Originally Posted by Duvduv

Isn't it worth noting that the canonical texts are never deemed 4th century forgeries and only non canonical texts are described that way?!

Originally Posted by Solo

But it does establish historicity for 'somebody' using the name 'Paul', no ?

Best,
Jiri

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Isn't the case that scholars will not accept the argument that pauline epistles are also 4th century forgeries along with the books attributed to Irenaeus and Tertullian for example?!

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

Excellent point.

We can trace three different Pauls, all of whom seem to be derived from three different Jewish folk tales.

There is virgin-maker Paul. In "Acts of Paul and Thecla," he is the priest who is so persuasive that he seduces virgins into dedicating themselves to
God.

There is traitor Saul-Paul. He persecuted the Jews and one day the Lord appeared to him in the desert and struck him blind.

There is Super Apostle Paul, the man who delivers the gospel of the Jews to non-Jews.

All of these Jewish folk tales got a Christian make-over, apparently before the writing of the Gospels in the Mid-Late Second century.

That the three folk tales became one and someone wrote letters as the main character of the folk tales is not extraordinary.

Originally Posted by maryhelena Quote: Originally Posted by stephan huller Because he wrote letters And people write using pseudonyms all the time......:huh: Sure, somebody wrote letters using the name of 'Paul' - but that does not establish historicity for 'Paul'.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But none of this has any bearing on the question of whether there was a historical Paul. I can't think of an example of someone who never existed for whom spurious epistles were developed. I don't know how we would know that. Even the example of Anacharsis can't get around the fact that we are dealing with an actual historical figure. In the case of Ignatius, I happen to believe that we are dealing with a title (= 'the fiery one') but nevertheless there are real letters buried within the existing material closely aligned with the Syriac manuscripts. I don't have a clue what is being argued here.

Are we essentially arguing that the Pauline epistles are the ancient equivalent of 'letters of Spiderman'? That's absurd.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Or maybe a few writers used the name of 'Paul'?? You know the 'official' stamp of approval sort of thing...Either way, either one writer using 'Paul' as a pseudonym or half a dozen writers using 'Paul' as an official stamp, the NT 'Paul' is not a historical figure just because some letters are attributed to that character.

Originally Posted by Solo

I was commenting facetiously on the 'somebody', maryhelena.

The problem with positing 'faux Paul' at the root of all Pauline writings, is that some of them are distinctly secondary, and, sometimes desperately trying to imitate the earlier epistles written under the same eponym. This leads to a paraphrase of the famous maxim of the Orwellian pigs:

All Paulines are faked, but some are more faked than others!'

Best,
Jiri