Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 11-22-2003, 05:00 PM

What is the best evidence regarding the historicity of Paul?

Vinnie · 11-22-2003, 11:19 PM

My guess would be the--at the least-- nine letters he wrote (one to the Corinthians is lost and 2 Cor. is two letters combined into one) and all the other ones that cropped up in his name after him. Wicked multiple attestation here. Plus the book of Acts. Is it 1 Pet or 2 Pet that menations Paul? I forgot? Anyway, the book of James also critiques a very clear Pauline notion. Not to say it was exclusive to Paul but one of authentic epistles has him articulating the same thing which was later misunderstood and romped on by EJames..

But if anyone is dusputing the historicity of Paul in here, I'm not playing in this game.

Vinnie

Layman · 11-22-2003, 11:40 PM

I suppose we could add 1 Clement, written around 94 CE or so.

Quote:

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

Chapter 5

And,

Quote:

Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. But that inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved. But now reflect who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves.

Chapter 47

Toto · 11-22-2003, 11:46 PM

The character of Paul that comes through in the Pauline letters is not a typical mythic character, so there seems no particular reason to assume that he was made up.

The letters are the best evidence, even if they are not completely authentic. Acts is not very good evidence at all.

It's not clear if Clement is evidence of Paul, or just of Paul's letters.

Layman · 11-22-2003, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
The character of Paul that comes through in the Pauline letters is not a typical mythic character, so there seems no particular reason to assume that he was made up.

The letters are the best evidence, even if they are not completely authentic. Acts is not very good evidence at all.

It's not clear if Clement is evidence of Paul, or just of Paul's letters.

Wow, you said all that without once mentioning the Dutch radicals.

rlogan · 11-23-2003, 12:05 AM

I should have clarified that request, Vinnie. I am looking for extra-biblical sources. I'm not playing a "game". Just looking for some reasonable affirmation outside the "holy forgeries".

Trying to see what else is out there. Not borne out of a prejudice one way or the other.

Philo of Alexandria or Justus of Tiberias would be nice, for example. I do not have source material from them, but some of the experts here might - and they would be good candidates for extra-biblical citations. I don't suppose Josephus has a non-interpolated reference? Perhaps an inscription somewhere in an archaeological site? Thigh bone? Sincere request here.

Clement merits some cautious consideration thank you Layman. That is an interesting quote about martyrdom under the "prefects". It begs the question of why the plural and who they were. If he was this famous then I should expect a reference somewhere...

Thanks for the responses.

Toto · 11-23-2003, 12:12 AM

The Dutch Radicals think that the Pauline letters were later forgeries, but presumably there was a missionary named Paul that the forgers attributed the letters to.

Philo doesn't know anything about any Christians. Paul does not seem to have left any historical relics or made any impression on a non-Christian source. But he's still not a mythic type figure. I can't think of any historian of any stripe who has proposed that Paul is a myth.

rlogan · 11-23-2003, 12:32 AM

Ah - thanks Toto. Seems people are taking this as an assertion of mine that Paul is a myth. Not so. (yet, anyway)

What I have so far is that he was a Pharisee. A tent maker. I cannot see how that gives him power to persecute Christians. In Acts 8:2-3 he's dragging off men and women to prison. That just seems odd to me - the tentmaker sherrif. A Pharisee is just a member of a sect - not a position of legal power.

There must be something else in his background that would also, for example, justify that he can write. That puts him immediately in rare company. But being so famous as it is claimed ought to justify an entry in some contemporaneous document - especially if he came from a background of having some kind of civil authority as Acts seems to indicate...

Toto · 11-23-2003, 12:48 AM

Acts is historical fiction. Acts makes Paul out to be a Hellenistic hero, a persuasive orator and a Roman citizen. I doubt that he was a Roman citizen, or that anyone ever mistook him for a god, or that he was transported to Rome to be tried in front of the Emperor.

Paul claims to be a Pharisee, but Hyam Maccoby has cast doubt on that in The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. Maccoby thinks that Paul was a Saducee, part of the Temple police force, just another thug.

rlogan · 11-23-2003, 01:51 AM

oh yea - found some stuff on the dutch radical position while I await amazon dot com. My credit card company is going to really like me.

So they take Clement's first letter and seven Ignatius letters as forgeries from mid second century.

- which leaves the field wide open for forgery of the pauline corpus. Of course!

So far what I have is the potentially forged Clement I reference near the end of the first century, along with the potentially forged pauline corpus as evidence for Paul. Or Saul. I wish people back then would stick withjust one name.

Again, not saying there wasn't a Paul ministering to Gentiles. Nope. Didn't say it.

11-22-2003, 05:00 PM	#1
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Historicity of Paul What is the best evidence regarding the historicity of Paul?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-22-2003, 11:19 PM	#2
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	My guess would be the--at the least-- nine letters he wrote (one to the Corinthians is lost and 2 Cor. is two letters combined into one) and all the other ones that cropped up in his name after him. Wicked multiple attestation here. Plus the book of Acts. Is it 1 Pet or 2 Pet that menations Paul? I forgot? Anyway, the book of James also critiques a very clear Pauline notion. Not to say it was exclusive to Paul but one of authentic epistles has him articulating the same thing which was later misunderstood and romped on by EJames.. But if anyone is dusputing the historicity of Paul in here, I'm not playing in this game. Vinnie

11-22-2003, 11:46 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The character of Paul that comes through in the Pauline letters is not a typical mythic character, so there seems no particular reason to assume that he was made up. The letters are the best evidence, even if they are not completely authentic. Acts is not very good evidence at all. It's not clear if Clement is evidence of Paul, or just of Paul's letters.

11-23-2003, 12:05 AM	#6
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	I should have clarified that request, Vinnie. I am looking for extra-biblical sources. I'm not playing a "game". Just looking for some reasonable affirmation outside the "holy forgeries". Trying to see what else is out there. Not borne out of a prejudice one way or the other. Philo of Alexandria or Justus of Tiberias would be nice, for example. I do not have source material from them, but some of the experts here might - and they would be good candidates for extra-biblical citations. I don't suppose Josephus has a non-interpolated reference? Perhaps an inscription somewhere in an archaeological site? Thigh bone? Sincere request here. Clement merits some cautious consideration thank you Layman. That is an interesting quote about martyrdom under the "prefects". It begs the question of why the plural and who they were. If he was this famous then I should expect a reference somewhere... Thanks for the responses.

11-23-2003, 12:12 AM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Dutch Radicals think that the Pauline letters were later forgeries, but presumably there was a missionary named Paul that the forgers attributed the letters to. Philo doesn't know anything about any Christians. Paul does not seem to have left any historical relics or made any impression on a non-Christian source. But he's still not a mythic type figure. I can't think of any historian of any stripe who has proposed that Paul is a myth.

11-23-2003, 12:32 AM	#8
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Ah - thanks Toto. Seems people are taking this as an assertion of mine that Paul is a myth. Not so. (yet, anyway) What I have so far is that he was a Pharisee. A tent maker. I cannot see how that gives him power to persecute Christians. In Acts 8:2-3 he's dragging off men and women to prison. That just seems odd to me - the tentmaker sherrif. A Pharisee is just a member of a sect - not a position of legal power. There must be something else in his background that would also, for example, justify that he can write. That puts him immediately in rare company. But being so famous as it is claimed ought to justify an entry in some contemporaneous document - especially if he came from a background of having some kind of civil authority as Acts seems to indicate...

11-23-2003, 12:48 AM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Acts is historical fiction. Acts makes Paul out to be a Hellenistic hero, a persuasive orator and a Roman citizen. I doubt that he was a Roman citizen, or that anyone ever mistook him for a god, or that he was transported to Rome to be tried in front of the Emperor. Paul claims to be a Pharisee, but Hyam Maccoby has cast doubt on that in The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. Maccoby thinks that Paul was a Saducee, part of the Temple police force, just another thug.

11-23-2003, 01:51 AM	#10
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	oh yea - found some stuff on the dutch radical position while I await amazon dot com. My credit card company is going to really like me. So they take Clement's first letter and seven Ignatius letters as forgeries from mid second century. - which leaves the field wide open for forgery of the pauline corpus. Of course! So far what I have is the potentially forged Clement I reference near the end of the first century, along with the potentially forged pauline corpus as evidence for Paul. Or Saul. I wish people back then would stick withjust one name. Again, not saying there wasn't a Paul ministering to Gentiles. Nope. Didn't say it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.