wordy

Well we have Platon, was it not in his interest that we trust Socrates to have existed.

Toto

I assume that Paul existed, because someone had to write those epistles, but there are two many indications that the Paul who wrote the epistles bears little relation to the Saul-Paul character in Acts.

gstafleu

It does make a difference because it establishes a link to a historical Jesus. Without it we would have just a spiritual Jesus. Of course if you read Paul through gospel-colored glasses there is no difference, which is why such interpolations may have come naturally to the interpolator.

Gerard Stafleu

Koyaanisqatsi

And to me he seems to have been as important for Christianity as Goebbels was for Nazism.

Toto

Godwin's Law!! It's too early for that.

Please stick to ancient history here.

Laurentius misinterpreted the question - it wasn't how important Paul was for Christianity, but whether Paul was an important personage in Roman society.

wordy

Ooups sorry. How on earth could we know such. Did they even know of him.

If he ever was mentioned the Christian would have told us a long time ago.

Koyaanisqatsi

History is written by the victors, aka the Romans and since Christianity was created by at least two primary and influential Romans (Paul and Mark), well, there you have it.

:huh:

Clouseau

A link to a historical Jesus does not hang by so slender a thread; Paul's writings contain many explicit references to an earthly Jesus, and twice there are even quotes of Jesus not found elsewhere. Paul added 'born of a woman, born under law' to indicate the essential 'suffering servant' aspect of Jesus, not to prove that Jesus had come to earth. He had by then already referred to Jesus' crucifixion three times in his letter. It is a given in all Paul's letters, which are never evangelistic, but pastoral.

Riverwind

This is an oft repeated fallacy.

Just because the "victors" as they are rhetorically portrayed may have written history, it does not necessarily follow that they were wrong in their view of history.

For Toto, you state that the Paul of the epistles is too different from the Paul of Acts. Why so? To me, it is quite obvious that they are one and the same.

Either way, I'd really like to try and focus more on Paul's status as a Roman citizen and what that meant about the prominence of his family.

It was mentioned that there is no proof that Paul was rich, however, I don't see how he would have had access to the classical education he seems to have had (thinking here about his quotes from ancient Greek authors and his obvious knowledge of philosophical ideas of the times). This kind of education would have taken money, money that I wouldn't think the son of a tent maker would have had. And not only that, but he seemed to travel by sea as he pleased...I haven't checked on it, but this kind of travel couldn't have been cheap (and may have required some sort of "paper work" depending upon the destination). We are also told that Paul was one of the leaders among the pharisees in Jerusalem. I could be wrong, but people didn't "rise through the ranks" quite as they do today. It seems that he would had to have had some finances behind him in order to be prominent.

Of course, we also read an occasional reference to Paul's association with (or his disciples' association with) members of the imperial household...

I have read somewhere that there is speculation that Paul may have been related, in some way, to the Herodians. Has anyone read enough to support or deny this speculation?

Toto

Okay... but that's not exactly a fallacy...

The Paul of the letters has a personality that comes through. He sneers at the so-called pillars of the Jerusalem church. He complains about Peter. He plays the fool. He warns against those who preach a different Christ. The Paul of Acts is a company man. After his conversion, he is pure and selfless and never offends anyone in the church. He even circumcises Timothy himself, while the Paul of the letters casts scorn on the law.

Where is he a leader among the Pharisees?

Did you perhaps read that in my post earlier in this thread? Check the link there.

From here (which appears to be a fairly standard summary of the conventional scholarship on Paul.)

As you can see, there are no extra-Biblical facts here about Paul - just indications that he could fit into this particular historical milieu. There were diaspora Jews who were Roman citizens and had wealth and education.