Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 12-14-2003, 01:44 PM

Toto wrote here the following: "Paul was an obscure letter writer and traveling salesman, but he wasn't famous in his time, was not martyred in Rome, and his letters were improved with a lot of details that made him look more important than he actually was."

I would like to see evidence that supports or contradicts these assertions:

1. Paul was "obscure," not "famous" (please define).
2. Paul wasn't martyred in Rome.
3. Paul's letters received many additions.
4. These additions made Paul "look more important than he actually was."

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 12-14-2003, 02:20 PM

Hi Peter - that was not an assertion of known fact. It was speculation as to possible reasons for the lack of veneration of Paul's tomb or the place where he got his vision. Perhaps I could have been clearer. But I think these are all possible assertions.

Paul was obscure in the sense that he did not make an impression on any secular historian. If he lived around the middle of the first century. it stills takes a while before he shows up on the radar of Christians.

There is no evidence that Paul was martyred in Rome other than Christian martyrology. So I regard the question as unsolvable.

As to a demonstration of interpolations in Paul's letters, I will put this off to another thread.

Vinnie · 12-14-2003, 02:33 PM

Quote:

If he lived around the middle of the first century. it stills takes a while before he shows up on the radar of Christians.

EJames, 1 Clement, the texts written in Paul's name and so on? I take it these texts are consistent with your statement "a while"? It simply is not precise enough for me to judge what you mean.

"""""1. Paul was "obscure," not "famous" (please define)."""""

The more critical formulation is that overall, Paul might not have been as important in the 40s and 50s to the overall Christian movement as later exegetes possibly falling victim to anachronism, would make him. As we al realize, the Jesus movement pre-existed Paul. He persecuted it. Its natural that his importance took hold later after any modifications of the Jesus movment by himself and or as a result of misinterpreations of Pauline theology by later Christians.

Yet Paul must have been a popular name, known by numerous Christians in the second half of the first century C.E.

Vinnie

Toto · 12-14-2003, 02:36 PM

The quote you cite in context:

Quote:

from GD

Please complete this sentence: "The reasons 1st century Christians showed no veneration for the places where visions occured or for the tombs of famous Christians of that era are _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "

One reason may be that there were hardly any 1st century Christians. Christianity did not really get going until the second century, but invented a 1st century history for itself. There were in fact no famous first century Christians. All of the disciples were mythological, or mythological encrustations over real people who cannot be recovered. Paul was an obscure letter writer and traveling salesman, but he wasn't famous in his time, was not martyred in Rome, and his letters were improved with a lot of details that made him look more important than he actually was. (If he was martyred in Rome, that would explain why Christians in Jerusalem did not venerate his tomb.)

Of course, another reason may be that Christians were just too obscure and no evidence survived.

A lot of speculation is possible, with not a lot of hard evidence to prove or disprove any particular thesis.

Perhaps the heat of the argument reflects the uncertainty of the evidence.

I was going to revise this, but in context I think it is clear that it is an exercise in speculation.

Layman · 12-14-2003, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Hi Peter - that was not an assertion of known fact. It was speculation as to possible reasons for the lack of veneration of Paul's tomb or the place where he got his vision. Perhaps I could have been clearer. But I think these are all possible assertions.

So does this mean that Peter and James were unimportant early Christian leaders as well? Or do you have evidence of tomb veneration for them?

Quote:

Paul was obscure in the sense that he did not make an impression on any secular historian. If he lived around the middle of the first century. it stills takes a while before he shows up on the radar of Christians.

One of the earliest noncanonical writings, 1 Clement, makes clear that Paul was known to the churches in Rome and Corinth, and that his example was something that they should follow. Also, it shows that his letter was considered authoritative enough for 1 Clement to appeal to along with OT scripture.

Paul left more of a historical footprint than Peter or James did with early Christians. Don't you think that he had imitators copying using his name to write letters such as the Pastoral Epistles and Ephesians and such?

Biff the unclean · 12-14-2003, 04:37 PM

I think that the biggest problem with Paul persecuting the Christians and then having a vision that caused him to covert is Euripides. In the fifth Century BCE Euripides wrote a play called The Bacchae a tragedy which is an attack on the cult of Dionysus. It's the same story, point by point as the Paul story. The Paul character is called Pentheus (man of suffering) who doesn't understand the Bacchae religious ceremony and so he persecutes them. When he meets Dionysus on the road Dionysus gives the same "Kicking at pricks" speech that Jesus gives in Acts hundreds of years later.

Whatever other historicity there is to Paul I think we can write off the road to Damascus story

Layman · 12-14-2003, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
I think that the biggest problem with Paul persecuting the Christians and then having a vision that caused him to covert is Euripides. In the fifth Century BCE Euripides wrote a play called The Bacchae a tragedy which is an attack on the cult of Dionysus. It's the same story, point by point as the Paul story. The Paul character is called Pentheus (man of suffering) who doesn't understand the Bacchae religious ceremony and so he persecutes them. When he meets Dionysus on the road Dionysus gives the same "Kicking at pricks" speech that Jesus gives in Acts hundreds of years later.

Whatever other historicity there is to Paul I think we can write off the road to Damascus story

So Paul made up his conversion experience based on Euripides?

Do you have primary evidence of this story so the rest of us can decide for ourselves the similarities?

Vinnie · 12-14-2003, 05:28 PM

Quote:

I think that the biggest problem with Paul persecuting the Christians and then having a vision that caused him to covert is Euripides.

Paul explicitly states that he persecuted the church.

1 Cor 15:9: For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Also, Gal 1:11-23: 11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24And they praised God because of me.

Paul also claims to be the benefactor of magnificent visions in II Cor 12:1-4 and also the benefactor of an appearance of Jesus (1 Cor 15).

Quote:

The Paul character is called Pentheus (man of suffering) who doesn't understand the Bacchae religious ceremony and so he persecutes them. When he meets Dionysus on the road Dionysus gives the same "Kicking at pricks" speech that Jesus gives in Acts hundreds of years later.

Is there an article online somewheres which shows the parallels? I'd be interested in reading them.

Vinnie

Layman · 12-14-2003, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Paul explicitly states that he persecuted the church.

He also places his conversion as geographically related to Damascus.

Gal. 1:17

"nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus."

rlogan · 12-14-2003, 05:43 PM

Peter,

I think it was clear that Toto expressed the lack of evidence was the problem for defending any position.

Seems like every one of us can "checkmate" any of the others who step out with a positive theory with "Show us the evidence".

There is, however, one position that asserts no evidence is a necessary condition of the theory. That is the myth.

With a positive assertion of the "Famous Paul" theory we have to explain away why we have no letters written to him, for example. Why no contemporaneous secular attention to this "famous" personage. No "Paul slept here" hostels.

Most sincerely, Rlogan

12-14-2003, 01:44 PM	#1
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Paul the Obscure Toto wrote here the following: "Paul was an obscure letter writer and traveling salesman, but he wasn't famous in his time, was not martyred in Rome, and his letters were improved with a lot of details that made him look more important than he actually was." I would like to see evidence that supports or contradicts these assertions: 1. Paul was "obscure," not "famous" (please define). 2. Paul wasn't martyred in Rome. 3. Paul's letters received many additions. 4. These additions made Paul "look more important than he actually was." best, Peter Kirby

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-14-2003, 02:20 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Peter - that was not an assertion of known fact. It was speculation as to possible reasons for the lack of veneration of Paul's tomb or the place where he got his vision. Perhaps I could have been clearer. But I think these are all possible assertions. Paul was obscure in the sense that he did not make an impression on any secular historian. If he lived around the middle of the first century. it stills takes a while before he shows up on the radar of Christians. There is no evidence that Paul was martyred in Rome other than Christian martyrology. So I regard the question as unsolvable. As to a demonstration of interpolations in Paul's letters, I will put this off to another thread.

12-14-2003, 04:37 PM	#6
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	I think that the biggest problem with Paul persecuting the Christians and then having a vision that caused him to covert is Euripides. In the fifth Century BCE Euripides wrote a play called The Bacchae a tragedy which is an attack on the cult of Dionysus. It's the same story, point by point as the Paul story. The Paul character is called Pentheus (man of suffering) who doesn't understand the Bacchae religious ceremony and so he persecutes them. When he meets Dionysus on the road Dionysus gives the same "Kicking at pricks" speech that Jesus gives in Acts hundreds of years later. Whatever other historicity there is to Paul I think we can write off the road to Damascus story

12-14-2003, 05:43 PM	#10
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Peter, I think it was clear that Toto expressed the lack of evidence was the problem for defending any position. Seems like every one of us can "checkmate" any of the others who step out with a positive theory with "Show us the evidence". There is, however, one position that asserts no evidence is a necessary condition of the theory. That is the myth. With a positive assertion of the "Famous Paul" theory we have to explain away why we have no letters written to him, for example. Why no contemporaneous secular attention to this "famous" personage. No "Paul slept here" hostels. Most sincerely, Rlogan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.