Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-27-2003, 05:34 PM

When I get around to reading Hemer, I'll let you know. Although I gather that Hemer dates Acts to before 60 and claims it was written by a companion of Paul, both of which are rejected by the majority of modern scholars.

Somehow you don't seem to be having as much fun at this as I am.

Layman · 02-27-2003, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
When I get around to reading Hemer, I'll let you know. Although I gather that Hemer dates Acts to before 60 and claims it was written by a companion of Paul, both of which are rejected by the majority of modern scholars.

Somehow you don't seem to be having as much fun at this as I am.

And when I get around to reading Mason, I'll let you know. Although I gather that Mason believes that Acts used Josephus as a source, a claim which is rejected by the majority of modern scholars.

I'm peachy Toto.

My forehead hurts a little, though. :banghead:

Toto · 02-28-2003, 12:09 AM

I said I would track this down, where Eisenman considers the possibility that Paul survived his journey to Rome and returned to Jerusalem to stone James. Eisenman assumes that the stoning of Stephen actually refers to the stoning of James, and that Paul may be the Saulus referred to in Josephus.

From Paul as Herodian by Eisenman:

Quote:

It is curious that in the Antiquities, following Josephus' description of the stoning of James and the plundering of the tithes of the poor priests by the rich chief priests, Josephus refers to Saulus as leading a riot in Jerusalem. For its part, the Book of Acts refers to the riotous behavior in Jerusalem of "Saulos," but it places this event after the conversion of a large group of priests, problems over the distribution of collection moneys, and the stoning of Stephen. H.-J. Schoeps has already remarked the resemblance of this stoning of Stephen to the stoning of James. It is curious that whereas Acts may have transposed the stoning of James in the sixties with the stoning of Stephen in the forties (when the Pseudoclementines claim Paul led a riot and an attack on James in the Temple), Josephus may have done just the opposite, i.e., transposed materials relating to Saul's riotous behavior in Jerusalem in the forties with its analogue, the riot led by Saulus in the sixties. In order to contend that Saulus and Paul are identical, one would have to assume either one or the other of the above transpositions took place or that Paul ultimately returned to Jerusalem, or both. However, this is not as implausible as it may seem on the surface, as our sources fall uncharacteristically silent on the subject of Paul's last years, and where Saulus is concerned, aside from his defection to the Romans, we know nothing about his ultimate fate.

I don't agree with this, although I considered the possibility that the author of Acts may have borrowed some of the character of Saulus from Josephus to flesh out the pre-conversion Paul.

Layman · 02-28-2003, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
I don't agree with this, although I considered the possibility that the author of Acts may have borrowed some of the character of Saulus from Josephus to flesh out the pre-conversion Paul.

Perhaps you should establish that Acts used Josephus as a source first?

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

02-27-2003, 05:34 PM	#121
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	When I get around to reading Hemer, I'll let you know. Although I gather that Hemer dates Acts to before 60 and claims it was written by a companion of Paul, both of which are rejected by the majority of modern scholars. Somehow you don't seem to be having as much fun at this as I am.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.