I think that who benefits from a false Paul (or a Paul post-70) are:
the proponents of the post-70 Origins of Christianity (cfr Paul George, Robert Stahl)
the proponents of the identity historical Jesus == Jesus ben Sapphat (cfr George Solomon, G. Doudna)
the proponents of the idea that the proto-gospel invented Jesus as the allegory of a group, and that even the crucifixion is allegory of the suffering of a group and only of it (cfr Neil Godfrey, Bruno Bauer).
the proponents of Gnostic or Marcionite origins of Christianity (cfr. Van Eysinga, Martijn Linssen, Freke-Gandy, Secret Alias)
Vice versa, who benefits from a genuine pre-70 Paul are:
the proponents of a celestial Jesus crucified in outer space (cfr Richard Carrier)
the proponents of a Jesus lived in a remote past (cfr Alvar Ellegard)
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 6:51 amI think that who benefits from a false Paul (or a Paul post-70) are:
Raphael Lataster, who writes:
I do not assert that Jesus did not exist. I am a Historical Jesus agnostic. That is, I am unconvinced by the case for the Historical Jesus, and find several reasons to be doubtful. To compare these terms to those often used when discussing the issue of God’s existence, the ‘historicist’ is the equivalent of the ‘theist’, and the ‘mythicist’ is the equivalent of the ‘strong atheist’ or ‘hard naturalist’. The oft-forgotten ‘Historical Jesus agnostic’ is the equivalent of, well, the ‘God agnostic’.
I'd like to throw one more term into the mix. Not all ‘atheists’ are ‘strong atheists. Some are simply ‘agnostics’. I would like to propose, then, that we use the term ‘ahistoricists’ to encompass both the ardent ‘mythicists’ and the less certain ‘agnostics’. This avoids the false dichotomy, which I think historicists (much like theists) have been taking advantage of. They often frame the debate as only being between the right and the wrong, the reasonable and righteous historicists versus the silly mythicists, ironically appearing as unnuanced and dogmatic fundamentalists in the process. (As with the common false dilemma, presented by apologists, of ‘the truth’ being found in ‘Christianity’ or in ‘strong atheism’.)
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 12:53 pm
Hebrews pre-70 / priority of John could be an interesting alternative in that scenario.
And in the Hebrews pre-70 / priority of John scenario it is possible for true-Paul to proclaim his Lord IS XS the 50s B.C.
Carrier does not dismiss a 50s B.C. Paul as plausible, but plumps for 50s A.D. Paul having a the preponderance of evidence.
Paul could likely have been writing, say, a few decades earlier, for example. So the only plausible times are still the 50s B.C. or A.D. And the latter is where the preponderance of evidence leans.
It’s important to note that Paul never does tell us why Aretas or his ethnarch were hunting him. And whether Paul is writing in the 50s B.C. or A.D. we still can’t reconstruct why that would be.
--Carrier (18 July 2021). "How Do We Know the Apostle Paul Wrote His Epistles in the 50s A.D.?". Richard Carrier Blogs.
Peter Kirby wrote:
Hebrews pre-701 / priority of John1,2 could be an interesting alternative in that scenario.
And the priority of the Book of Revelation
1 Hebrews (+/- John or Revelation) need not be pre-70, either (but it wouldn't matter if they were)
2 the book attributed to 'John' might be preceded by the epistles attributed to 'John' (and I wonder of the Secret Book/Apocryphon of John (attributed to a Sethian) is tied up in there somewhere)
