Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:30 am Though I did not agree with everything scholar Gerd Lüdemann wrote, he was quite learned on, among other subjects, Paul. More learned on Paul than I am, for sure.
What Ludemann was learned on were the writings that related to the name and figure of Paul that appears in or is implied in those writings. He approached those writings and the history of the scholarship addressing them on the assumption that behind that figure of Paul was a historical person who had an existence beyond those writings. Highly reputable and capable scholars have in the past brought similar assumptions to the Genesis patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and to Moses, and to David and Solomon and certain prophets whose names appear in the various canonical writings. One by one, despite the enormous learning that has gone into those presumed historical persons of the past, questions have come to erode the confidence of many other scholars that such persons ever existed.

It is possible to spend much of one's career studying a historical figure whose historicity a later generation will question.

That does not mean that the scholars who worked on figures whose historicity later came to be questioned were dumb. It only means that they rested their inquiries on unquestioned assumptions about their sources or on beliefs and arguments about their sources that were later found debatable by some of their peers.

Critical questions have long been raised against the historicity of two other figures in particular -- Jesus and Paul -- but whereas Abraham, Moses and Solomon may be allowed to fall, it is surely a bridge too far for a good many to apply similar critical approaches to the foundations of why our entire cultural heritage has been built on myths about the founders of Christianity itself. The scholarship that is called into question is not doubted for its brilliance. All that is questioned are the foundational assumptions upon which it has been built.

The response to those who have asked for justification of the assumptions of historicity has more often been as it has always been -- to personally attack, ridicule, insult and misrepresent those who raise such questions. It happened with those who questioned the historicity of the patriarchs, against all who were branded "minimalists", and is happening again with an extreme vengeance against those who publicly question the assumptions of the scholarship on Jesus and Paul. The whole aim of these attacks is to discredit the character and intelligence of the critics and prejudice others against even bothering to read their arguments.

We can learn a lot from Ludemann's works on Paul about early Christian history. His work is not wasted. Even if we don't agree with his assumptions or all of his conclusions, we can always find insights that, read critically, enlighten us in whatever question we are pursuing.
StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:30 amEarlier this year, he died. Perhaps another reminder to try to use our limited time wisely.
So let's stop bullying others here, hey? Be nice -- even, or especially, to those we think are not as learned or skilled or educated as we ourselves are. Be humble, just a little bit. Let's pretend (at very least) to be friends imagine having a beer with each other as we discuss.

I simply cannot imagine Gerd Ludemann ever talking to mh here with anything other than cordial respect, and certainly never retorting with victimhood complexes whenever his views were questioned.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2311
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by StephenGoranson »

neilgodfrey wrote ad hominem posts while pretending to be against ad hominem posts. Pretentious and hypocritical?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:15 am neilgodfrey wrote ad hominem posts while pretending to be against ad hominem posts. Pretentious and hypocritical?
No, Stephen, I'm not against writing posts directed at persons who behave offensively. No pretence at all. I really do loathe bullying behaviour and cannot often stand by in silence when I see it.

Just be nice. Okay? Quit bullying persons here you deem to be lesser intellects than yourself. Life is short, as you recently reminded us. Gerd Ludemann was a good example. That's a good ad hominem comment, yes?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by gryan »

Re: "The Historicity of Paul the Apostle" by Richard Carrier on June 6, 2015. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7643

I had not seen this particular blogpost by Carrier before. I respect his point of view. This is a good summary, quite readable, and from where I sit, a breath of fresh air.

I have skimmed most of his book, On the Historicity of Jesus, and have read parts of it in great detail. I find Carrier's findings authoritative within his chosen field. Having studied history at Columbia at the PhD level, he understands and applies historical methods well. He also documents his sources well. I'm not a trained professional historian, nor do I claim to be an amateur historian. My approach to NT studies is literary and canonical; and with a masters degree in NT studies, I consider myself an advanced amateur in this field. Although, unlike Carrier, I carry little doubt that Jesus lived on earth, and that he had a flesh and blood family of origin (including a brother James, who Paul met with once per Gal 1:19), Carrier provides a history I can work with.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by Irish1975 »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:36 am Of selected options:
a) Paul was a human (putting aside here, for this purpose, of what teaching quality or such).
b) Much of the NT was contrived (by one or several people?) to create a character Paul, who never actually existed.
c) A symbolic Paul concept arose during the Hasmonean era, but without any known trace until much later.

I choose option a).
It does, imo, accord with Occam's razor.
Others are free to choose other options, including ones not listed here.
What critics of "authentic Paul" such as Hermann Detering have in fact argued is that none of the Pauline Corpus was written by a 1st century apostle (or, alternatively, can be rationally accepted and defended by intelligent criticism of these writings). There are too many contradictions, divergences, incoherencies, and absurdities. That's the position. Not that no individual man who later inspired the writings by and about Paul ever existed.

Consider this. For a conventional 21st century view of Paul, the author of Acts wrote a book about the very man who was the author of Galatians, 1 Corinthians, etc. They believe that Acts is false or unreliable history, i.e., that we cannot accept the claims that Paul was once called "Saul," that he studied under Gamaliel, that he was a Roman citizen, etc. All those notions are dubious. But such a scholar would agree that these assertions purport to be about the figure of Paul, about the author of epistles.

The skeptical position is similar. There had at one time been someone who cut the figure of an "apostle." Perhaps we can clarify a few minimal facts about the man, perhaps we cannot. Perhaps we can find traces of him in other literature, e.g. in what is related by Hippolytus and others about Simon of Samaria; or perhaps we cannot. Either way, the idea of Paul was inherited from the 1st century by the 2nd century. And then people just started writing epistles in his name. We already have the well established phenomenon of this happening, i.e., of people forging epistles in the name of Paul. One could argue that this idea has a better factual basis than any of the theories of the authentic Paul. And so the skeptical view simply applies this reasoning across the board, such that nothing in the NT related about Paul is historically reliable or authentic. The original man was known, but is no longer known to us through the NT.

Anyway, that's the skeptical position on Paul as I understand it. No "creating a Paul character" or "symbolic Paul concept."
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by andrewcriddle »

Irish1975 wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:33 am
StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:36 am Of selected options:
a) Paul was a human (putting aside here, for this purpose, of what teaching quality or such).
b) Much of the NT was contrived (by one or several people?) to create a character Paul, who never actually existed.
c) A symbolic Paul concept arose during the Hasmonean era, but without any known trace until much later.

I choose option a).
It does, imo, accord with Occam's razor.
Others are free to choose other options, including ones not listed here.
What critics of "authentic Paul" such as Hermann Detering have in fact argued is that none of the Pauline Corpus was written by a 1st century apostle (or, alternatively, can be rationally accepted and defended by intelligent criticism of these writings). There are too many contradictions, divergences, incoherencies, and absurdities. That's the position. Not that no individual man who later inspired the writings by and about Paul ever existed.

Consider this. For a conventional 21st century view of Paul, the author of Acts wrote a book about the very man who was the author of Galatians, 1 Corinthians, etc. They believe that Acts is false or unreliable history, i.e., that we cannot accept the claims that Paul was once called "Saul," that he studied under Gamaliel, that he was a Roman citizen, etc. All those notions are dubious. But such a scholar would agree that these assertions purport to be about the figure of Paul, about the author of epistles.

The skeptical position is similar. There had at one time been someone who cut the figure of an "apostle." Perhaps we can clarify a few minimal facts about the man, perhaps we cannot. Perhaps we can find traces of him in other literature, e.g. in what is related by Hippolytus and others about Simon of Samaria; or perhaps we cannot. Either way, the idea of Paul was inherited from the 1st century by the 2nd century. And then people just started writing epistles in his name. We already have the well established phenomenon of this happening, i.e., of people forging epistles in the name of Paul. One could argue that this idea has a better factual basis than any of the theories of the authentic Paul. And so the skeptical view simply applies this reasoning across the board, such that nothing in the NT related about Paul is historically reliable or authentic. The original man was known, but is no longer known to us through the NT.

Anyway, that's the skeptical position on Paul as I understand it. No "creating a Paul character" or "symbolic Paul concept."
What you refer to as the conventional 21st century view of Paul (I'm doubtful myself if it is anything like a consensus) has Luke constructing the story of Paul with Paul's epistles as pretty much his only historical evidence. The skeptical position as you represent it seems to require Luke to construct the story of Paul with no historical evidence to speak of at all. I.E. the story of Paul in Acts would be similar to that in the Acts of Paul.

I don't myself regard this as a plausible account of Acts, but whether I'm right or wrong here, this is in any case a very different understanding of Acts than what you regard as the conventional 21st century view.

Andrew Criddle
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by Charles Wilson »

Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker

https://archive.org/details/TheMythmaker

"Criminal and Liar?"
Much worse than that.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by Irish1975 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:24 am What you refer to as the conventional 21st century view of Paul (I'm doubtful myself if it is anything like a consensus)
I don't have much regard for the idea of "scholarly consensus." There has never been consensus about the NT, and how could one expect otherwise? But there is no question that skepticism about the historical reliability of Acts is a conventional view. Catholic scholars have admitted as much (see Jerome Biblical Commentary, 44.2). Even E.P. Sanders sets aside Acts in favor of the epistles for historical information.
...has Luke constructing the story of Paul with Paul's epistles as pretty much his only historical evidence. The skeptical position as you represent it seems to require Luke to construct the story of Paul with no historical evidence to speak of at all. I.E. the story of Paul in Acts would be similar to that in the Acts of Paul.
Certainly there are many similarities of method.

What materials or information Luke had at his disposal, in addition to his colorful imagination, is of course unknown, although some have inferred that he must have known Josephus. It is a plausible hypothesis that he knew the epistles and was deliberately reacting to them and in many places contradicting them, although he pretends not to know anything of Paul as a writer of letters. But I wouldn't call that "constructing his story with the epistles as historical evidence." He would have been more faithful to their contents if he had regarded them as evidence in the manner of a historian.
I don't myself regard this as a plausible account of Acts, but whether I'm right or wrong here, this is in any case a very different understanding of Acts than what you regard as the conventional 21st century view.
Again, I didn't say it was "the" conventional view but "a" conventional view.

No doubt there are many conservative scholars who uphold the reliability of Acts, for obvious reasons.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by andrewcriddle »

Irish1975 wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:14 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:24 am What you refer to as the conventional 21st century view of Paul (I'm doubtful myself if it is anything like a consensus)
I don't have much regard for the idea of "scholarly consensus." There has never been consensus about the NT, and how could one expect otherwise? But there is no question that skepticism about the historical reliability of Acts is a conventional view. Catholic scholars have admitted as much (see Jerome Biblical Commentary, 44.2). Even E.P. Sanders sets aside Acts in favor of the epistles for historical information.
...has Luke constructing the story of Paul with Paul's epistles as pretty much his only historical evidence. The skeptical position as you represent it seems to require Luke to construct the story of Paul with no historical evidence to speak of at all. I.E. the story of Paul in Acts would be similar to that in the Acts of Paul.
Certainly there are many similarities of method.

What materials or information Luke had at his disposal, in addition to his colorful imagination, is of course unknown, although some have inferred that he must have known Josephus. It is a plausible hypothesis that he knew the epistles and was deliberately reacting to them and in many places contradicting them, although he pretends not to know anything of Paul as a writer of letters. But I wouldn't call that "constructing his story with the epistles as historical evidence." He would have been more faithful to their contents if he had regarded them as evidence in the manner of a historian.
I don't myself regard this as a plausible account of Acts, but whether I'm right or wrong here, this is in any case a very different understanding of Acts than what you regard as the conventional 21st century view.
Again, I didn't say it was "the" conventional view but "a" conventional view.

No doubt there are many conservative scholars who uphold the reliability of Acts, for obvious reasons.
What I was trying to argue is
a/ If Luke knew the epistles then there was a historical Paul. (unless you date Acts very late)
b/ If Luke knew a substantial ancient tradition about Paul apart from the epistles then there was a historical Paul (again unless you date Acts very late).
Therefore in order to question a historical Paul we have to question both i/ Luke's knowledge of the epistles and ii/ Luke's knowledge of a substantial ancient tradition about Paul apart from the epistles .
However although many scholars would challenge i/ and many would challenge ii/ very few would challenge both.

Andrew Criddle
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by perseusomega9 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:05 am
Again, I didn't say it was "the" conventional view but "a" conventional view.
No doubt there are many conservative scholars who uphold the reliability of Acts, for obvious reasons.
What I was trying to argue is
a/ If Luke knew the epistles then there was a historical Paul. (unless you date Acts very late)
b/ If Luke knew a substantial ancient tradition about Paul apart from the epistles then there was a historical Paul (again unless you date Acts very late).
Therefore in order to question a historical Paul we have to question both i/ Luke's knowledge of the epistles and ii/ Luke's knowledge of a substantial ancient tradition about Paul apart from the epistles .
However although many scholars would challenge i/ and many would challenge ii/ very few would challenge both.

Andrew Criddle

Image

It was a messy time, only the best propaganda survived afterall.
Post Reply