CX

Off topic question, but why? Who cares if Xians think acceptance of an Historical Paul equates to acceptance of Acts? It obviously doesn't so why should we care if someone draws that erroneous conclusion?

Magdlyn

Not an expert, but I have read on the Yahoo group JesusMysteries that Marcion may have written Paul. Anybody care to add more info about that?

ichabod crane

Marcion had a negative view of the Old Testament and tried to eradicate references to it from the gospel of Luke. But the writings of Paul are absolutely filled with references to the Old Testament, and treat it positively, identifying the God he serves with Old Testament Yahweh. For example, the epistle to the Romans commences as follows:

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures [i.e. the Old Testament].

Now Marcion would certainly not call the gospel the gospel of the Old Testament God, as Paul does here.

In addition, Marcion's opponents such as Tertullian, quote Paul in opposing him. Surely they would know if these writings were written by Marcion?

I'm very sympathetic to Marcion, but I don't think you can attribute the Pauline epistles (either the genuine ones such as Romans, or those which were not written by him, such as the Pastorals, Ephesians and Colossians) to him. I think perhaps we should understand Paul as struggling to reconcile a new faith with his Jewish heritage. Maybe he didn't do a perfect job, and maybe Marcion did a better job, but we should consider what he said on its own merits.

Regarding the issue of Paul being historical, I can't help but wonder what possible reason could there be for not saying that he was real? After all, we have a number of documents which shaped an early religious movement in a massive way, claiming to be written by "Paul", an otherwise unknown figure, and then we have even more writings (such as the Pastorals etc.) which were not written by him but claim to be. Surely the simplest explanation is that there was indeed a guy called Paul who was important in said religious movement? Besides the internal evidence that the writer was a Jew well trained in Hebrew thought, and the split between Jews and Christians occurred in the first century, so that Christianity was basically a gentile religion by the second century.

Regarding the "No Jesus" theory:

(a) Christianity was originally a Jewish, not Hellenistic movement. Contrary to what "no Jesus" people I have read say, the writings of Paul do not attribute deity to Christ. The most credible interpretation is that originally Jesus was seen as a human Jewish Messiah by a certain group, and over time as the movement Hellenized, he came to be seen as God.

(b) What about the Ebionites? I haven't seen how the "no Jesus" theory can explain this first century movement.

Magdlyn

Thanks for your ideas, Crane. You gave me food for thought.

So you are setting aside the possibility of heavy catholic redaction of Paul?


What about "Paul's" name? First "Saul," the first king of the Jews, renamed "Paul," "little one," in a fit of pseudo-modesty?

What about the idea Paul was a gnostic, and his god (and Jesus') was not YHWH, but a gnostic ineffable Father in conflict with the Demi-urge and his Archons (principalities and powers Paul likes to warn against)? How is this Jewish?

ichabod crane

I don't think the evidence is there for redaction. The problem is there are many manuscripts of Paul's writings from the 3rd century from all over the ancient world, and at that time Christianity was a barely tolerated sect, not the state religion. It would have been impossible to go around and collect all the manuscripts, edit them, and then put the editted versions in place.

Sha'ul is a Hebrew name, which is also a Hebrew word, the Qal passive participle of Sha'al, and it means "asked". I don't know but I expect it would have been a not completely uncommon name amongst Jews.

I don't think that the God of Jesus was YHWH, but I think that Paul (and the other disciples) thought he was. They saw Jesus through the lens of their culture and religion. But I haven't developed my thinking enough yet to have a firm theory.

Amaleq13

What do you consider to be the strongest evidence for this claim?

I agree that Paul does not appear to equate God and Christ but he is clearly describing the latter as a pre-existent, spiritual entity.

What do you consider to be the strongest evidence that the Ebionites can be reliably identified as a "first century movement"?

ichabod crane

Amaleq13: What do you consider to be the strongest evidence for this claim?

Ichabod: The writings of the New Testament, such as the epistles of Paul, are absolutely filled with allusions to Old Testament scriptures. The extent of these allusions is extraordinary, not just in explicit quotes, but in phraseology and expression. Surely that is powerful evidence for Jewish origins. After all, do followers of Mithraisim or other Hellenistic cults make reference to the Old Testament? No, obviously not. There is a huge gulf between Hellenistic mystery religions and early Christianity in these terms. Furthermore, the mode of interpretation of the Old Testament parallels contemporary Rabbinic interpretations from the first century.

Amaleq13: I agree that Paul does not appear to equate God and Christ but he is clearly describing the latter as a pre-existent, spiritual entity.

Ichabod: Precisely, and this supports my thesis. In the first century there was a lot of speculation amongst Jewish rabbis about the existence of a "heavenly man" as a counterpart to the "earthly man" Adam (the phrase "the heavens and the earth" which is repeated in the Old Testament led to a lot of such speculation). All the evidence suggests that the writer of Paul was influenced by such speculation, and believed in the "heavenly man". But that's not the same thing as God.

Amaleq13: What do you consider to be the strongest evidence that the Ebionites can be reliably identified as a "first century movement"?

Ichabod: Can't answer that without checking, but all the history texts I've read treat that as given.

Toto

Not exactly. See this thread on Interpolations in the Pauline Letters.

See also Robert Price's the Formation of the Pauline Canon

In short, there was motive, means, and opportunity for the church of 180 CE to "standardize" Paul's letters and make sure that they said the right things.

Saul was the name of an early king of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, who preceded King David. The Aramaic form of this name is Silas, and the Latin is Saulus or Silvanius. It was not a very common name; Josephus only mentions one Saulus. [Eisenman attempts to connect this Saulus to Paul, but few are convinced.]

Paul never refers to himself as Saul, or indicates that he ever changed his name. The historical novel of the Book of Acts tells a story about a Saul who persecuted Christians. At a certain point, well after the spirit of Jesus appears to Saul, Saul morphs into Paul with no explanation. Christians have created a story about how Saul changed his name to Paul after his conversion, but there is no support for this anywhere in the Bible. Either Paul's name was Saulus X. Paulus, or the character in Acts is a composite of several persons, including Saul and Paul, who were so well known that the readership understood what was going on (as we don't).

ichabod crane

Well, der. And the Hebrew is Sha`ul, not Saul, as I stated, and is the Qal passive participle of Sha`al. Trust me on this one point, I know Hebrew very well! I'll take your word for it not being a common name.

I'll get to the rest of your post in a minute.

Amaleq13

Paul's letters are also "absolutely filled" with beliefs, ideas, and language more consistent with pagan Mysteries. Upon what basis do you establish that the Jewish aspects precede the Hellenistic?

No, it is powerful evidence of familiarity. How does it establish primacy?

Actually, there is very little difference between Paul's stated beliefs and the Mysteries. In fact, it could probably be argued that Paul was offering a Jewish Mystery religion. What I don't see, however, is any clear evidence that this belief should be understood as "originally" Jewish with later Hellenistic influences.

How do you know it wasn't a Mystery that got an infusion of Judaism?

How do you know it wasn't a synthesis from the start?

What do you mean by "mode of interpretation"?

Correct but it is also not the same as describing an actual guy preaching in the Galilean countryside. You are creating a strawman when you depict mythicism as requiring Paul to consider Jesus as God.

Amaleq13: What do you consider to be the strongest evidence that the Ebionites can be reliably identified as a "first century movement"?

I would be interested in your sources. Everything I've read suggests it was written in the mid 2nd century and reflects a community of that time that continued to exist into the next century.