DaBuster

Paul’s conversion was miraculous as described in Acts, but in Galatians Paul describes his conversion as follows:
This hardly seems like an “improbable” explanation of a conversion experience from the perspective of a believer – particularly one steeped in a culture in which gods and demons were perceived to be part of the everyday fabric of life. Could Paul have been a charlatan? That’s certainly possible, but this description of his conversion in Galatians is hardly proof that Paul himself was fictitious. As for Acts “miraculous” versions of Paul’s conversion, it seems most likely that Luke simply took the bare fact of Paul’s conversion and jazzed it up for the faithful.


No, at best it has only been shown that we have no extant writings of contemporary historians that mention Paul. That we have no contemporary sources for Paul (or Jesus, for that matter) shouldn’t be surprising if Paul is seen as a member of a small, obscure sect of Judaism. Arguments about the silence of contemporary writers in the mid first century never seem to take into account the possibility that, despite the claims in Acts and the gospels to the contrary, very few people were even aware of the existence of the Jesus movement in its early years. After his conversion, Paul largely labored in the backwaters of the eastern Roman Empire, and it seems likely that he simply never did anything significant enough to garner the attention of writers (primarily Josephus) who existed outside his constituency and whose works have survived.

By analogy, consider histories written in the late 1860’s in the United States about the decades leading up to and including the American Civil War -– how many of the histories of those turbulent times are likely to mention Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the early prophets of the Mormon movement? If we lost 99% of the histories written during that period, it’s highly unlikely that you would find any mention of either Smith or Young in the remaining histories; only the documents preserved by the Mormons themselves would likely record the fact that they ever existed.

A similar scenario seems to be the most likely explanation for the lack of mention of Paul in extant documents by his contemporaries –- apart from the early believers, to everyone else he was simply just another face in the crowd. The overwhelming majority of people who lived during the first century somehow managed to avoid being cited by name in the surviving works of writers such as Josephus. Given that, is it really that hard to believe that there was an itinerant preacher named Paul who had a hand in the spread of the Jesus movement, and who somehow escaped the notice of his contemporaries? Ultimately, perhaps Doug Shaver said it best when he noted that, “somebody had to have written those letters, and we might as well call him by the name he himself used.”

aa5874

That is your strongest argument for the historicity of Saul/Paul. If the Bible says so, then it must be true or we should accept it. I reject that analysis vehemently.

If the Gospels are examined carefully, it can be shown ,within reason, that Jesus was a fictitious figure. Saul/Paul, in his so-called epistles, also in the book called Acts, claimed to be in contact with the same fictitious character. Saul/Paul is either fictitious or a liar. I lean towards fiction.

In my lifetime, I have not seen any convincing information to remove the Bible from its fictitious nature.

DaBuster, the characters and events in the Bible are fictitious. Any similarity to known persons, living or dead is purely co-incidental.

lpetrich

Well put, DaBuster.

And I once had a lengthy argument in another messageboard in which I argued that if there was a historical Jesus Christ, then the Gospels are wrong about what a big celebrity he supposedly was. This was in response to someone who seemed to think that all the non-miraculous parts of the Gospels, at least, were 100% good history.

If he had lived a relatively uneventful life, or if he had been stoned to death as a heretic by some pissed-off Pharisees in Galilee, he would likely never have been written about by outside historians like Josephus.

mountainman

But what if in fact Josephus never mentioned him,
rather in fact, the reference was fraudulently interpolated
into Josephus in the fourth century, as most scholars of
history suspect?



Pete Brown

jakejonesiv

Hi Chris,

Reading you comments, I can see where the confusion lies. Thanks form the opportunity to address the issues.

The so-called authentic epistles, as we find them in our Bibles today (and NA27), are not the work of a single author.

They are composed of two redactional layers. The earlier and more original core is Marcionite. It can can be reconstructed with a fair degree of accuracy from the writings of the church fathers. The Marcionite layer dates to about the middle of the second century.

The rest is catholic redaction, added late in the second century. The Marcionite version does not represent a tendencious revision of the catholic, as many have thought, but the latter is the result of the extensive editorship of an originally Marcionite text.

And yes, when these two layers are sepatated out, there is a discernable difference in vocabulary and theology.

This is demonstrated in H. Deterings work with Romans where he shows that the the redactional layers align neatly along the text critical, linguistic, and dogmatic boundries.

See Der Römerbrief in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt,
Berlin, 2. August 2005.
(The Roman Epistle in its original form (pdf) 2005)

The links are at RadicalKritic about halfway down the page.

The "Pastoral Epistles" are easily recognized as different than the so-called genuine Pauline epistles. Oh, not to believers like Steven Avery, but certainly to a scholar like you, right Chris? Well, these are not of any Marcionite origin. These are 100% catholic forgery, of the late second century.

Jake Jones IV

Chris Weimer

Jake, my German is not fluent. Perhaps, if you put so much credence into Detering's work, you should be able to defend it here, no?

DaBuster

Vehmently? Ah, aa5874, would that we could all be as certain as you are about the “facts”. If you’d actually bothered to read my post instead of using it as yet another excuse to post your oh-so-clever “any similarity to known persons, living or dead” mantra, you’d understand that I don’t feel that there was a historical Paul simply “because the Bible says so”. My post outlined why it’s possible that the biblical stories of Jesus and Paul are based on actual people who lived in first century Judea. This position is hardly radical, and requires no particular system of belief, only the recognition that stories of the lives of historical figures –- particularly in a pre-industrial, largely illiterate society -- can be distorted by legends.

Although I feel strongly enough about this perspective to write posts to this forum, I have yet to swear an oath of fealty to the HJ or HP camps. It seems rather obvious to say this, but there is nothing that is, or is ever likely to be, certain with regard to the historicity of Paul or Jesus. However, your continued insistence on repeating your personal mantra in the place of any substantive discussion seems to belie an outlook that is no less hidebound and rigid than the most uncompromising biblical inerrantist; you differ from the them only in what you have chosen to believe.

Did I forget to mention that your mantra is so much more convincing when you write it in bold? You sly dog, you almost had me convinced this time -- you might really be on to something there.

aa5874

I am not trying to convince you of anything. I only post my views just like everyone else. I have always stated boldly that the Bible is fictitious. I have read and studied the Bible and it is a fairy tale.

I didn't realise that writing in bold had such an effect on you, perhaps larger letters have more substance!

Steven Avery

Hmm.. since you are bringing our discussion over to other threads.

Jake, last we saw you used as your evidence of this that Paul's journeys to Ephesus, Macedonia, Crete, Nicopolis, Troas and Miletus were mentioned in no other book in the NT.

So any claims you might make about the Pastorals are under a cloud until you deal with the simple factual response that journeys to five of those cities are mentioned outside the Pastorals.

Here was my unresponded to post.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...3&postcount=25

You can simply say 'I was wrong' that is fine.
Even then I would be curious from where your information came.
Did you enhance some other claim or what ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Dean Anderson

I remember reading a hypothesis that Paul of Tarsus might have been Simon ("Magus") of Gitta - or vice versa - in that stories of the two were talking about the same person.

I seem to recall that this was postulated in one of Ehrman's books ("Lost Christianities" rings a bell, but it might not have been that one).

Sorry to be so vague, but can anyone give me more details on this?