neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:56 am
Another approach is far less common -- I suspect I'm right out on a limb with it yet not entirely alone -- is that the very concept of the figure of Paul was created out of Jewish texts. There is some reason to see him as being created as a second Moses who was primarily responsible for expressing the tenets of the "new covenant". This origination would be pre-Marcionite, of course. I wonder if its possible to see both the NT gospels and Pauline epistles as being misunderstood from the moment they were taken up by both Marcionites and the "proto-orthodox".
That is a very interesting idea. I would like to read more about it.
If I understand Detering correctly, he proposed that the Paul in the letters is comprised of an original character overlaid with a later person taking on his mantel.
The later Paul would be a hard fit for a midrashic Moses, but maybe it fits the older material better. That would resolve the problem of the Marcionites and the NT gospels since they would be based on the "modernized" Paul rather than a misunderstanding of original Paul.
I can't point to any comprehensive discussion of the idea. I'm thinking of snippets I read by Hafeman, Sandnes, Kim... along with the problem that there is no independent indicator of awareness of Paul until the second century.
Maybe there was no "original Paul" either. Moses was a literary persona invented to relay the Pentateuch with some sort of authority. (I'm a "minimalist" and consider the Pentateuch a product of the Persian era at the earliest -- quite likely not appearing even until Hellenistic times.) Paul, the same -- a literary figure around whom authors created various biographies to match what they thought the mouthpiece Paul ought to say and practice. If discussions, debates, could be carried on among scribes in the names of the prophets (did I say I was a "minimalist" -- thinking here of Davies' "scribal schools" of the Persian era) might the different Pauls that emerge across the letters (and within the letters) and Acts of various kinds be part of a similar set of debates?
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:46 am
I can't point to any comprehensive discussion of the idea. I'm thinking of snippets I read by Hafeman, Sandnes, Kim... along with the problem that there is no independent indicator of awareness of Paul until the second century.
Maybe there was no "original Paul" either. Moses was a literary persona invented to relay the Pentateuch with some sort of authority. (I'm a "minimalist" and consider the Pentateuch a product of the Persian era at the earliest -- quite likely not appearing even until Hellenistic times.) Paul, the same -- a literary figure around whom authors created various biographies to match what they thought the mouthpiece Paul ought to say and practice. If discussions, debates, could be carried on among scribes in the names of the prophets (did I say I was a "minimalist" -- thinking here of Davies' "scribal schools" of the Persian era) might the different Pauls that emerge across the letters (and within the letters) and Acts of various kinds be part of a similar set of debates?
I will have to do some more reading and noodling on this. I have no problem seeing historical figures as literary creations. For some reason, tough, I’ve never tried to wrap my head around that for Paul. I suppose because he’s generally not spectacular enough to warrant it (in my mind). Legendary creations are usually embellished with impressive feats and attributes. Paul always comes across to me as a bit too human and ordinary, if overly passionate.
I tend to be more satisfied reading attempts to identify him with other figures from history (with “Paul” being a nickname or even a derisive epithet.)
As for the “letters”, I kinda wish we’d stop calling them that. They’re liturgical pieces. Perhaps that’s part of the issue. “Letters” personalizes them. Gives a stronger sense of an individual behind them, penning a note to a pal.
brewskiMarc wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:30 am
I tend to be more satisfied reading attempts to identify him with other figures from history (with “Paul” being a nickname or even a derisive epithet.)
As for the “letters”, I kinda wish we’d stop calling them that. They’re liturgical pieces. Perhaps that’s part of the issue. “Letters” personalizes them. Gives a stronger sense of an individual behind them, penning a note to a pal.
Marc
We have to wade through a lot of scholarly efforts to make Paul in their own image. The letter genre takes after the philosophical epistles of the time, but with the added factor that they function as an ideal medium for a "covenant of the spirit" -- of a personal mediator who "present while absent". The author stresses his suffering, his inadequacy, etc -- but all of that can be read as a fleshing out of the "suffering servant" who takes the message "to the isles" as per Isaiah. His emotional outbursts that are taken as signs of genuine personality intrusion into the letters have been judged to be rhetorical devices modeled on Jeremiah.
(Letter writing was a craft taught in the schools and how to make fictions sound real by adding incidental details etc were part of the curriculum.)
LOL, identifying Paul with historical figures is exactly where I I start laughing at the conspiracy theorists.
If there was an actual Paul behind the legend then he was likely one of two figures: a widely traveled evangelist or a sedentary monkish scholar who taught at some seminary type compound. It's unlikely he would have been both. My hunch is the former is more likely; a charismatic preacher in Asia Minor and Greece. From his legend sprung students in "Jesus Communities" who wrote tracts in his honor. At some point some of these were collected and started to be formed into letters in his name.
From this point a sort of feedback loop got going in which local shrines and relics started to be attached via stories to this figure. This in turn inspired acts of Paul to be written putting together a travelogue to explain and give authority to these holy items. No doubt both theological tracts were incorporated, as well as tropes from famous or popular stories. It was these tropes where the association with historical figures comes in.
Bottom line, while entertaining, there is no need and little likelihood Paul was an alter ego of same famous person. More likely he was a William Tell figure drawn completely from fiction, or if born of a real figure, something more akin to Robin Hood whose start likely began as a a local robber and through the years grew into a massive morality play that launched books and movies.
Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:15 am
LOL, identifying Paul with historical figures is exactly where I I start laughing at the conspiracy theorists.
Was this in response to my comment? If so -- I should make it clear I have never suggested Paul should be identified with any historical figure. I meant nothing more than that the name was an alter ego for a scribe -- in the tradition of scribes writing in the name of Socrates or Peter or whomever, though in this case with the name drawn from a midrashic interpretation of Scripture. Someone made up the name and figure of Moses that then became a famous person in historical tradition. Merely arguing from analogy to what was known practice.
Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:15 am
LOL, identifying Paul with historical figures is exactly where I I start laughing at the conspiracy theorists.
Was this in response to my comment?
No, I believe it was in response to mine.
Just to be clear, by more satisfied I only mean more entertained. I did not mean to suggest that I believe Paul=Marcion or some such. Definitely not a conspiracy theorist. But I am willing to read the arguments and see what bits of them makes sense.
Reality is way messier than most reconstructions. "Paul's" origins could easily include influences from famous historical figures mixed in the with the mélange. So I like to see who (if any) it might include.
Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:15 am
LOL, identifying Paul with historical figures is exactly where I I start laughing at the conspiracy theorists.
Was this in response to my comment? If so -- I should make it clear I have never suggested Paul should be identified with any historical figure. I meant nothing more than that the name was an alter ego for a scribe -- in the tradition of scribes writing in the name of Socrates or Peter or whomever, though in this case with the name drawn from a midrashic interpretation of Scripture. Someone made up the name and figure of Moses that then became a famous person in historical tradition. Merely arguing from analogy to what was known practice.
No. Nothing to do with you. Although one post by somebody else mentioned it, I deliberately did not specifically target it as I have nothing against the person and they merely stated support for such speculation rather than offer it. I just find such speculation needs to be recognized for what it is, and held up against other similar stories through history with seeds of truth or none at all, to understand it's fairy tale nature.
Newcomer here. I arrived from a Google search for certain dates in Paul's missionary journeys. I defend, more or less to within a couple of years or so, most of the traditional dates for Paul's life and missionary journeys. Is there a place for me on this thread, or even anywhere on this forum? I don't want to waste my time or anyone else's. Thanks
cheb wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 12:00 pm
Newcomer here. I arrived from a Google search for certain dates in Paul's missionary journeys. I defend, more or less to within a couple of years or so, most of the traditional dates for Paul's life and missionary journeys. Is there a place for me on this thread, or even anywhere on this forum? I don't want to waste my time or anyone else's. Thanks
Welcome! Yes, I'd be very interested to learn from what you have to write about dating Paul's letters.
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 12:46 am
I see no reason why any of the NT writings should predate Bar Kokhba. It is evident that they have been predated, but which major religious landslide would cause the creation of / demands for such a highly peculiar anti-Judean Judeo-Christian movement?
The wars of late Trajan are enough to cause a major landslide; but even then, it took a generation to go to anything canonical, so late Hadrian is OK for the beginnings of anywhere close to canonical NT stuff.
