judge

Exclusively? :huh:

Is the author really ignorant of Paul's quote of the psalms in ephesians chapt 4 ,as just one example?

Ben C Smith

You are underestimating his point in that quote. A fictional Paul being consistent with LXX quotations is very different than calling it remarkable that if Paul knew Hebrew he would choose the LXX to quote from.

Ben.

Hallandale

I have noticed that Paul often quotes, or on occasion misquotes, the OT.
But he almost never quotes from the gospels or any of the other NT writers.
The only Jesus quote that I am familiar with is the one about the body and the blood...
Hallandale

TedM

If Paul was ficticious from the 2nd century, those who created him might be expected to make some references to the current conception of Jesus at the time of the writing. If the conception was one we see in the gospels, why didn't Paul write about Jesus' miracles, teachings, Calvary, baptism, etc.?? One might also expect him to not make so many references to things that he never explains further--the twelve, the pillars, brothers of the Lord, his own conversion experience, the miracles and wonders he says he performed. One might also expect him to not write about things we do see if it is ficticious--his own inferior status as an apostle, his bodily ailment in Galations..

I haven't read this book, but would think it must have to address these kinds of things..

I'm curious what are the most problematic things this author finds that makes him suspect fiction?

ted

andrewcriddle

It may be worth noting that none of the letters of Paul claim he was a student of Gamaliel.

This claim is attributed to Paul by Luke in Acts 22:2

Andrew Criddle

darstec

I'm going to disagree. I believe the KJV rendering is the most familiar to English speakers in this day and age. Yet I often prefer my own translation to KJV where I know it to be egregiously wrong in translation. Why would Paul use the LXX instead of the translating more correct Hebrew if he could read both?

I'm not convinced there was much outside the Torah that was part of the Septuagint during the traditional timeline given for Paul's epistles. Quoting anything other than the Pentateuch would argue for a much later Paul. Or at least a much later heavy editing.

rlogan

Hi TedM.

I'm just a scrub around here and the varsity kicks my butt all over the place in terms of knowledge, but I'll be so bold as to suggest some things that have bothered me.

I have passed the point of belief in the historical jesus and for purposes of discussion let's simply begin with that premise.

If there is no Jesus then there are no disciples. Therefore there are none for Paul to meet and we have the Jerusalem "meeting" already as a myth.

There is no evidence that Paul existed from extrabiblical sources that I am aware of. No "Paul slept here" traditions or grave or what have you.

The word play with Saul and Paul is just too cute for history but fits well with allegory. Likewise with the whole mythical and hazy "supressor turned devotee" business.

It is so very difficult to get any bona-fide historical anchorage in his writings, and I'm sorry but I just do not accept that this is anything but careful masking of the actual authorship to make it appear earlier. That is longstanding biblical tradition.

The "letters" of Paul are not really letters but in my mind are meant as liturgical devices and contain some very important objectives regarding central church authority.

This is like a crime investigation where we need motive, means, and opportunity to solve the problem.


I don't want to substitute my feeble scribblings for Detering. But I have thought that Paul was fiction and am very eager to see this work.

Julian

This does not follow. If there was no Jesus but gospels and followers and so on, there is no reason why there couldn't be important followers in Jerusalem, especially if the movement originated there.

Accepting the historicity of the pillars does not require one to accept the historicity of Jesus. There is no reason to assume that the pillars were originally disciples. If there was a Paul without a real Jesus, there could be the pillars without a real Jesus.

I do believe that it would be difficult to place Paul in the 2nd century, due to the lack of gospel references. It would also be difficult to originate Paul with Marcion considering all the OT references in our versions of Paul. Did Marcion excise them or where they added later? Only the first makes some sense, in my mind.

Julian

jakejonesiv

Ephesians 4:4 (gave vs. received) relies on the Targum of Psalm 68:18. So much for inerrancy.

:huh: Just for the record, how do you know that Paul wrote Ephesians? This is disputed even without questioning the existence of Paul.

Jake Jones

Ted Hoffman

In support, I note in my review on Gunther Bornkamm's Paul, that Bornkamm regards Ephesians as DeuteroPauline because the name Ephesians is not attested by textual evidence and it lacks a relationship to any Church. In addition, it is not a letter but more of a theological treatise (and writing theological treatises was not Paul’s style).
There are also theological conflicts with Paul, for example, the portrayal of the Church as a cosmic body with Christ as the “head� - an idea Bornkamm’ argues was influenced by Gnosticism.,