#4
penumbra Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 1,938	Thanks for the help. I know that Saul/Paul had always been thought to be older than Josephus, but wasn't aware that the actual year of his birth had been established. Take care, Mikey

10-28-2002, 07:52 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It is only because real information is so scarse that oddball theorists can have such a field day. Who is to say that Paul = Josephus is any more unsupported and irrational than the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, and arose from the dead after 3 days?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.