J-D

In historical investigation, insisting at the start on cramming all possibilities in under just two headings typically obscures rather than clarifying the issues.

I am going to give a partial illustration of the range and diversity of possibilities by taking Galatians as a starting point, although similar illustrations could be produced from other starting points.

A1. Galatians was substantially the product of a single author.
A2. Galatians was substantially the product of collaborative authorship.
A2 opens up a further sub-range of possibilities because there are different ways in which authors can collaborate.

Multiplying the range of possibilities, each of the following is compatible with either A1 or A2.
B1. The text of Galatians as it survives is entirely the work of the original author or authors.
B2. The text of Galatians as it survives includes some components interpolated into the original work of the original author or authors.
Again, B2 open up a further sub-range of possibilities because there are different circumstances in which interpolation can take place, as well as an indefinitely large set of possible combinations of passages which might be attributed to interpolation.

Multiplying still further, each combination of A and B possibilities is compatible with each of the following.
C1. The principal author or authors of Galatians is or are also the principal author or authors of all of the other so-called 'Pauline epistles'.
C2. The principal author or authors of Galatians is or are also the principal author or authors of some of the other so-called 'Pauline epistles'.
C3. The principal author or authors of Galatians did not write any of the other so-called 'Pauline epistles'.
C2 opens up another sub-range of possibilities for attributing different combinations of the so-called 'Pauline epistles' to the author or authors of Galatians, and C3 opens up another sub-range of possibilities for attributing some combination of the so-called 'Pauline epistles', excluding Galatians, to a common authorship. In addition, each possible combination for A and B is also applicable, with the appropriate changes, to each of the other so-called 'Pauline epistles', further multiplying the range of possibilities.

We've now got a range of different possibilities, under some of which (but not others) it is meaningful to refer to a principal author of the Pauline epistles. Compatible with each of the different possibilities for a principal author are each of the following.
D1: Acts gives a biographical account, under the name 'Paul', which is wholly accurate for the life of the principal author of the Pauline epistles.
D2: Acts gives a biographical account, under the name 'Paul', which combines significant elements which are accurate for the life of the principal author of the Pauline epistles with significant elements which are not.
D3: The biographical account given for 'Paul' in Acts contains no substantial elements which are accurate for the principal author of the Pauline epistles.
D2 opens up a further range of sub-possibilities, because there are different combinations of elements from the account in Acts which might be accepted as accurate.

Each of D1, D2, and D3 is compatible with each of the following possibilities, multiplying the range further.
E1: Nothing in the surviving non-Biblical traditions referring to 'Paul the Apostle' is historically accurate.
E2: Some elements of the surviving non-Biblical traditions referring to 'Paul the Apostle' are historically accurate.
E3: All of the surviving non-Biblical traditions referring to 'Paul the Apostle' are historically accurate.
Again, E2 opens up a further sub-range of possibilities in an obvious way.

I don't think any of the possible combinations of possibilities is clearly and accurately summed up by saying 'Paul was a historical identity' or 'Paul was not a historical identity', but if there were two possibilities which could be summed up in that way, there would still be just as many other possibilities not covered by a simple binary choice.

Consider, just for example, the possibility of somebody who takes the position that the bulk of the so-called Pauline epistles, but not the whole, was the work of a single author, and that only a few limited portions of the biographical account from Acts accurately represent aspects of the life of that author, although the account as a whole was intended by its writer or writers to be taken as a biography of that author. Such a position would not be clearly and accurately summed up either as 'Paul was a historical identity' or 'Paul was not a historical identity'.

mountainman

Why do some people believe that Paul was an historical person?

J-D

That depends partly on what is meant by the sentence 'Paul was a historical person'.

mountainman

The two antithetical postulates I have been presenting are not meant to replace any other postulates, or to limit the detailed nature of the investigation in any manner. I am attempting to clarify the roles of all hypotheses, millions of them, not just the two I have introduced above.



The elucidation is appreciated, and I understand your point that the evidence may be examined at different scales. You mention above that at one scale of examination, each verse and each word of each verse might be separately examined, perhaps by those who suspect interpolation.



No, the combinations of possibilities is not summed up by saying 'Paul was a historical identity' or 'Paul was not a historical identity' - I am not making that claim at all. My claim is that the combination of all possibilities INCLUDES the hypothesis that 'Paul was a historical identity' or 'Paul was not a historical identity'.


In this example it seems that somebody takes the position that there are some letters of the so-called Pauline epistles which are legitimately authored by an historical Paul, and other letters that have been fabricated, and not actually authored by the legitimate Paul, but by another or others, as yet unknown. This somebody also thinks that bits of Acts could support the historical existence of this same legitimate Paul.

Such a position of course would not be clearly and accurately summed up either as 'Paul was a historical identity' or 'Paul was not a historical identity' because the use of such an hypothesis is not designed to sum up things, but to provide elementary hypotheses about each evidence item that may be related together.

In the example provided, for the genuine Pauline epistles that same somebody may hypothesize that their author 'Paul was a historical identity', whereas for the remnant letters, not authored by Paul but by some other as yet unknown historical identity, they may separate postulate that their real author was 'XXXX an historical identity" . This still leaves the positive hypothesis that 'Paul was a historical identity' associated with what the somebody sees as the SUBSET of positive evidence.

I will repeat what I wrote at the beginning of this post:

The two antithetical postulates I have been presenting are not meant to replace any other postulates, or to limit the detailed nature of the investigation in any manner. I am attempting to clarify the roles of all hypotheses, millions of them, not just the two I have introduced above.

The hypothesis 'Paul was a historical identity' is quite operative in many theories of biblical historians, while in other theories the antithetical hypothesis 'Paul was not a historical identity' is being explored. It certainly need not be the main hypothesis used by the theory, and in fact it may just be one of thousands of other hypotheses used. Wherever there is an appeal to the existence of an historical figure, I see this as using this hypothesis "Such as such was an historical identity". You need one for each person in the historical narrative being considered (or the antithetical hypothesis).

J-D

Then you are failing. You are not clarifying; you are doing the opposite.Neither of those is a clear statement of any hypothesis.Whatever purpose you were designing them for, they are badly designed.Insisting on applying the form of words you have suggested adds nothing to the statement of the case I have already made and simply makes things less clear.Then I repeat what I said: you are failing. You are not clarifying; you are doing the opposite.I would be very interested to see if you can show any examples of biblical historians writing, in those words, 'Paul was a historical identity' or 'Paul was not a historical identity'.I see no need for such things, and your endless insistence on it is entirely unpersuasive.

mountainman

Did you miss earlier references about explicit and implicit forms of the hypothesis? The bulk of mainstream assume we are dealing with a genuine and authentic Paul, who authored at least some of the so-called Pauline letters and is mentioned in acts. In anyone's language this translates as an implicit and provisional hypothesis that "Paul was a historical figure". I dont see why you are attempting to evade the facts of the situation.

J-D

That's not to the point. I said I would be very interested to see if you can show any examples of biblical historians writing, in those words, 'Paul was a historical identity. That's absolutely true. I would be very interested.I would also be very interested if you can show any examples of mainstream historians writing, in those words, 'we are dealing with a genuine and authentic Paul'.No; not in mine.But why translate at all?I'm not going to say that I don't see why you insist on avoiding referring to the words people have actually used in favour of putting words in their mouths. I'm not completely certain, but I think I can hazard a guess at why you do that. I won't mention it, though, because it's not flattering to you and I don't want to be unfair when I'm only speculating.

mountainman

It is precisely to the point I am making: the hypothesis need not be explicit as you have expressed it, it can be implied in another hypothesis that makes reference to Paul.



I have already stated why. People use hypotheses in both the explicit and the implicit form. I have stated above in discussion with Toto and others about the hypothesis that Doug put forward about Paul, that he is actually employing the hypothesis "Paul was a historical figure" in an implicit form.


That's very kind of you. However it may do no harm to examine some of the EXPLICIT statements historians and biblical scholars have made about the historical identity that is known to one half of the word as Paul and to the other half of the world as "Saint Paul". They will say he existed, and if they dont, then they will imply that he must have existed as an historical identity.

I have already cited Detering comments:

EXAMPLE ONE: Detering on Paul

This statement is explicit. This indicates that Detering is considering each of these three hypotheses in his treatment.


EXAMPLE TWO: A James McGrath–Earl Doherty Exchange


The exchange starts with James McGrath’s post

Earl expressed the hypothesis that we are discussing (i.e "Paul was an historical identity") in these terms .... " a conviction of reality in regard to Paul." It is the same thing. Paul's historical existence is implied.

Both Earl Doherty and James McGrath run with a working hypothesis in relation to the historicity of Paul that "Paul was an historical figure". While James McGrath additionally runs with the working hypothesis that "Jesus was an historical figure", it seems reasonably clear from my reading of Earl, that Earl is not running with that hypothesis, but in fact its antithesis, that "Jesus was not an historical figure".

J-D

You say it's implied. You've given no reason to think so.Just one in your long list of erroneous statements.No, it isn't.I remember you citing the comment, and I remember explaining how it doesn't make sense.

mountainman

If Detering makes no sense I have cited a second example from Earl Doherty and James McGrath’.

Earl Doherty Believes Paul Existed…For Much the Same Reasons Historians Believe Jesus Existed



Does it too make no sense?