aa5874

Amost all of Paul's so-called history is in Acts, and it is fiction. When Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius mentioned Paul, they refer to the Paul of Acts.

Gamera

This is simply to deny the evidence. We have many examples of historical figures who attract legendary narratives around them. Indeed, it seems virtually inevitable that this would happen. People seem driven to generate narratives about heroic or famous personalities, as Tertullian's overzealous presbyter indicates. So the fact that Tertullian indicates this happened with Paul in no way compromises Paul's historicity, and arguably supports it, assuming other evidence of Paul's historicity (like perhaps epistles written by him, and multiple references in text written wihtin a century or so after his death)

Depending on the context, fiction can be a good indication of historicity. The evidence suggests the urge to augment a narrative is proportional to the extent to which the narrative is deemed historical. People have augmented the narrative of Joseph Smith, because he is an historical personage who plays an important role in the lifes of Mormons. There doesn't seem to be such an urge for augmenting narratives about Obi Wan Kenobi.

This is particular true where people, like Tertullian, are actively trying to discern the fiction from the fact, which means some historical scrutiny of the texts is going on.

And to answer your last question, the use of Paul as an "author" for a body of work written by various persons is clearly a process of imputing authority. Paul as "author" has authority, so works that seemed particularly important to the Christian community would gravitate toward being classified as "written by Paul." I expect most of the non-Pauline epistles were anonymous, like so many texts are from antiquity, and their importance led them to be morphed over time into Pauline epistles.

But this process only works because Paul was deemed to be an historical person with authority.

This isn't substantially different from the body of works attributed to Homer in Greek culture, which more than likely had numerous authors. But since a good poem by an anonymous Greek poet has more authority if written by Homer, the better poems over time got attributed to Homer by nostagic Greeks. I realize an argument can be made that Homer never existed, but equally good arguments are made in favor of his historicity, and this process assumes that the Greeks at least thought he was real.

Gamera

How does this make your point? Since the epistles are mostly admonitory and exhortatory and not narrative, very little narrative can be derived from them by those looking for it. So they looked to Acts. How does that discredit Paul's historicity?

Ben C Smith

You have exposed nothing here except your unwillingness (for I refuse to believe it is inability) to comprehend the argument.

No, once again, fiction is a nonindicator.

Either historical and fictionally embellished or nonhistorical. We cannot tell simply because fictitious things were said about him.

The correct term is pseudonymity. Either some or all of the Pauline epistles would be pseudonymous. If it is only some, then Paul was historical. If all, then he may or may not have been historical.

Multiple persons also used the name Clement in the Clementine corpus. The letter to Theodore falsely claims to have been written by Clement of Alexandria. Is Clement fictional?

Ben.

aa5874

Paul's history, unlike Joseph Smith, is directly dependent on one single fictitious source, Acts of the Apostles.

Joseph Smith's date of birth, death, the name of schools he attended, the names of his parents, spouse, the place where he was incarcerated before his death, his profession, and the names of close acquaitances are all documented.

Paul, on the other hand, was called Saul, was converted to Christianity by a bright light that blinded him, and he preached to the uncircumcised and this we learn from the fiction called Acts, written maybe 100 years from his supposed death.

You call this history, I call this fiction.

aa5874

That is my opinion of you, too.



Fiction is a good indication of a fictitious character when fiction is all we have as in the case of Paul. The fictitious Acts is the only source for Paul. Tertullian, Irenaeus and Eusebius refer to Acts for the history of Paul.

But it is virtually impossible to claim a Paul wrote an epistle because the word PAUL is at the beginning of an epistle, since it is claimed that others used the name Paul. Paul means nothing, his history is fiction, the Churches were duped when they accepted Acts as history and could not determine who wrote the epistles.



Is Paul one of those Clements?

Ben C Smith

Not true. We have the Pauline epistles themselves, which we must evaluate apart from Acts. We also have 1 Clement, Ignatius, Marcion, and Polycarp, none of whom refer to Acts.

They also refer to the Pauline epistles.

I do not claim that a Paul wrote an epistle because the word Paul appears at the beginning.

Answer the question. Is Clement of Alexandria fictional?

Ben.

aa5874

Aren't these all apologetic sources?

Aren't Ignatius, 1 Clement, Marcion and Polycarp writing when the supposed Paul was already dead?

If Polycarp, 1 Clement, Marcion, And Ignatius did not refer to Acts then which Paul did they refer to? And in which century did their "PAULS' live?

Which Paul did Ignatius refer to?
Which Paul did 1 Clement refer to?
Which Paul did Polycarp refer to?
And which Paul did Marcion refer to?

You have the following choices:

1. The Paul in Philemon.
2. The Paul in Titus.
3. The Paul in 1Timothy.
4. The Paul in 2 Timothy.
5. The Paul in Colossians.
6. The Paul in 1Thessalonians.
7. The Paul in 2 Thessalonians.
8. The Paul in Philippians.
9. The Paul in Galations.
10. The Paul in Ephesians.
11. The Paul in 1 Corinthians.
12. The Paul in 2 Corinthians.
13. The Paul in Romans.
14. The Paul in Acts.

Well, Paul has no history ouside of apologia and it doesn't matter which one of the Pauls you choose.



Ben, we are discussing Paul, remember. I tell you Paul is fiction. I have not read much about Clement of Alexandria to make a definitive answer, but I have read enough about Jesus, his disciples and Paul to claim that, without reasonable doubt, they are all fiction.

Ben C Smith

If? Tell me truly: Did Polycarp, 1 Clement, Marcion, and Ignatius refer to Acts or not?

We are discussing methodology for how to determine whether Paul is fiction.

You do not need to read much about Clement, according to your methodology. You have proven that Paul is fiction by pointing out that there are multiple Pauls writing the Pauline texts. Well, there are multiple Clements writing the Clementine texts, too. Case closed, according to your methodology. So quit stalling and answer the question: Is Clement fiction?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Is it your contention that all of these Pauls are different people? Nobody wrote two or more of these epistles?

Ben.