smeat75

Hello from a new member.
Forgive me if this has been discussed before.
I see many threads on this board discussing whether Jesus was historical or not, possibly owing to the fact that these new books have come out on that question.
What I am wondering about, though, is why Paul's historical existence does not seem to be questioned.
After all, just as in the case of Jesus, Paul is said to have performed miracles, and the NT sources for Paul, Acts and the letters, contradict each other in many ways as the Gospels do about Jesus. Acts does not even say a word about Paul writing any letters.
Quite a few letters that were traditionally ascribed to Paul are now considered to be inauthentic. But why is it accepted that Paul wrote any of them? Maybe one author forged the seven or so now supposed to be authentic and other people made up the rest of them.
Quite a few people insist that there is no evidence for Jesus' existence, but in fact there is evidence, people may not think it is good evidence, but it exists in Suetonius and Tacitus and even Josephus probably said something about Jesus although it is hard to say what it was (and you needn't run through why you do not accept what those authors say about Christ, I am aware of those arguments).
But for Paul there is nothing, is there? outside the NT? Or for Peter either for that matter or any of the disciples? Why do people fixate on the historicity of Jesus and ignore the lack of evidence for the rest of the highly improbable tale?
I am genuinely curious to learn more on this subject from the highly knowledgeable members of this forum.

stephan huller

Because he wrote letters

Adam

Let's set one thing aside. You note the absence of historical citations about Paul or any apostles. True. However, John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus are both mentioned by Josephus.
Yes, Paul himself is questioned here. Everything is questioned here. One even questions the dogma that no eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus during his lifetime. You have generalized too quickly. Welcome aboard.

aa5874

What an illogical answer!!!

We have the Pastorals with the name Paul so it is just so absurd to suggest that letters with the name Paul were written by a character who persecuted the Christian Faith before the Fall of the Temple and that he was KNOWN as Paul.

The Pauline letters are WITHOUT corroboration in the Canon itself and by ALL non-apologetic sources.

Why, Why, Why do people here exhibit such illogical reasoning??

The Pauline letters are Questionable and cannot be verified at all.

Apologetic sources claimed Paul died under Nero and also claimed he was AWARE of gLuke.

gLuke is considered to have been written at least AFTER the Fall of the Temple and is NOT mentioned by name until near the end of the 2nd century.

The evidence suggest that ALL the books of the Canon are AFTER the Fall of the Temple and AFTER the Short-Ending gMark.

aa5874

Your response is just rhetoric. In any event, you fail to realize that your very reponse BETRAYS the Fact that you have NO answer, NO credible evidence, Nothing to support that an ACTUAL HUMAN BEING named Paul wrote letters BEFORE c 70 CE.

The Pauline writings are UNDER Scrutiny and the Abundance of evidence suggests that the Pauline writer could NOT have been known or was NOT likely known by the author of the Short-Ending gMark.

maryhelena

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'.

maryhelena

Have a look at this thread. The chart is taken from the book by Richard Pervo.

Paul as Jesus Reboot

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=311968

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

Toto

The character of Paul that comes through the letters is all too human. (The character of Paul in Acts is also human, but a different human.)

Paul does not fit into any mythic paradigm. He doesn't come across as a god or a hero.

Somebody wrote those letters - either Paul or someone writing under his name. We might as well call that person Paul.

stephan huller

Someone wrote those letters. he's the apostle

maryhelena

:thumbs:

Indeed - but if we want to have a historical basis for early christian origins - we do need to name names, we do need to identify who did write those letters - looking for a writer using the pseudonym 'Paul' is not going to help a historical search.