J-D

On the available evidence, the hypothesis that there was once a Paul is clearly to be preferred to the hypothesis that there never was any Paul. There have been many Pauls. There still are many Pauls. Equally, on the available evidence, the hypothesis that there was once a Jesus is clearly to be preferred to the hypothesis that there never was a Jesus. There have been many Jesuses. There still are many Jesuses.

In the case of the Sarasvati River, I am working on the assumption that the description 'Sarasvati River' is sufficiently precise for the question 'Was there ever a Sarasvati River?' to be discussed meaningfully. If the precision of the description is in question, then it becomes impossible to discuss the question meaningfully until one has first dealt with the essential preliminary question 'In this context, what precisely is meant by "Sarasvati River"?'

In the case of 'Jesus' and of 'Paul', since it is abundantly clear that each of those names refers to many people and things, the question 'Was there ever a Jesus?' cannot even be discussed meaningfully, nor possible answers to it even meaningfully framed, until the essential preliminary question 'In this context, what precisely is meant by "Jesus"?' has been dealt with, and likewise, the question 'Was there ever a Paul?' cannot even be discussed meaningfully, nor possible answers to it even meaningfully framed, until the essential preliminary question 'In this context, what precisely is meant by "Paul"?' has been dealt with.

mountainman

For the purposes of this discussion about HISTORICAL postulates at the foundation of various historical theories of christian origins, as I have variously stated, the WIKI pages will be quite adequately PRECISE to define the Apostle Paul and the Jesus person, although other references are of course admitted, such as I have supplied by Detering.

Given these available WIKI (or other) resources, without having to redefine them all over again, it is not impossible to discuss these questions meaningfully.

J-D

It is possible to discuss meaningfully the sufficiently precise question 'Was there ever a real person X such that each statement which appears in the Wikipedia article about "the Apostle Paul" and which is presented as referring to the life of the subject of that article is a true statement about the life of X?', but that is not the fundamental question for the historical study of Christian origins. The fundamental question for the historical study of Christian origins is, unsurprisingly, 'How did Christianity originate?', a much broader question with a direct reference to a much broader body of evidence. (The definition of this question is only as precise as the definition of the subject 'Christian origins'; if there is not clear agreement on what is meant by the descriptions 'Christian' and 'Christianity', both the subject and the question will need to be made more precise.)

The question 'Was there ever a real person X such that each statement which appears in the Wikipedia article about "the Apostle Paul" and which is presented as referring to the life of the subject of that article is a true statement about the life of X?' is also irrelevant to the narrower question Doug Shaver and I were previously discussing about the reason for the existence of the ascription of authorship in the epistles we were discussing.

mountainman

The Investigator's Hypotheses about WHAT and WHO

In the foregoing we have discussed the requirement that each element of the evidence be the subject of a hypothetical statement as to WHAT that evidence represents. A category of various types of evidence admissable to the field of ancient history has been outlined. The investigator soon learns that one of these WHAT's (evidence items) are people. These are the subject of the inestigator's WHO question, such as WHO authored the canonical books of the new testament, or who authored the non-canonical gnostic books of the new testament, or who was Papias, etc.


Hypotheses about WHEN and WHERE are additional

In addition to whatever working hypotheses investigators make about the WHO and the WHAT, as a separate but highly related exercise, a separate series of postulates or hypotheses need to be framed in respect of space and time. Namely hypotheses about the chronology and the geography.

This situation may be visualised with another schematic that shows more than one set of hypotheses for each evidence item. The original schematic might be seen as the layer of hypotheses dealing with WHAT and WHO. A second layer that looks much the same as the top layer is reserved for hypotheses that address the chronology (and geographical location) of that WHAT or WHO evidence item.

Hypotheses about HOW and WHY are additional

Finally the investigator may ask questions related to WHY and HOW, and these again represent a different series of hypotheses, all to be brought together in the exposition of the investigator's conclusions.

J-D

Now you're just repeating yourself. It's already been explained how this approach of yours is misconceived, and you don't advance the discussion by just ignoring those objections.

mountainman

Some people are content to provisionally run with the hypothesis (either explicitly or implicitly) that Paul - the author of the "Pauline Letters" was an historical figure, in contrast with other people who are content to provisionally run with the hypothesis that Paul was not an historical figure. (See WIKI for what I mean by the Apostle Paul - I am not interested in redefining WIKI at the moment).

Examination and discussion about Doug's hypothesis about Paul (with Toto) and Doug's own statement of it reveals IMO that it is implicitly (not explicitly) reliant upon the hypothesis that Paul existed as an historical identity. Other hypotheses about Paul might be in regard to his nationality, his nick names, whether he ever travelled by basket, whether he was short or tall. One can author millions of hypotheses about the historical identity of Paul, and everyone does precisely that.

My point is that amidst the millions of hypotheses that anyone can make about Paul are the two antithetical hypotheses:

(1) Paul was an historical identity
(2) Paul was not an historical identity

I have observed that if one of these is not selected explicitly, then it is implied by the statement of other alternative and often more complex hypotheses. There were no comments about this obervation to date.

J-D

On the contrary. I have explained at length how the way you express yourself is not a precise and accurate expression of any hypothesis and therefore necessarily obscures the issues.

Note, just as an example, the way you equivocate in this most recent post about 'Paul'. At one point you suggest that what you mean by 'Paul' might be defined by the Wikipedia article, while at another point you suggest that what you mean by 'Paul' might be 'the author of the Pauline epistles'. 'Was there ever a real person X such that each statement which appears in the Wikipedia article about "the Apostle Paul" and which is presented as referring to the life of the subject of that article is a true statement about the life of X?' is one question; 'was there ever a real person who was the author of the Pauline epistles?' is a different one; it is not necessarily the case that both must have the same answer.

If you are not interested in defining what you mean by 'Paul', that is not a defence, it is the indictment.

mountainman

'Paul' is a name associated with the author of the "Pauline Letters" and the "Seneca Letters". Behind this name there may or may not be a recoverable historical identity called 'Paul', although the mainstream opinion seems to be convinced that 'Paul' was in fact an historical identity standing behind the authorship of specific manuscripts, the copies of which we have before us.

Therefore it is clear that the hypothesis "Paul was an historical person" is being used as a working hypothesis for the mainstream opinion and represents just ONE of the hypotheses that may be made in respect of the hypothetical historical identity to be known as "Paul" - see the WIKI article on "Paul the Apostle" if you need to disambiguate which Paul I am taking about.

mountainman

It would seem that there is great reluctance and resistance to acknowledging the fact that the provisional hypothesis "Paul was an historical person" is foundational to most peoples' sets of hypotheses about the evidence related to christian origins. Why is this?

J-D

No, that is not clear.Because it is not a fact.