In Response To: Paul & Silas ()

I don't need to take Eisenman's word for that one- after all, I can come to my own conclusions about Flavius Josephus' writings. Eisenman's identifications aren't gospel (hah), anymore than Osman's or Rohl's are to you. The books in question here are "War of the Jews" 2, 3, and 4. (which of course I'm sure you know well).

Here is a convenient link-

I suggest doing an edit> find on page> Saul. Then do the same for Silas, finally do Simon for books 2,3 and 4. It won't take that long.

Then read Chapter 4 and see if you draw Eisenman's conclusions about Silas. Not to cheapen any of his other work mind you! But later in James the Brother of Jesus, he clearly retracts this association and spells out his own confusion with the problematic association:

(pg. 538)

"Niger, Phillip, Silas, and Saulus...are Herodian 'Men of War' for the 'Silas' in Josephus, who may or may not bear a relationship to Paul's companion Silas,... Chalcis and and Helcias excecuted him, making it seems as if by Agrippa's order, but Josephus may be mistaken here."

this would be about 44 ce, so Eisenman himself isn't going out on a limb to defend that one especially since Silas might be dead by the time the things attributed to him in Paul's works were done. Thus we have another Silas perhaps?

It doesn't really matter.

Side note: Have you read Steve Collins (the lost 10 tribes)?

Responses To This Message

Eisenman, Pope, and Atwill