The Admiral

What, if any, evidence do we have for the historical existence of Paul outside of the Bible? I realise that most biblical historians accept as authentic a certain number of his letters as presented in the New Testament. But what are the earliest copies we have of those letters? The more I read, the less I understand.

The Admiral

Dean Anderson

To a large extent, not much.

For a start, he never mentions the whole Saul -> Road_To_Damascus -> Paul conversion and name change in his letters. That's only ever referred to in the book of Acts (which is blatantly ahistorical), so it almost certainly never happened. Similarly, the whole Persecutor of Christians -> Christian transformation almost certainly never happened either. As far as I remember, he never mentions this himself. Again, it is just something in the book of Acts.

All we have is what is in his own writings, viz:

Someone wrote various letters. He calls himself Paulos, and there is no real reason to doubt that name. He is the head of a group of Christians, and he writes to other groups. He appears to have a rivalry with with the leaders of other Christian groups, and disagrees with them on theological points.

That much is almost certainly historically true. Any other biographical detail is open to speculation.

Malfunc

I remember reading somewhere that records were found amongst ancient Roman archives that made brief mention of Saul of Tarsus, apparently written about 40-50 ad.
Malfunc

Vicar Philip

Off to Biblical Criticism & History.

Zap!

aa5874

I think you just gave reasons. The book of Acts contains information about Saul/Paul. Acts is blatantly ahistorical.

I would imagine that it reasonable to doubt the historicity of Saul/Paul.

goldenroad

Wrong, while Paul never speaks of his conversion on the road to Damascus he does talk about his transformation from persecutor of the church to Christian.

Philip. 3:4-6 (NLT) Yet I could have confidence in myself if anyone could. If others have reason for confidence in their own efforts, I have even more! [5] For I was circumcised when I was eight days old, having been born into a pure-blooded Jewish family that is a branch of the tribe of Benjamin. So I am a real Jew if there ever was one! What's more, I was a member of the Pharisees, who demand the strictest obedience to the Jewish law. [6] And zealous? Yes, in fact, I harshly persecuted the church. And I obeyed the Jewish law so carefully that I was never accused of any fault.

aguy2

I would speculate that he walked into Jerusalem with a bag of cash, incredibly strong ties to the Army, and orders to become a student of the town's leading Pharisee intellectual. His initial motivation being to further the split between the Pharisee and the Seduccees as part of a covert action destablization. He is acting as a front man for the boss of the operation, Suetonius Paulinius, who was at that time very, very busy fighting Berbers in the Atlas Mountains, while starting the development of the synthesis of Greek and Judaic thought that endures and prospers to this day.
aguy2

Toto

I've never heard of this, and it would be big news if something like this were discovered.

Dean Anderson

I stand corrected.

Although I am not sure how his claim to be Jewish here comports with his claim in 1 Corinthians 9:20 that he has pretended to be Jewish ("became as a Jew") in order to better preach to the Jews. Maybe 1Cr 9:20 is referring to this claim that he makes in Phl 3:4-6.

That's assuming that both passages are authentic, and not later interpolations, of course.

Does anyone have any more info on this?

Also - in Phl 3:6, when he says that he "diokon ton ekklosias" (excuse my poor transliteration), is "ekklosias" here referring to the Christian church? Or is it being used in the more general sense of an "assembly".

In other words, is Paul saying (to paraphrase) "Zealous? Sure I was, I used to harangue the assemblies with my zealousness" or is he saying "Zealous? Sure I was, I used to persecute Christians"? The first seems more in context with the surrounding verses to me, but the second is obviously favoured by Christians as it makes a better persecuter-turned-convert story (this can be seen by the addition of the word "harshly" in Goldenroad's translation, which is not in the Greek but makes Paul sound like more of an anti-Christian before his "conversion").

Can our Greek experts shed any light on this? Is either a better translation than the other?

Bobinius

Is there any evidence of historical mentioning of Paul's actual speech in Athens, towards the Greeks, near Acropolis, outside his letters? The historical guides in Athens present it as a historical fact. [of course, it has commercial reasons, but they present it as this is a historical fact in contrast with other parts of religious claims]

PS: I forgot the name of that rock near the Acropolis.