Well, yes, you are entitled to reject conclusions made by Eisenman!!
I accept his association between Saul and Saulus.
Silas cannot be the same Silas killed in the 40's A.D. Eisenman speculates that he may have been the son of that Silas. I don't have any additional insight into that association, but do think that Silas the Babylonian of Josephus is likely one and the same as Silas of Acts. That world is becoming smaller and the number of players fewer.
Atwill concludes that Saul/Paul did not even exist, so that would make the association with Saulus in Josephus moot for him.
Anyway, I am very happy with the overlap of my study of the Herodians and Alexanders (of Alexandria) with the offerings of both Eisenman and Atwill. Collectively it provides a very satisfying solution to the origins of Christianity. Lots of details and subtleties to work out, but the overall framework is in place.
By the way, I don't agree that Ananias son of Ananias in the early 60's A.D. was the first non-Herodian High Priest in Herodian times. Most of the High Priests seem to have come from the families of Simon Boethus and Julius Alexander.
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.