DevilsAdvocate

You were comparing the literary character Paul in Acts and the epistles stating their difference conflicting positions and traits, and that it demonstrated if there was an historical basis there were at least 2 Pauls. I am just comparing the literature to your assertions. They don't stand up.

Yes

Acts 13 Saul and Barnabas went to Paphos (where incidentally the proconsul was identified correctly by name in Acts)
v9 "Then Saul, who was also Paul" and he is referred to as Paul for the remainder.


Your position was Paul of the epistles was an orator while Paul of Acts was not. Simply noting examples of Paul the orator in Acts. There is should be no expectations of thorough redundancy.

Acts 17 (noting that such oratories are generally the authors best representation of the presentation at those times and not word for word)

Quote:
The Paul of Acts is a character being written about by another character from accounts and perhaps personal witness and records later compiled into a more complete and orderly account. . . .

I believe nothing. I am looking for plausible answers and this cannot be eliminated based on the literary reference here.

Acts 17:28 Aratus you referenced
I Cor 15:33 quotes Menander
Titus 1:12 quotes Epimenides
There are others. They are generally well mixed in with the prose in out translations.

Your point was that in the literary context Paul a Pharisee would not go on a mission for the Sadducee chief priest.

I was pointing out in the same literary context where that was not inconsistant. Also in a political context, the two groups coexisted in one Jewish tradition and each played their roles. A faithful Pharisee was also a faithfaul folower to the chief priests of his faith and did share a common law and largely common means to enforce it.

It demonstrates the confllict you suggested is not significant.

Perhaps. A very obscure and diconnected coincidence for a gentile forgery. There is certainly allot of incidental detail in this forgery.

Equally. Yes.

The coincidence of the claim of these two specific gods at this location and time corroborated by the peculiar secular history is something more than literary invention. It is at least a striking coincidence or a knowledge of that regions superstitions at that time to place it in the fabricated narrative.

I would argue at least. The number of them, the level of detail, the apparent insignificance of it in the narrative, the correctness of chronology all seem to give strong support for some basis in fact.

I do not have a single source. Few people look at this rationally. I look at the text and make no judgements I don't feel are supported

This is long and confused with all of the references redacted by the system. I tried to restore some of the context.

aa5874

An absolute gem. More confirmation of fraud and fiction. It's another "Paul", again. Why would a presbyter forge the writings of Paul?

spamandham

You accuse me of not reading it, when I even quoted it and highlighted the relevant sections!? WTF!?

The point is, that the very chapter and paragraph that refer to Jesus son of Ananus contains obvious fiction, yet you do not dismiss the entire thing and declare him fictional, the same way you do with Paul.

Further, although it's certainly possible that this Jesus son of Ananus character really did what Josephus reports, it's clearly implausible and obvioulsy included to make the entire tale that much more fantastic. (Who would have remembered the actual words some lunatic screamed out years before they were put into context?) Josephus even admits that it sounds like a fable!!! The story has all the signs of actually being fictional, yet you conclude the main character was real.

In regards to Paul, we have only 1 story involving Paul that is clearly fictional, but many others which are perfectly ordinary. Further, creating a fictional Paul adds nothing to the ancient case for Jesus, which was not even in question anyway. There is no motive for creating a fictional Paul.

However, if Paul was viewed as an authority, there would be motive to attribute doctrine to him after the fact. What would be the motive to do that if he was fictional?

My interest is in the historicity of Paul, not Jesus. You have dismissed Paul as fictional as well, as you may recall.

Toto

This is not my position and I don't know where you got this. The Paul of Acts was clearly an orator. The Paul of the epistles was probably an orator, because that is how preachers communicate.

You obviously believe something. You believe that you can derive historical data from Acts. I think you need to examine that belief.

A complete misunderstanding. My point was that in the real world of 1st century Judaism, a Pharisee would not have been an enforcer for the High Priest. Your counterexamples where from the story line in the gospels and Acts, which I contend was written under the influence of later history.

How could you tell that it is more than a literary convention? And why shouldn't the author know of that region's superstitions?

I am not sure if we are can carry on a useful discussion. You have so many unexamined assumptions that you are sure are true. I think that there are a fair number of scholars who do look at this rationally, and you could gain some insight by reading them.

aa5874

So, you think Jesus son of Ananus is fiction, and I accept him as a figure of history. This difference of opinion does not resolve the fiction of Jesus, his disciples and Paul.

Even if you claim there is only one story that is clearly fictional about Paul, then there must have been a motive for fabricating that one piece of fiction. Now, if Paul's conversion is fictitious, then it should follow that all events directly dependent on that fictitious conversion is questionable, and may also be fictitious.

In what century was Paul viewed as an authority, and which Paul was that? There are at least three Pauls.

There must have been a motive to have fabricated at least three "Pauls".

If Jesus was not a god, then Paul was fiction. Without the god Jesus, Paul would not have been converted by the bright light that blinded him. And his gospel, ministry and missionary work would all be fiction. There must have been a motive for fabricating a fictional conversion to Christ.

mountainman

Tertullian IMO is just another Eusebian literary profile. He is trying to shovel the real controversy of the New Testament fiction back into the past as fast as he can. He was writing at a very unique nexus of the evolution of the nation of christians. He was a sponsored polemicist. He did a good job.

Leucius Charinus



And from here

spamandham

I know nothing of Jesus son of Ananus outside the specific reference we are discussing. I don't know if he's historical or not, but I do know that this particular story involving him doesn't add up, and is easily dismissed as a fable, as Josephus himself offhandedly admits.

As I've previously stated, a very simple explanation for this, is that the writers of Acts wished to syncretize existing Pauline tradition into their own. Direct evidence of this involves the name change from Saul to Paul, and the motive is straightforward.

What's complicated with that idea?

...sort of like flying chariots and a madman screaming nonsense that is recalled verbatim years later?

Based on the evidence, I would place this in the third or fourth centuries, after Paul had been syncretized into the Catholic tradition. Does it not strike you as odd that the controversy raised by Tertullian simply disappears after he raises it? What's the simplest explanation for that vanishing?

That doesn't follow. We already both agree that Acts is a later fiction.

According to the Pauline epistles, he wasn't. He was converted by a vision that he even admits might have been a dream - a vision that reads just like a hullucination brought about by temporal lobe epilepsy (the thorn in the side perhaps?). His own words sound just like those of the religiously delusional today. He is perfectly ordinary, in that sense, by his own account, and is presented as mostly ordinary even in Acts - which you bring it up endlessly.

spamandham

aa5874, suppose that 150 years from now, a significant following has formed around your posts here at IIDB, and suppose that the Church of Scientology (the dominant church then), is tired of trying to refute you, and so they concoct some crazy story about how you had been part of their cult from the beginning, and even spoke to the aliens. Since they already have a character in their heritage named bb5874, they make up some BS about how the aliens changed your name.

The ruse works. Now, not only are your followers brought into Scientology, but you are seen as an authority by all Scientologists as well as a result (after all, you spoke to the aliens - telepathically of course)! After that, a few clever hackers find a way to hack the IIDB database and insert their own preferred dogma into your posts.

Should those in the year 4000 consider the crazy story about you and the aliens, combined with the obvious fabrications attributed to you, evidence that you never existed, in spite of the rather ordinary and consistent posts signed by you?

aa5874

Your scheme would only work if aa5874 and his followers were fictitious and the Church of Scientology actually had no members during the time they claimed aa5874 was a member. And the crazy story would work best if no-one knew of it until 100 years after it was written.

Ben C Smith

Yes, I know that this is your view, but the question was not what you (or I) think about Tertullian or the Acts of Paul; the question was why scholars at large do not give the Acts of Paul much historical credence.

Ben.