Layman

That certainly clears the air, doesn't it?

So if there is a tiny minority of dissenters on a subject that enjoys overwhelming scholarly support, . . . eh, what exactly? If this is just an appeal to authority it's a strange one. Or are you adopting their arguments?

It is? What about 1 Clement?

If, as almost all New Testament scholars and historians conclude, Paul wrote many of those Pauline letters, we can know plenty about Paul. Indeed, we have first hand accounts of his life and of what he witnessed. Which is all the more reliable because Paul was not writing a history, he was responding to different occasions and interacting with others who were also informed as to what was going on.

Toto

Hi Layman, good to see that the Dark Lord has not scared you off.

It sure is easy to distort what I write by snipping a few sentences out of context, isn't it? I mentioned the Dutch Radicals as an example of historians who tried to make sense of the data. I don't know that it is possible to make complete sense out of the documentary evidence for early Christianity.

You are right, Clement does mention Paul. But Peter Kirby's website notes:

"The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness." (quoting Laurence Welborn)

Layman

Despite his efforts, no, not yet.

Perhaps it is, but how have I done so?

All historians -- by definition -- who have studied this field has tried to make sense of the data.

So what?

I did not claim that he was an eyewitness. I was responding this statment by you:

If you propose that the letters ascribed to Paul were written later, then your only evidence for Paul's existence is the book of Acts,

You said nothing about eyewitness testimony.

But you are right in a way.

If you assume that all the evidence used by almost all historians or scholars in the relevant field to support a proposition in fact does not exist, then you will be reasonable in concluding that the proposition is questionable.

Sauron

Scaring you off was not the goal.

Getting you to justify your positions was the goal.

You demonstrated much skill at bluster, but failed in the end.

Sauron

Such an innocent waif you are, Layman.

You said:
So if there is a tiny minority of dissenters on a subject that enjoys overwhelming scholarly support, . . . eh, what exactly? If this is just an appeal to authority it's a strange one. Or are you adopting their arguments?

It's obvious that Toto was just giving the original questioner a place to start his investigation into the question that opened this thread.

But your comment implies that Toto was (1) making an appeal to authority, and / or (2) that he was particularly endorsing the Dutch radicals view and siding with their interpretation on Paul's writings. Even though Toto goes on to say:

But really, nobody debates if Paul existed.

His letters are the best evidence that he existed, but not 100% convincing.

Obviously, Toto isn't taking the extremist position you are painting him with.

Toto

Hi Layman, I distinguish between knowing what you can know from your senses, extended by scientific instruments, and what can be actually "known" about ancient history, which is practically nothing. The best you can do is formulate a hypothesis and check it against available evidence, and accept that some things happened with some degree of probability.

With early Christian history, you have some documents which have been subject to selection, revision, admitted forgery, innocent copying error, random destruction, and very little else in the way of evidence. I maintain that it is impossible to know with any degree of certainty many facts about that period.

Sauron

Just a quick note: according to several sources (such as the Oxford Companion), the pastoral letters (Titus, 1&2 Tim) are not considered to be written by Paul. While their Pauline character is obvious, there are stylistic issues that suggest that Paul was not the author.

capnkirk

I too struggled with Saul/Paul's conversion. The more I studied, the more confusing he became. Then, while studying translations of the early Talmudic scripts concerning the roles of the Pharaisees in the birth of rabbinic Judaism (the Pharaisees became the rabbis of contempory Judaism.), it struck me that this account was completely at odds with their depiction in the NT (In fact, Jesus seemed to have much in common with Pharaisees, certainly much more than did Paul, making his claim to being one increasingly suspect). Soon afterwards I discovered (from the same sources) that the Sadduccees were the ruling elite of the Levites (The Levites were given the duty/honor of maintaining the Temple and the ark of the covenant. (In Judaism, there are many synagogues, but only one temple). During the Roman occupation, the Roman governor thought he could better control the Jewish populus by holding the wealth of the leaders of the Temple hostage. Thus the Sadduccees came under the domination of Rome. As Rome wanted any potential rebellion quashed before it could grow legs, the Sadduccees became (like the Vicchy French) the occupier's puppet governors and police.

It seemed to me that Saul was most likely a Sadduccee hireling, paid to prosecute any potential Jewish messiah. The historical Jesus' messianic claim made him and his followers a prime target. Paul never actualy met Jesus, though he persecuted his lay followers.

These things led me to consider that the historical Jesus WAS a candidate messiah in the strictly Jewish context. Starting from that assumption, I started finding increasing evidence to support that contention. Finally I stumbled on a book by Hyam Maccoby titled "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity". Voila! Here was an in-depth study of precisely what I had already begun to discover. After reading it, many of the puzzling contradictions of Paul and the NT evaporated! The paradigm shift came at Paul's Damascus Road experience. It was not Saul who was converted. It was Jesus who was converted from Jewish messiah to Hellenist man/god and savior of the world. Paul's new vision of Jesus was blasphemous to Jesus' own disciples (in the body of the Church in Jerusalem, who still considered themselves good Jews), but not to the Hellenist cults prevalent around Saul's native Tarsus. Paul's claim to being a learned Pharaisee was most likely intended to convince Jews of a continuity between Judaism and Christianity. If this piques your curiosity, you can still find used copies of this book on Amazon.com.

Secular Pinoy

That sounds like an interesting book, capn. I'll try to find a bookstore that has it. Gerd Ludemann has a new book out that also argues for Paul as Founder of Christianity. Here's the book description:

Toto

Peter Kirby has set up a new web page, didjesusexist.com , which contains an interesting essay, Qumran and Early Christianity. I recommend this essay for a new look at the relationship between Paul and the Gospels. The author draws on Maccoby's work.