Historicity of Paul, apostle and letter-writer

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks Peter for the information.

No worries.

Gavin R. has commented:

http://otagosh.blogspot.com/2015/06/pau ... -thou.html

My own brief and clumsy comments on Detering's The Fabricated Paul were posted here in 2012. Not surprising then that I find Carrier's critique quite convincing.

If you're one of those sad individuals who, like myself, finds these issues utterly fascinating, you're unlikely to be disappointed.

Those comments:

http://otagosh.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/d ... ering.html

Deterred from Detering am I, as I move into the tail end of his book. It's not that I don't love a stimulating reconstruction that pokes conservative Christianity in the eye... those good folk desperately need to be broken out of their terminal inertia, so it's almost a positive act of agape. But Detering, in my view, over argues his case. Finding connections between Paul and Thecla - on one hand - and Simon Magus and Helena on the other... not so flash. One strand of legend has Simon described as a leper, therefore Paul's 'thorn in the flesh' was leprosy? Jesus chowed down with Mr. Magus in Mark 14:3? Mary Magdalene was a 'tower-virgin', evidenced in part by the Hebrew word Migdal meaning tower?

Methinks we blasted off for the Klingon home world sometime after chapter two.

In fact Detering has threaded a string of improbabilities together and declared them amazing coincidences that can scarcely be doubted. I've met that kind of argumentation before, and its a sunny walk into delusional von Danikenism.

More modest claims about the Marcionite connection are still interesting, and I suspect there's more than a grain of truth therein. But this stuff ends up almost as wildly improbable as Maurice Casey's portrait of Jesus (sorry, I'll repent of that comparison later).

Not rigorous history then, but Detering's case does make a great yarn. Alas, in my view, he has over-peppered the steak to the point of inedibility.

[Giuseppe]

Peter wrote to Richard:

I’m sure you would agree that we can divide the subject into two questions: (1) the historicity of an apostle Paul and (2) the authenticity of the letters attributed to Paul.

I would disagree. If the 'historicus Paulus' wrote nothing and even was not named 'Paul', then very probable in his place could esisted many 'Pauls' (read: people eager to free themselves from the Law) of which our Paul would be only the mere literary, idealized compendium. The 2 questions therefore, are strictly linked.

[Peter Kirby]

Peter wrote to Richard:

I’m sure you would agree that we can divide the subject into two questions: (1) the historicity of an apostle Paul and (2) the authenticity of the letters attributed to Paul.

I would disagree.

But you'd be wrong.

wrote nothing

Says who?

and even was not named 'Paul'

Says who?

very probable in his place could esisted many 'Pauls'

Or, you know, the opposite of that. Just one mid-first-century church leader and missionary called Paul. Or Saul. Or both. Or one of them.

"Need to hear about Jesus? Just call Saul!" ... Maybe that's what his little papyrus he carried with him said.

Obviously there were other missionaries/leaders (too).

The 2 questions therefore, are strictly linked.

Incredibly, amazingly, horribly, horrifyingly illogical.

[maryhelena]

Richard Carrier

Jesus belongs to several myth-heavy reference classes

Paul does not belong to any such class.

I fail to see how this distinction between the NT figures of Jesus and Paul has anything to do with a historical argument for Paul....for goodness sake - how many authors create fictional characters without any of the trimmings of mythology?

Sadly, it looks to me, that Paul is as big a stumbling block for many mythicists as is the Jesus character for the historicists...Mythicists like Carrier and Doherty have a vested interest in upholding a historical Paul....

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Ch.16. Paul: The Penny Finally Drops.

• 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's 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.
  
  On that May morning in 2008 in the library the idea that the figure of Paul is literary rather than historical hit me with a shock. It also hit me quite simply as the truth.

Perhaps Carrier should take the time to read, and respond to, the arguments of Thomas Brodie against a historical Paul.

[Bingo]

In his reply of June 6, 2015 at 1:29 pm, Richard Carrier wrote:

His original name could well have been Saul, its nearest homophone; although Luke might have just made that up for the same reason.

Nope. Fail.

The episode in Acts 13:4-12 (where Saul, Barnabas, and John meet the Jewish false prophet named “son-of-Jesus” and his intelligent boss named “Sergius Paul”) is just too damned weird to co-exist with either of Carrier’s two possibilities.

That passage (Acts 13:4-12) just reeks of some type of insider joke or gnosticism. It has that “Wink wink nudge nudge, say no more, say no more” vibe going for it.

“Son-of-Jesus” becomes “Elymas” for no apparent reason.

“Sergius Paul” becomes “the proconsul” for no apparent reason.

And finally “Saul” becomes “Paul” for no apparent reason.

Now I’m not sure what kind of hocus-pocus the author is trying to convey, but if Paul’s original name been Saul, or if “Luke might have just made that up for the same reason” (as Carrier suggests), then it seems unlikly that the author of Acts 13:4-12 would have invented a passage like that. Acts 13:4-12 is the only hint or explaination that we have in the bible for why Saul was also called Paul - and it’s an intentional mind-fuck.

Am I making any sence?

Imho Richard Carrier has Earl Doherty’s foot sticking in his mouth and he needs to get it out.

[Bernard Muller]

Dr. Detering:
Moreover, that the name Paul could already be conceived in a figurative sense by the writer of the Pauline letters can be clearly seen in 1 Cor 15:9, where “Paul” speaks of himself as the last and the smallest, like a “miscarriage” as it were. B. Bauer correctly commented about this: “He is the last, the unexpected, the conclusion, the dear nestling. Even his Latin name, Paul, expresses smallness, which stands in contrast to the majesty to which he is elevated by grace in the preceding passages of the letter.
(The Falsified Paul, p. 145)

Detering’s argument is void if 1 Cor 15:3-11 is (rightly so) considered a later interpolation as I explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/9.htm

Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

“Son-of-Jesus” becomes “Elymas” for no apparent reason.

The commentary I read said the author probably couldn't bear to call him Son or Jesus. This perhaps has support from the fact that author included the words "for so his name is translated" right after calling him Elymas the sorceror.

“Sergius Paul” becomes “the proconsul” for no apparent reason.

?? He doesn't 'become' the proconsul. He is identified as such.

And finally “Saul” becomes “Paul” for no apparent reason.

The commentary says this:

It was common for people in that day to have names that were similar, yet different according to the language or culture they were in. Certainly, Saul's given name was Saul, a Jewish name after the first king of Israel. But his Roman name was Paul, sounding similar to "Saul."

What is curious is the fact that we have a Saul who follows Jesus first identified as also being called Paul in the midst of a passage that talks about how a 'Bar Jesus' tried to dissuade Saul from converting someone by the name of Sergius Paul.

If this is a 'wink-wink' I'm as baffled as you seem to be about it. Maybe it is simply a coincidence that the names line up so closely. There also is the possibility that in translation names got mixed up--that is perhaps Sergius Paul was an error and his name was simply Sergius. That would reduce the coincidence factor greatly.

[Blood]

Given that the gospels are not written by the authors ascribed, 7 of the supposed Pauline epistles are not by the author ascribed, and none of the other letters in the NT are by the authors ascribed, I think the "prior probability" of anything in the NT being actually written by the person ascribed is exceedingly low; therefore the most logical conclusion is that the search for "authenticity" in any NT document is not only futile but basically apologetic. And, indeed, Carrier is quite happy to employ seminary-type apologetics to the letters to make his theories work. Anything that might betray a post-70 date for the letters is written off as an interpolation.

[Bernard Muller]

I have this blog post in favor of Paul having existed and a least writing some letters:
http://historical-jesus.info/55.html

I reproduce below the ending of that blog post:
>> One more point: does the above verses look to come from a "fabricated Paul"?
According to 1 Cor 16:21, Paul did not write the letter, he dictated it.
And Paul, very likely, did not want to loose face in front of his scribe, probably one of his followers, by asking him to erase several verses or rewriting the letter (if on a scroll) or part of it (if on sheets). That would imply Paul made a mistake (& was not inspired from above!).
However, someone writing in the name of Paul in secret had the luxury to do some rewriting in order to remove any "faux pas". <<

Cordially, Bernard

[maryhelena]

Given that the gospels are not written by the authors ascribed, 7 of the supposed Pauline epistles are not by the author ascribed, and none of the other letters in the NT are by the authors ascribed, I think the "prior probability" of anything in the NT being actually written by the person ascribed is exceedingly low; therefore the most logical conclusion is that the search for "authenticity" in any NT document is not only futile but basically apologetic. And, indeed, Carrier is quite happy to employ seminary-type apologetics to the letters to make his theories work. Anything that might betray a post-70 date for the letters is written off as an interpolation.

Thomas Brodie has suggested that the 13 Pauline epistles come from 'some form of group or school'.

• Page 139-140
  
  Among the thirteen; most scholars reckon that Paul probably wrote seven (the first four in the New Testament collection: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians; plus three others: 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon). As for the remaining six (2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, and the three to Timothy and Titus), they are ascribed to various elusive authors. So, in this view, seven are from Paul and six are from other writers.
  
  Yet a problem remains. The criteria for distinguishing the seven are unreliable. Some of the seven are as different from one another as the seven are from the six (Horrell 2006:129). For instance, ‘the stylistic difference between 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians is far greater than that between, say, Romans and Ephesians, but nobody supposes for that reason that one of them is not by Paul’ (N.T.Wright 2005:19) This is true even of Ferdinand Christian Baur of Tubingen, whose key work appeared in 1845. Though he limited Paul’s authorship to just four epistles, those four still included both Corinthians epistles. So who really follows these criteria that in principle nearly everybody accepts? How much did Paul write? We have the thirteen epistles, an invaluable collection, but how many writers were involved? How much do we know about Paul’s life?
  
  For over two centuries researchers have tried to reconstruct Paul’s life and work. But the project has not succeeded….
  
  Page: 153
  
  The production of the thirteen epistles bearing Paul’s name may, perhaps, have drawn special inspiration from one individual, but, if so, that individual’s name and history are probably irretrievable, and the available evidence indicates rather that the thirteen epistles come not from one person but from some form of group or school.
  
  Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus