Matthew 27:25: a self-blaming lynch mob?

[Blood]

But that doesn't mean or isn't the same thing as saying there never was a(n) historical apostle. It is the specific Catholic construct of "Saul who became Paul" and all that comes with it in Acts that is a lie. Those who came before the Catholics kept their apostle (all that came before our "Paul") secret. That argues against a complete fiction. It was that historical silence which allowed "Saul called Paul" to fill the void. But there was something there. It was just kept secret, like the occultated imam in certain Islamic sects

Correct. The "historical Paul" is a separate problem from the legendary/fictional character represented in the 14 epistles and Acts. When I'm in a generous mood, I follow Maccoby and think there was a historical Paul who was a Herodian; or an embittered, wanna-be Pharisee whom they had kicked out; or a proselyte.

[toejam]

^Blood do you think it's a fact that a historical Paul didn't write Galatians?

[maryhelena]

But that doesn't mean or isn't the same thing as saying there never was a(n) historical apostle. It is the specific Catholic construct of "Saul who became Paul" and all that comes with it in Acts that is a lie. Those who came before the Catholics kept their apostle (all that came before our "Paul") secret. That argues against a complete fiction. It was that historical silence which allowed "Saul called Paul" to fill the void. But there was something there. It was just kept secret, like the occultated imam in certain Islamic sects

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus

The idea that Paul was a literary figure did not remove the possibility that behind the epistles lay one outstanding historical figure who was central to the inspiring of the epistles, but that is not the figure whom the epistles portray. Under that person’s inspiration — or the inspiration of that person plus co-workers — the epistles portray a single individual, Paul, who incorporates in himself and in his teaching a distillation of the age-long drama of God’s work on earth. Page 146/147

[maryhelena]

The New Testament letters, however, are not at all analyzed like people commonly analyze ancient letters. Their incidental details are taken to be proof of their authenticity. Their didactic aspects are taken to represent the author's (not a later student's) actual teaching. Their arguments are the actual philosopher's arguments, not a later follower imagining what the person might have said. They are not analyzed the same way as other source texts, such as the ones I mentioned.

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus

What hit me was that the entire narrative regarding Paul, everything, the thirteen epistles say about him or imply — about his life, his work and travels, his character, his sending and receiving of letters, his readers and his relationship to them — all of that was historicized fiction....It was fiction, meaning that the figure of Paul was a work of imagination, but this figure had been historicized — presented in a way that made it look like history, Page 145.

Brodie's "The Birthing of the New Testament" has a very incisive chapter on the Pauline epistles. Well worth reading.

Don't have that book.....Tom Dykstra has given it a five star review on amazon.

I've just ordered the paperback version of Tom Dykstra's book: Mark Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark's Gospel. (The Kindle version looks to be pdf and did not work well with Kindle software - hence amazon gave me a refund...)

[DCHindley]

I've just ordered the paperback version of Tom Dykstra's book: Mark Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark's Gospel. (The Kindle version looks to be pdf and did not work well with Kindle software - hence amazon gave me a refund...)

You do realize that Adobe provides a free Reader for PDF files? AND, as these e-books are OCR scans, you can search them for words and phrases. I never saw the advantage of Kindle.

DCH

[maryhelena]

I've just ordered the paperback version of Tom Dykstra's book: Mark Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark's Gospel. (The Kindle version looks to be pdf and did not work well with Kindle software - hence amazon gave me a refund...)

You do realize that Adobe provides a free Reader for PDF files? AND, as these e-books are OCR scans, you can search them for words and phrases. I never saw the advantage of Kindle.

DCH

Yep, I do, re Adobe reader - but I did not know a way to get the book out of the Kindle software....(I have Kindle reader for laptop and tablet. I would have preferred the ebook for searching and copy and paste - but had to settle on the paperback - which should arrive tomorrow.....)

[Blood]

^Blood do you think it's a fact that a historical Paul didn't write Galatians?

"Facts" will be elusive when examining any ancient religious document. But the fact that we have good reason to believe that several different anonymous Christian apologists wrote fake letters pretending to be someone named "Paul" doesn't give me great confidence in the supposed authenticity of "Galatians."

[MrMacSon]

^Blood do you think it's a fact that a historical Paul didn't write Galatians?

"Facts" will be elusive when examining any ancient religious document. But ... that we have good reason to believe that several different anonymous Christian apologists wrote fake letters, pretending to be someone named "Paul", doesn't give me great confidence in the supposed authenticity of "Galatians."

Best frame these things in terms of probability, or probabilities, at this stage at least?

[toejam]

^Blood do you think it's a fact that a historical Paul didn't write Galatians?

"Facts" will be elusive when examining any ancient religious document. But the fact that we have good reason to believe that several different anonymous Christian apologists wrote fake letters pretending to be someone named "Paul" doesn't give me great confidence in the supposed authenticity of "Galatians."

OK, good. Just checking. But I still don't see how this problem of not knowing with certainty the exact authorship of Galatians is problematic to the original point of whether Christianity was an off-shoot of Judaism or originally a gentile cultus. What difference does it make whether Galatians is forged or not in this regard? Either way, it is still one of the earliest Christian texts we know of. And are you now going to suggest that it doesn't contain something of the reality of the issues on the ground, so-to-speak?

[toejam]

^Blood do you think it's a fact that a historical Paul didn't write Galatians?

"Facts" will be elusive when examining any ancient religious document. But ... that we have good reason to believe that several different anonymous Christian apologists wrote fake letters, pretending to be someone named "Paul", doesn't give me great confidence in the supposed authenticity of "Galatians."

Best frame these things in terms of probability, or probabilities, at this stage at least?

Yes, I agree. I was just checking with Blood. I've stated many times here on this board that my position is that very little can be established as "fact" or "certainty" when it comes to ancient history.

But yeah, given the discussion with Blood is over whether Christianity started as an off-shoot of Judaism or whether it was originally a gentile cultus, I'm curious as to how he concludes that it is more probable that it was the latter.