Solo

No, it isn't. Only the Dutch radicals and a few stragglers like Detering who are trying to revive them, held or hold on to the idea that Paul was a creation of the 2nd century church.

Forget Acts; Paul was not responsible for them. His letters never name an individual named 'Jesus of Nazareth'. Paul 'persecuted the Church of God' (Gal 1:13, the same formula in 1 Cr 15:9 is likely an interpolation) . Gal 1:17 reveals that Paul is going to Jerusalem to the 'apostles who were before him'. He acknoweldges merely that there were those who were 'in Christ' before him (Rom 16:7). But being 'in Christ' appears to be a creative description of living with the spirit, which likely originated with Paul himself. He believed, and convinced many pneumatics, that Jesus alive in heaven advised him (them) on matters pertaining to salvation of the elect in the impending collapse of heavens.

Why would Paul - if he was a faked entity originating in a later church - be talking in such vague terms, purposely avoiding references to the earthly Jesus ? (2 Cr 5:16). Why would Paul insist that the crucifixion of Christ was a just application of the law ? (Rom 8:3-4) The notion which in Paul's feverish visions was tied to Christ being made 'a curse for us' (Gal 3:13), would be totally alien to a later church. Justyn Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, preached a doctrine different from Paul's with respect to Deut 21:23. The idea that God made Jesus look like sin (2 Cr 5:21), or that he was crucified in weakness (2 Cr 13:4), so important for the Pauline paradoxical teachings, had a short career in later Christian theology. Why would Paul have been made to teach things which were clearly throwaways for the church ?


By storyline, do you mean the Acts ? Yeah, sure, most of it is pap trying to fit Paul in with people he did not like or associate with. His letters are a different matter, though.

Jiri

spin

This doesn't seem to work logically. When the priestly writers in Genesis didn't use the tetragrammaton for the Jewish god in the early part of Genesis, it was because they believed that the term was only given to Moses. The earlier writers of the Yahwistic material had no problem using the tetragrammaton. Similarly, the relevant writer of Acts may have had knowledge analogous to the priestly writers and chose not to use episkopos because the position as he understood it didn't exist in Paul's time. Contrary to your idea the use of presbuter instead of the Pauline episkopos (assuming the writer knew Paul's work) would in fact indicate late writing.


spin

maryhelena

The apostle Paul is part of the NT storyline. Outside of the NT there is no indication, no other independent, non Christian, written reference, that would indicate a historical Paul doing what is attributed to him in the NT.

The theoretical possibility that the apostle Paul was persecuting people who were preaching a mythical Christ - in a time period in Jewish history when expectations of a flesh and blood messiah were very high - would, surely, be a real hard sell.....rather than such believers being persecuted they would much more likely be a laughing stock.....Such ideas, if entertained at all, would not be offered up for the public ridicule that would be bound to come. Only after 70 CE would it be possible to publicly advance such alternative messianic ideas....

Petergdi

No, I don't think so. The writer uses Presbuter and Episkapos interchangeably. It is "Paul in Acts" who uses Episkopos in chapter 20 verse 28. Someone who was not aware that the terms were formerly synonyms would simply find it puzzling.

There is no explicit mention in the NT or 2nd century Christian literature that the words were once synonyms. It is obvious from a critical reading of the NT, and some ancient commentators (such as Theodoret) did figure it out.

By the time of Irenaeus it seems to have widely believed that bishops had been something higher ranking than presbuters even in apostolic times. But in Acts 20 they are just casually used as synonyms.

The case of the Tetragrammaton in Genesis is not parallel. The Torah itself gives the story of how the Name was revealed to Moses. Both the revelation of the Name to Moses and the lack of the Tetragrammaton earlier are both characteristic of the E source.

Peter.

maryhelena

Why do I doubt Paul and not the others you named? The NT storyline.....

Obviously, early Christianity began with ideas from possibly a number of people. Very possibly there was a major individual who contributed extensively to its theology/spirituality. My position is that it is not necessary to assume that that individual was the NT Paul. The NT storyline regarding Paul, as well as its time line, do not, to me, sit comfortably prior to 70 CE. Rather than assume a historical NT Paul, I prefer to view the NT figure of Paul as being modeled upon whoever it was that was a major player in early Christianity. I view the NT as backdating later events, as an origin story of early Christianity.

maryhelena

I'm not doubting that some important individual played a major role in the theological/spiritual development of early Christianity. Obviously, not. In fact such an individual most probably became the role model for the NT Paul. The issue is dating the beginning of early Christianity. I don't see this development as taking place prior to 70 CE. Thus, I see the NT storyline as a backdating of Christian origins.

spin

Sorry, there's nothing obvious about it. If there were, one could easily point to it. I haven't seen anyone credibly point to the like.

Why do you prefer this?

On what grounds?


spin

Amaleq13

And I see no reason to expect it. Very weak argument from silence.

I suppose that would depend on what sort of "mythical Christ" you imagine they were selling but selling faith in a resurrected crucifixion victim would, surely, be no easier a task. This is a "problem" shared by either camp.

And a laughing stock attaching itself to a particular religion can't anger some of the more devout members?

Paul's persecutions are consistent with both HJ and MJ.

the_cave

Fascinating. Well, you certainly get points for creativity! I can't deny it's a valid solution, so we'll leave it at that.

the_cave

Sure, the student was ignorant of her insight, and was probably being insecure. Still, I think it was a "teaching moment" as they say. That's the extent of my pedagogy lecture for today