There are two possibilities here, that there was a rebel who was widely known as "The Egyptian", or that Josephus, wanting to refer to this rebel, and recalling he was famous for coming from Egypt, referred to him simply as "The Egyptian". If the first is true, then Carrier should move on, there is nothing to see here. If the second is true, than clearly it is odd that Luke would also give him the same name, unless he copied from Josephus. I think the odds are that the second is true. At any rate Carrier mentions this argument in passing as an oddity, not as the core of his argument.
You are mistaken. Your second option makes no sense, for Josephus was writing a history and obviously wanted people to know to whom he was referring. One doesn't write about Ogodei and then just call him 'the Mongolian'. The only option that makes sense is that this individual was generally known as the Egyptian. Again though, only Acts and Josephus mentions the names of first century rebels, they are literally our only sources, so there is no way to verify a derivation and the fact that their narratives on these individuals differ, makes this unlikely.
There are many other reasons for thinking
Luke wrote after Josephus.
This was the very article that I referenced in my earlier post. Look, Carrier's arguments are a bit silly.
He mentions three subdivisions: Generic, Story and Philosophic parallels. Of these three, only story is actually proof of derivation as the other two only signifies that both were written in a similar mileau and time, something we already know.
Now Carrier mentions firstly Quirinius's Census, then the three rebels, followed by Agrippa, Berenice etc.
Carrier is thus the one treating the three rebels as premier evidence, as it is his second point in his only segment that actually makes his case, the rest being unnecessary padding to obfuscate in my opinion.
Now the Census fits Roman practice, a local revolt is supported Archaeologically and OT prohibitions of censuses makes this very much an established event and as Rome dated their administration from census to census in provinces (called the Indiction, especcially in Egypt where it outlasted Rome as a calender subdivision), the First census in a province is noteworthy. Thus for Luke to HAVE to derive it from Josephus is beyond ridiculous. The fact that Luke fails to mention Jewish grumbles around this makes it even more unlikely and the confusion of Herod the Great's reign ending and the Census occuring only 10 years later after Archelaus is deposed, makes this almost impossible.
Similarly with Agrippa, Festus, Berenice and so forth as they were important Roman allies and officials. Their activities are strongly historic and Luke differs on details and often location to Josephus here, making a derivation doubtful.
Carrier also mentions that Pilate vs the Jews appears similar to Pilate vs the Samaritans. Of course a tough governor acted similarly in similar circumstances. Really, this is his evidence?
Now to his strongest point and which he gave top billing in his only segment of consequence in his article - in spite of your repeated protestations to the contrary:
I am told the three rebels in question are relatively unknown, and that Josephus picked these out among many for specific arguments in his books. I guess we could dust out Josephus and review if you dispute this.
All the rebels of first century Judaea are relatively unknown. We have few sources for the area, basically Philo, Josephus, the Gospels, a few fragments and what the Romans deigned to discuss.
The name of petty rebels that Rome easily crushed without even bringing in any Syrian legions are thus sparsely recorded. These weren't even dignified with titles like the 70 AD revolt was, they were too small scale.
Literally Josephus is our best source here. Josephus mentions these not as examples to prove a point, but as part of his narrative. Josephus wrote for the Flavians, his work was largely an attempt to enlighten the Roman intellegentsia to Jewish practice, an apology for his people. Further, we know that Judas the Galilean's sons proceeded to make trouble later, so clearly Judas had to have been fairly succesful. Similar to Theudas and the Egyptian, there narratives show succesful movements that Rome crushed. It is a part of the narrative history leading up to later events, not some abtuse position Josephus is taking.
Regardless, we know of no other rebels to see if the claim that these were just petty rebels amongst many can be validated. Josephus clearly presents them as protagonists of notable events, so likely they were the biggest fish in the rebel pool. In Josephus's own words:
"These deeds of the robbers filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now conjurers and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would show them manifest wonders and signs that would be performed by the providence of God. And many that were persuaded suffered the pain of their folly, for Felix brought them back and punished them. At this time there came out of Egypt to Jerusalem a man who said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the mountain called the Mount of Olives, which lay a distance of five furlongs from the city. He said that he would show them that at his command the walls of Jerusalem would fall down, through which he promised that he would procure them an entrance into the city. Now when Felix was informed of this he ordered his soldiers to take up their weapons, and with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem he attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He slew four hundred of them and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped from the fight and did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans."
"During the time when Fadus was procurator of Judea a certain enchanter named Theudas persuaded a great number of the people to take their belongings with them and follow him to the Jordan River. He told them he was a prophet and that he would, by his own command, divide the river and afford them an easy passage through it. And many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to gain the result of this wildness, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them captive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government."
Yes Paul does repudiate his Pharisee background. In Philippians 3:7 Paul says, "But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ." In context "what things" clearly refers to his Pharisee background.
I already explained that this is Paul saying Christ is more important than anything else, not rejecting his background. I do not feel I need to repeat myself here, especcially as the passage in question clearly shows much respect for his Jewishness in order to make the point of Christ's importance.
At the very least, Phil 3:3-9 is not a ringing endorsement of the Pharisee religion. And beside that, I understand we have no writings of Paul where he states he was a Pharisee.
What? You just referenced it.
"If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee."
He is clearly stating that in regards to the Law, he is a Pharisee, not a past tense had been one.
When Paul was writing his epistles, he identified neither as a Pharisee, Sadducee, Essene, or any other branch. He identified as a Christian.
And trying to argue as if Paul was a Muslim is merely parading ignorance. Therefore, I do not argue is if Paul was a Muslim or a Sadducee. Paul was a Christian.
Nope. There was no frank differentiation between Christians and the Jewish sects until much later, probably only after the Trajanic revolts or as late as Bar Kohba. Anyway, Paul explicitly identifies himself as a Pharisee in the letter I quoted above and we see the same in Acts and Church tradition - whether you discard the latter or not, they still remain evidence in my favour.
It is also clear from Talmudic and Roman sources that neither Christian or non-Christian sources initially saw them as separate from Jewish tradition.
Your view is like claiming that a given judge came from a racist background, therefore he is still racist. Sometimes judges change their minds. Paul could have changed his mind. In fact, when it comes to religion, it is universally understood that Paul had a major change of mind.
Of course they can, but if we have no evidence they ever did and then claim they changed their minds retroactively, this is a bit of a stretch.
Even if Paul did not believe the two body view, that in no way makes him a credible witness to the physical resurrection. Paul writes at least a decade after it would have happened. He makes no specific mention the grave was empty, or that the corpse came out of the ground and interacted with people. The Romans buried their victims in mass graves. Most likely a crucified Jesus of the first century would have ended up in such a mass grave. A decade later it is possible for the rumor to exist that one had come out of that mass burial, either in the same body or a spiritual body. That is not proof of Physical resurrection.
I thought I was clear that the evidence for the Resurrection was Faith therein and Church tradition and writings? This you would have undermined by trying to negate Paul as such a witness, which clearly has fallen rather flat, in my opinion.
Anyway, Rome allowed the burial of crucifixion victims unless they wanted to make a point:
"They {this is referring to the Idumeaens} actually went so far in their impiety as to cast out their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews are so careful about burial rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset” - Josephus in the Jewish war.
There is also at least one excavated example of a crucified jew receiving proper burial. This was a man called Yehohanan in 1968, I believe.
I see it as a great jump to go from sacrificing a passover lamb to having a meal to ceremonially drink the blood of God. The Jews had nothing to do with drinking blood, let alone the blood of God. If they can make that jump, one or more Jews might make the jump to believe that the inner man, the spirit, could survive death and be given a new body as described in 2 Cor 5.
Paul's body is dead and gone. Do you believe that Paul taught his only hope of resurrection was for that body to come back to life again? Since that body is gone, are you saying Paul is not in heaven now, and he never will live again?
The 'inner man' construct you describe has no basis in first century history nor Church tradition, so it makes no sense to go look for it. I don't go reading the Almagest looking for titbits on Relativity theory.
And again, the idea of the Passover Lamb as imbueing the Jews with a relatedness, a sense of being one Flesh with God, is a clear antecedent of the doctrine of the Last Supper and is a known Pharisee doctrine, so you really have no foot to stand on when claiming it is so far fetched.
An example to explain: Mainstream Jews would never have accepted that Jesus was the Messiah, but this idea descended from theirs.
Rabbinical Judaism descended from Second Temple Judaism, differentiating itself somewhat between the 2nd to 7th centuries. So no, it did not descend from theirs. They are also descendants of the same religious framework that birthed Christianity, but it is not a linear descent here, the two are cousins, so to speak.
You could argue the majority of Second Temple Jews did not become Christians, but we really have no data on this. The Hellenistai, a sizable proportion of 1st century Jewry largely became Christian it seems, seeing that they went extinct, so a strong argument could be made for the opposite as well. The spectacular growth of Christianity anyway clusters around diaspora areas as well.
So for all intents and purposes, Christianity could just as easily be the logical development of Second Temple Judaism; the Syncretisation of Pharisee, Sadducee and Essene, rather than the bipolar Rabinnical and Karaite Jewry.
Acts was most likely put together in the second century from a number of sources. We don't know what sources, or how reliable they were. We have no record of anybody even being aware that the book existed before the middle of the second century, at which point nobody really knew what Paul had said at his trial.
You are again assuming what needs to be proven.
Acts being partially derived from Josephus does not make much sense, especcially as many small details differ such as Roman soldiery in Cilicia etc. I would have agreed if Acts could be shown to postdate Josephus, which it cannot or not very much postdate it, and if we have other sources to derive Acts's specific historical referencing from or ignore the Church Fathers like Tertullian, Origen, Iraneaus etc.'s references to it. The latter are a bit later, but as this was before a time where manuscripts could be easily circulated, this shows an early date to facilitate this.
That's odd, because I would see your writings as black and white. You see that Paul had to be either a Pharisee or not a Pharisee, and if a Pharisee, then he had to agree with the Pharisee view of resurrection. I however see this all as a big blotch of various shades of gray.
Paul taught a sacrificial meal drinking the blood of Christ, a sacrificial dying savior god, and that there was no need for circumcision or keeping the Jewish law. The Pharisees disagreed with Paul. See, for instance, Acts 15.
Parading your ignorance of first century sects here again. I already explained the Pharisaic nature of those doctrines and again, Paul calls himself a Pharisee. The Pharisees disagreed with Paul because of Christ and how this transformed some of their beliefs, but his beliefs are very much Pharisaical none the less.
How could the oral Torah have been handed down from Moses? Critical scholars strongly suggest there was no Moses, so there could have been no oral Torah handed down from him. Even if Moses existed, how exactly would you prove that this oral tradition came from Moses?
I don't need to prove anything, the point is that Paul and the Pharisees believed it to be so. So to argue there was no Oral Torah or that it is derived from later development, you are adopting the Sadducee position. And of course, Paul was no Sadducee as they denied any resurrection at all. It is getting tedious having to re-explain this point to you, please go look up the First century Jewish sects a bit and save us all some time.
I well understand how the Christians used midrashic practice to put Jesus into the Old Testament. It seems to me that one could use the same practice to put soul survival into the Old Testament.
Nope. The meanings of Nephesh and Ruach do not allow it.
John records that some people said that Jesus had a demon.
If the fact that Mark records that an unidentified man said "he is risen" is the same as Mark saying "He is risen", then do you also claim that John teaches that Jesus had a demon?
This is pure sophistry. The claim in Mark is clearly meant as validation, while the other opprobrium. There is something called context.
On second thought, I agree - Carrier would have starved selling snake oil, his arguments are too transparently false and unbelievable.
But don't take my word for it, take the word of literally almost anyone else who has studied the period. Carrier is a crackpot from the lunatic fringe who preys on the gullible and uneducated to sell books.
