TedM

First it was 'Jesus never existed'. Along with this came 'the disciples -- except maybe a few -- never existed'. Now, incredibly, some are claiming that Paul himself never existed. This theory requires highly creative explanations for the writings attributed to Paul.

I personally consider those who believe the fictional Paul hypothesis to have a screw loose. To be warped in their thinking. I'm not saying they are bona-fide crazy, but I think there is a psychological problem behind this kind of thinking. It seems to be closely tied in with a near pathological distrust of authority and I would argue, human beings in general. So, it fascinates me, because I tend to be more trusting, gullible perhaps..

Anyway, I'd like input here from the more reasonable thinking individuals: What are the TOP arguments against this fictional Paul hypothesis?

I would think the arguments fall under these categories:

1. Internal clues in Pauline writings pointing to a 1st century date
2. The Acts - Pauline writings consistencies and inconsistencies pointing to authenticity of Pauline writings
3. The gospel - Pauline writings problem: Relative absence of gospel references in Pauline writings.
4. The gospel - Pauline writings problem: External early acceptance of Paul by people who also accepted the Gospels
5. The absence of any hard evidence for this ridiculous theory.

I'm starting this thread in the hopes that this crazy theory will be squashed down by means of some actual rational discussion. However, I'm too busy to participate much. Perhaps the few reasonable thinking individuals left on this forum would like to participate, and if we are real lucky the thread will start to become more level-headed, as it was in the past. Until that happens, I'm afraid the higher level of rational discussion it once had will never return..

Toto

If you want a rational discussion, you would do well to avoid rhetorical excesses such as screw loose. . . . warped in their thinking.. . .there is a psychological problem behind this kind of thinking. . . . a near pathological distrust of authority and I would argue, human beings in general.

If you want to define Paul as the author of the Pauline epistles, then of course he existed. If you want to define Paul as a first century character somewhat like the Saul-Paul of Acts, then you have a problem.

So what is your evidence?

I don't know of any. There's a reference to King Aretas, but it's not clear which Aretas, and it is impossible to work out a chronology where either Aretas III or IV was in control of Damascus when Paul might have been there.

How are these inconsistencies supposed to point to the authenticity of either one?

What does this show?

I think you've got a problem there. Justin Martyr didn't give a hint of accepting Paul. Paul was known as the apostle of the heretics.

There is a total absence of any evidence for the existence of Paul outside of Christian writings. Supposedly, he was traipsing around the Roman Empire, getting himself arrested and stirring up controversy, but no one seems to have noticed.

stephan huller

How do you explain that the Marcionites thought that Paul wrote the original gospel? The Marcionites rejected Acts. I don't understand this thread.

TedM

The purpose of the thread is to present positive evidence against a fictional Paul hypothesis. The ultimate purpose is to use rationality to squash this ridiculous theory (if that is what it is) in order to help move the compass back to a more 'truly rational' group of users of this forum. It has been hijacked by the conspiracy thinking crowd. Extremists.

I don't know what the Marcionites thought about Paul, and Acts, so can't comment on your question.

TedM

Aretas IV according to wiki ruled up to roughly 40 AD. That's the first century, and it is quite consistent with the orthodox chronology. There apparently was a very good reason to place Aretas IV in Syria around this time. According to wiki, citing Josephus, Aretas IV invaded Herod's territories sometime after AD26, when he divorced Aretas's daughter. In response Herod Antipas appealed to Emperor Tiberius, who dispatched the governor of Syria to attack Aretas. According to wiki, The accounts by Paul in 2 Cor and in Galatians in no way requires that the date be fixed before 37AD (the year Tiberius died - some think Aretas couldn't have been there before that). The account in Acts also allow for a length of time to have elapsed ('after many days') before this event occurred.


That's what the contributors to the thread will have to show. If Acts and Paulline writings were both total fictional written in the 2nd century or later, one would expect them to be highly reliant on one another -- thus not many inconsistencies, and certainly not with regard to Paul's conversion.


That's what the contributors to the thread will have to determine. It certainly suggests that the conspiracy to create Paul was a different conspiracy than the one to create a historical Jesus.

The problem I'm referring to is this: If the orthodox created Paul and his writings, why didn't Paul include more HJ stuff? If the heretics created Paul and his writings, when did this happen, why did it happen, and how did it happen? THEN, when, why and how did the orthodox accept Paul into their fold without massively interpolating the original forgeries with HJ stuff?

If Paul was the apostle of the heretics, wouldn't Justin Martyr have known of Paul? If so, then his silence wasn't due to Paul being fictional. The issue isn't only Justin Martyr's silence. It is the origin of Paul's writings.

You have to show why or where there should be external references to Paul, for that argument to be any good. My comment about the lack of evidence for this ridiculous theory is with regard to the record left in the writings: Where are the dissenters in orthodoxy? Where are the people saying that Paul never even existed but was made up in the first place?

No need to respond. I'd like to stay on topic and hear the best arguments against a fictional Paul--not the ones FOR one.

Godless Raven

*crickets chirping*

TedM

just noticed the topic misspelling..how do I change the Title?

stephan huller

But in a section dealing with those who reject Acts Irenaeus notes that some deny the existence of Paul. The paradox of Tertullian's reference to the Marcionite conception of the apostle writing the gospel is also worth noting. The apostle we call 'Paul' is said to have written the original gospel but - at the same name - it is not 'according to Paul.' Go figure.

TedM

I'd have to see the wording. Is it beyond dispute that people in Irenaeus' day denied that Paul existed? Might it be interpreted differently--such as a denial that he wrote certain things attributed to him, or a denial of his theology?

As to the 'original gospel', I thought you were referring to one book. I see you are referring to the collection of Paul's epistles. I'm not sure what needs explaining regarding those, nor the importance of the Marcionite rejection of Acts. I don't know what the point of your comments is yet.

Turning in...

stephan huller

What's more Tertullian makes reference to the Marcionites refusing to acknowledge any biographical information about their apostle (Book Four). I don't think anyone reasonably denies that at least a portion of the Pauline Epistles goes back to a historical individual. The question becomes is whether our inherited Catholic portrait of 'Paul' the 'Pharisee bountyhunter' a student of Gamaliel of the tribe of Benjamin etc. is historically accurate. I say certainly false or at least a disputed question in the late second century.