Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-14-2012, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

just noticed the topic misspelling..how do I change the Title?

The title seems to fit the thread - all confused.

Could you clarify what particular theory you are arguing against? Who claims that Paul is fictional?

sotto voce · 12-14-2012, 03:38 AM

There is very little in the letters attributed to Paul that is not recognisable as the work of an ex-Pharisee thoroughly rooted in the Hebrew Scripture. Had it not been Paul to come to all the conclusions reached, it would have been someone else. In fact, the knowledgeable reader of the 'OT' recognises all of Paul's conclusions and more. So it is idle to speculate regarding Paul's existence, if one wishes to dispute his teaching.

sotto voce · 12-14-2012, 03:42 AM

Just because Paul isn't, doesn't mean that the RCC isn't 'fictionary'.

Tenorikuma · 12-14-2012, 03:48 AM

I think a good case against a historical Paul and most of the other apostles comes from this statement by Richard Carrier in the comment thread of one of his blog posts, entitled Ignatian Vexation:

"…it is actually bizarre that the early Christians produced so little. We're to believe Paul only wrote seven significant letters in the course of an international, thirty-year ministry? That no one else was writing important letters? Not Apollos? Not Peter? Not any disciple or apostle? Not anyone in any church of the dozens Paul mentions? We're to believe that the composer of Luke-Acts, demonstrably a well-educated and brilliant author, wrote just one book, and that in just two lousy chapters? Covering a mere two decades, and that's all we have for a hundred years of Christian history?

"Contrast the writings of Josephus and ponder in horror at what the hell happened. And then remember there were many historians of 1st century Palestine besides Josephus (they just weren't preserved)."

And then:

"Cicero wrote over one hundred books, many of which longer than the entire NT, some by a factor of several times. We also have hundreds (that's hundreds) of his private letters. Not only that, but his letters collection includes letters by many other people writing to him (perish the thought--where the fuck did all the letters written to Paul go? It's not as if Paul never mentions any--he does)."

If there was a real Paul, what happened to the rest of his writing? Either it wasn't worth preserving, it was purposely destroyed, or there was no Paul going around the Mediterranean for decades writing letters. If either of the first two possibilities is true, and his writings were too worthless to save or too heretical to leave behind, then the real Paul must have been someone very different from what the Catholic church later made him out to be.

sotto voce · 12-14-2012, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

I think a good case against a historical Paul and most of the other apostles comes from this statement by Richard Carrier in the comment thread of one of his blog posts, entitled Ignatian Vexation:

[COLOR="Blue"]"…it is actually bizarre that the early Christians produced so little.

Here's the man who pulled the telephone plug and wondered why he got no calls. Christians doubtless produced much, but natural decomposition accounted for most of what anyone wrote. Jews, Romans and Muslims must have accounted for every last shred remaining that was not widely copied and distributed.

Paul was apostle to the Gentiles, who needed 'house-training', and much of his oeuvre concerns issues of both theory and praxis that were not live to ex-Jewish Christians. The letter to the Hebrews is notably more advanced.

'Had it not been Paul to come to all the conclusions reached, it would have been someone else.'

An idea to read the thread, poster.

Quote:

the real Paul must have been someone very different from what the Catholic church later made him out to be.

Now you've got something right! But you really need to read the Bible, too!

'From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. When they arrived, he said to them: "You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

"Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears."' Ac 20:17... 31 NIV

Duvduv · 12-14-2012, 05:37 AM

Interestingly enough, the apologists never even offer any "midrash" or "hadith" type material to fill in the gaps about the life of Paul from any non-canonical sources, or to add anything about his work or writings. .

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

I don't know what the Marcionites thought about Paul, and Acts, so can't comment on your question.

But in a section dealing with those who reject Acts Irenaeus notes that some deny the existence of Paul. The paradox of Tertullian's reference to the Marcionite conception of the apostle writing the gospel is also worth noting. The apostle we call 'Paul' is said to have written the original gospel but - at the same name - it is not 'according to Paul.' Go figure.

maryhelena · 12-14-2012, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

I think a good case against a historical Paul and most of the other apostles comes from this statement by Richard Carrier in the comment thread of one of his blog posts, entitled Ignatian Vexation:

"…it is actually bizarre that the early Christians produced so little. We're to believe Paul only wrote seven significant letters in the course of an international, thirty-year ministry? That no one else was writing important letters? Not Apollos? Not Peter? Not any disciple or apostle? Not anyone in any church of the dozens Paul mentions? We're to believe that the composer of Luke-Acts, demonstrably a well-educated and brilliant author, wrote just one book, and that in just two lousy chapters? Covering a mere two decades, and that's all we have for a hundred years of Christian history?

"Contrast the writings of Josephus and ponder in horror at what the hell happened. And then remember there were many historians of 1st century Palestine besides Josephus (they just weren't preserved)."

And then:

"Cicero wrote over one hundred books, many of which longer than the entire NT, some by a factor of several times. We also have hundreds (that's hundreds) of his private letters. Not only that, but his letters collection includes letters by many other people writing to him (perish the thought--where the fuck did all the letters written to Paul go? It's not as if Paul never mentions any--he does)."

If there was a real Paul, what happened to the rest of his writing? Either it wasn't worth preserving, it was purposely destroyed, or there was no Paul going around the Mediterranean for decades writing letters. If either of the first two possibilities is true, and his writings were too worthless to save or too heretical to leave behind, then the real Paul must have been someone very different from what the Catholic church later made him out to be.

Thanks for the Richard Carrier quotes....

Basically, the story we have in the Pauline epistles is just that a story. It is not an account of early christian origins. At best it is a dramatized account, an origin story endeavoring to tell that story through the mouthpiece of it's Paul figure. It's an after the event story; a story re-creating early christian origins as it could have been; a wishful story; a story designed to create a history rather than an historical account.

The story is what it is. It is complete, that's it. No need for hundreds of Pauline letters, no need to retain hundreds of letters written to such an important figure. The story does it's job. The picture is painted.

The writer of Acts had no problems with using the Pauline figure as a reboot of the gospel JC. That this connection was made - indicates that the Pauline figure is nothing more than a stock figure. A figure available for whatever the writer, or subsequent writers, deemed appropriate. Paul is simply part of the tapestry, created by early christian writers, to encode, to enshrine, their history.

Table 6.1: Jesus and Paul: Some Examples (Page 107) The Mystery of Acts: Richard Pervo

Jesus	Paul
1. "Passion Predictions"	1. "Passion Predictions"
Luke 9:22	Acts 20:23-25
Luke 9:34	Acts 21:4
Luke 18:31	Acts 21:11-13
2. Farewell Address	2. Farewell Address
Luke 22:14-38	Acts 20:17-35
3. Ressurrection: Sadducees Oppose	3. Ressurrection: Sadducees Oppose
Luke 20:27-39	Acts 23:6-10
4. Staff of High Priest Slap Jesus	4. Staff of High Priest Slap Paul
Luke 22:63-64	Acts 23:1-2
5. Four "Trial" of Jesus	5. Four "Trials" of Paul
A. Sanhedrin: Luke 22:66-71	A. Sanhedrin: Acts 22:30-23:10
B. Roman Governor (Pilate) Luke 23:1-5	B. Roman Governor (Felix) 24:1-22
C. Herodian King (Antipas) Luke 23:6-12	C. Herodian King (Agrippa) 26
D. Roman Governor (Pilate) Luke 23:13-25	D. Roman Governor (Festus) 25:6-12
6. Declarations of Innocence	6. Declarations of Innocence
Pilate: Luke 23:14 (cf.23:4,22)	Lysias (Tribune) Acts 23:29
Herod: Luke 23:14	Festus: Acts 25:25
Centurian: Luke 23:47	Agrippa: Acts 26:31
7. Mob Demands Execution	7. Mob Demands Execution
Luke 23:18	Acts 22:22

Quote:

Page 108

The point has been made. The parallels between the passion of Jesus in Luke and Paul’s experiences in Jerusalem are too numerous and too transparent to deny. But after chapter 26 this symmetry seems to collapse. Whereas the Gospel goes on to relate the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus, Acts narrates Paul’s voyage, shipwreck, survival, and eventual arrival in Rome. This much remains undeniable: the voyage and its aftermath occupy the same structural position in Acts as the crucifixion and its sequel have in Luke. The alternatives are clear: either Luke carefully erected his parallelism between the respective fates of Jesus and Paul until he came to the end of their legal hearings and then dropped it overboard, or the existence of the parallel scheme invites critics towards further inquiry. The later looks like the more likely option. At the very least it is worth a try.

The Mystery of Acts: Richard Pervo (or via: amazon.co.uk)

From the ahistoricist/mythicist position - that JC is an ahistorical gospel figure - then - what Acts has done with the above parallels with Paul - indicates that Paul, like JC, is a figurative, ahistorical figure. Acts, with these parallels, is giving the Pauline epistles, read literally, a slap-down. It is Acts, not the Pauline epistles, that is the 'true' history of christian origins. Acts, with it's pseudo-history is the 'true' story - it is the 'true' ahistorical story of christian origins. The real history? For that one needs to get outside the New Testament and consider Jewish history of the relevant time period.

maryhelena · 12-14-2012, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

First it was 'Jesus never existed'. Along with this came 'the disciples -- except maybe a few -- never existed'. Now, incredibly, some are claiming that Paul himself never existed. This theory requires highly creative explanations for the writings attributed to Paul.

I personally consider those who believe the fictional Paul hypothesis to have a screw loose. To be warped in their thinking. I'm not saying they are bona-fide crazy, but I think there is a psychological problem behind this kind of thinking. It seems to be closely tied in with a near pathological distrust of authority and I would argue, human beings in general. So, it fascinates me, because I tend to be more trusting, gullible perhaps..

Anyway, I'd like input here from the more reasonable thinking individuals: What are the TOP arguments against this fictional Paul hypothesis?

I would think the arguments fall under these categories:

1. Internal clues in Pauline writings pointing to a 1st century date
2. The Acts - Pauline writings consistencies and inconsistencies pointing to authenticity of Pauline writings
3. The gospel - Pauline writings problem: Relative absence of gospel references in Pauline writings.
4. The gospel - Pauline writings problem: External early acceptance of Paul by people who also accepted the Gospels
5. The absence of any hard evidence for this ridiculous theory.

I'm starting this thread in the hopes that this crazy theory will be squashed down by means of some actual rational discussion. However, I'm too busy to participate much. Perhaps the few reasonable thinking individuals left on this forum would like to participate, and if we are real lucky the thread will start to become more level-headed, as it was in the past. Until that happens, I'm afraid the higher level of rational discussion it once had will never return..

Ted, the NT is a story - and will remain a story until such time as someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Attempting to bring down scorn on those who question that story is unwarranted in any rational context.

TedM · 12-14-2012, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

What's more Tertullian makes reference to the Marcionites refusing to acknowledge any biographical information about their apostle (Book Four).

Got a section, link or quote? Edit: I just quickly searched for it and didn't see anything.

Quote:

I don't think anyone reasonably denies that at least a portion of the Pauline Epistles goes back to a historical individual.

There are quite a few here that think such denial is reasonable. It might be even be held by those that do the majority of posting here.

TedM · 12-14-2012, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

just noticed the topic misspelling..how do I change the Title?

The title seems to fit the thread - all confused.

Could you clarify what particular theory you are arguing against? Who claims that Paul is fictional?

aa and his clonies. You seem to be sympathetic to them also. Your question is baffling. This strange hyper-skeptical sentiment seems widespread here. It IMO is why we see less and less quality posters and postings on this forum.

12-14-2012, 03:38 AM	#12
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	Authorship is immaterial There is very little in the letters attributed to Paul that is not recognisable as the work of an ex-Pharisee thoroughly rooted in the Hebrew Scripture. Had it not been Paul to come to all the conclusions reached, it would have been someone else. In fact, the knowledgeable reader of the 'OT' recognises all of Paul's conclusions and more. So it is idle to speculate regarding Paul's existence, if one wishes to dispute his teaching.

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

12-14-2012, 03:42 AM	#13
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	Just because Paul isn't, doesn't mean that the RCC isn't 'fictionary'.

12-14-2012, 03:48 AM	#14
Tenorikuma Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Japan Posts: 156	I think a good case against a historical Paul and most of the other apostles comes from this statement by Richard Carrier in the comment thread of one of his blog posts, entitled Ignatian Vexation: "…it is actually bizarre that the early Christians produced so little. We're to believe Paul only wrote seven significant letters in the course of an international, thirty-year ministry? That no one else was writing important letters? Not Apollos? Not Peter? Not any disciple or apostle? Not anyone in any church of the dozens Paul mentions? We're to believe that the composer of Luke-Acts, demonstrably a well-educated and brilliant author, wrote just one book, and that in just two lousy chapters? Covering a mere two decades, and that's all we have for a hundred years of Christian history? "Contrast the writings of Josephus and ponder in horror at what the hell happened. And then remember there were many historians of 1st century Palestine besides Josephus (they just weren't preserved)." And then: "Cicero wrote over one hundred books, many of which longer than the entire NT, some by a factor of several times. We also have hundreds (that's hundreds) of his private letters. Not only that, but his letters collection includes letters by many other people writing to him (perish the thought--where the fuck did all the letters written to Paul go? It's not as if Paul never mentions any--he does)." If there was a real Paul, what happened to the rest of his writing? Either it wasn't worth preserving, it was purposely destroyed, or there was no Paul going around the Mediterranean for decades writing letters. If either of the first two possibilities is true, and his writings were too worthless to save or too heretical to leave behind, then the real Paul must have been someone very different from what the Catholic church later made him out to be.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.