Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by ABuddhist »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:37 am Simply asserting your conclusion through a form of question-begging is not the sort of response I was looking for, sorry. To avoid question begging, can you explain why is it "easier to accept a human Paul" on the evidence that you presumably base that acceptance upon?
I am particularly interested in knowing why Stephen thinks that the invention of Paul would require a complex conspiracy rather than, for example, only one person fabricating such a figure and others then trying to boost their authority by falsely claiming to have his writings or to have been his students or students' students. A similar thing occurred with Anna Sprengel, who was created by William Wynn Westcott in order to provide authenticity to his occult writings, and who was later impersonated by a swindler who is most commonly named Ann O'Delia Diss Debar.
Last edited by ABuddhist on Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by neilgodfrey »

ABuddhist wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:33 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:37 am Simply asserting your conclusion through a form of question-begging is not the sort of response I was looking for, sorry. To avoid question begging, can you explain why is it "easier to accept a human Paul" on the evidence that you presumably base that acceptance upon?
I am particularly interested in knowing why you think that the invention of Paul would require a complex conspiracy rather than, for example, only one person fabricating such a figure and others then trying to boost their authority by falsely claiming to have his writings or to have been his students or students' students. A similar thing occurred with Anna Sprengel, who was created by William Wynn Westcott in order to provide authenticity to his occult writings, and who was later impersonated by a swindler who is most commonly named Ann O'Delia Diss Debar.
I don't think that. My response to Stephen was focusing on the evidence for belief in a historical Paul -- without stating and explaining the nature of that evidence there is no way we have of evaluating his assertion that his claim for historicity is stronger than any alternative.

But to delve into your question, much hangs on what we understand by the word conspiracy. Conspiracies have been and no doubt still are real events.

I don't think it at all likely that one person would have been able to get away with "fabricating" Paul. I can't imagine circumstances where that would succeed. But I can imagine a school that develops and works with a Paul figure idea exchanging or expanding on a body of literature in his name. That's similar to how some researchers have understood the canonical OT and extra-canonical OT writings were developed. The scribal schools adopted personas from an earlier generation -- from pre-Babylonian or pre-Persian times. If those writings could at some point come to be believed to have been written by the persons named on them and at those distant times, then one can suggest a similar process for works in the name of Paul.

I am not committed to the idea of a fabricated Paul figure, by the way. There may well have been just such a figure behind the letters. But there are serious problems with that view. Of course, there are problems with both views for that matter.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by ABuddhist »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:04 am
ABuddhist wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:33 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:37 am Simply asserting your conclusion through a form of question-begging is not the sort of response I was looking for, sorry. To avoid question begging, can you explain why is it "easier to accept a human Paul" on the evidence that you presumably base that acceptance upon?
I am particularly interested in knowing why you think that the invention of Paul would require a complex conspiracy rather than, for example, only one person fabricating such a figure and others then trying to boost their authority by falsely claiming to have his writings or to have been his students or students' students. A similar thing occurred with Anna Sprengel, who was created by William Wynn Westcott in order to provide authenticity to his occult writings, and who was later impersonated by a swindler who is most commonly named Ann O'Delia Diss Debar.
I don't think that. My response to Stephen was focusing on the evidence for belief in a historical Paul -- without stating and explaining the nature of that evidence there is no way we have of evaluating his assertion that his claim for historicity is stronger than any alternative.

But to delve into your question, much hangs on what we understand by the word conspiracy. Conspiracies have been and no doubt still are real events.

I don't think it at all likely that one person would have been able to get away with "fabricating" Paul. I can't imagine circumstances where that would succeed. But I can imagine a school that develops and works with a Paul figure idea exchanging or expanding on a body of literature in his name. That's similar to how some researchers have understood the canonical OT and extra-canonical OT writings were developed. The scribal schools adopted personas from an earlier generation -- from pre-Babylonian or pre-Persian times. If those writings could at some point come to be believed to have been written by the persons named on them and at those distant times, then one can suggest a similar process for works in the name of Paul.

I am not committed to the idea of a fabricated Paul figure, by the way. There may well have been just such a figure behind the letters. But there are serious problems with that view. Of course, there are problems with both views for that matter.
Apologies, Neil; I was addressing Stephen. I will edit my comment. But have you considered that Paul may have been like Anna Sprengel? Because there we have a religious leader who was made up by a single person but acquired a life of her own. I personally do not think Paul to be like Anna Sprengel, but I raise it as a possibility.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by neilgodfrey »

ABuddhist wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:08 am But have you considered that Paul may have been like Anna Sprengel? Because there we have a religious leader who was made up by a single person but acquired a life of her own. I personally do not think Paul to be like Anna Sprengel, but I raise it as a possibility.
I can't talk about comparisons with Anna S until I learn more about her, but the evidence in favour of a "school" or "schools" writing in the name of Paul and thereby creating his persona through their discussions, debates, evolutions, etc, is that we have so many different Pauls. The Acts of Paul, the Pastoral epistles Paul, the Acts of the Apostles Paul, the "genuine letters of Paul" Paul, the DeuteroPauline letters Paul, .... and even multiple Pauls within a single letter as another thread has pointed out.

late addition:

I have followed up Anna S since writing the above. The major difference with Paul, it seems to me, is that we may wonder if Paul founded anything lasting at all given the situation where the institutions and creeds that appear to claim some debt to Paul are in fact quite different from what we read in Paul as a whole. A conspiracy to create a Paul figure in the literature, like Anna S, would presumably produce a more consistent character that is clearly related to what is said to follow on from that figure's work. Instead we have a "riotous diversities" of Pauls (just as someone else said we have a "riotous diversity" of Jesuses).
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by StephenGoranson »

I mentioned previously a book that, imo, gives good reasons to conclude that Paul was historical. It is by Gerd Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989; a revised English translation of his vol. 2 of his German trilogy on Paul). It includes history of scholarship on Paul. And it discusses opposition to (human) Paul in several NT books and in later writings, such as the pseudo-Clementine literature. So, that book is one rather detailed set of reasons why I consider Paul a person in history.

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.

There are many proposals; I suppose that no human can fully research and reply to all of them. You are free to speculatively psychoanalyse and register disdain for my choice not to write a lengthy essay on historical Paul if that is how you wish to spend your time and don't wish to read Luedemann's book. Personally, I am more interested in some other portions of the Bible (in both OT and NT) than the epistles. Good day.
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 2:36 am There are many proposals; I suppose that no human can fully research and reply to all of them. You are free to speculatively psychoanalyse and register disdain for my choice not to write a lengthy essay on historical Paul if that is how you wish to spend your time and don't wish to read Luedemann's book. Personally, I am more interested in some other portions of the Bible (in both OT and NT) than the epistles. Good day.
Yes, I have read Ludemann's book. So I hope you can rest now and take a pill to relax and not presume to accuse me of psychoanalyzing anyone for their choice!! You really did get out of the wrong side of bed this morning, heh! Hope you feel better soon. I have even corresponded with Ludemann a few times and very much like him. He is very capable of disagreeing in a most agreeable way -- almost as if, one would think, he's learned the arts of kindness and gentleness from Buddhist masters! ;-) Not a trace of bullying in him at all -- very nice chap, despite all the injustices he has experienced in his life.

So here's my reply. I can list a couple of books that propose arguments that are not considered by Ludemann and say that they contain the reasons I think it is not safe to assume the historicity of Paul. So your argument will be Ludemann and mine will be X and Y. Then we can say we have presented the evidence of each side of the argument and go have a beer together.

Or -- we could go one step further and actually explain what the main reasons are as we have learned them from our masters and others and then proceed to examine together the pluses and minuses of each argument. You know, like a discussion of the actual issues, points of evidence, and so forth. It's a bit more laborious than simply saying, Hey, I agree with what's in this Book by This Author --- but if we love these sorts of discussions we don't find opening those books and discussing their arguments a chore at all. :-)

(Woah -- now I recall I did say something once about you appearing to wear a victimhood complex on your forehead for all to see -- I guess that was a bit of pychoanalyzing on my part. Maybe you want to check it out just in case I'm right on that one.)
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by ABuddhist »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:36 am I mentioned previously a book that, imo, gives good reasons to conclude that Paul was historical. It is by Gerd Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989; a revised English translation of his vol. 2 of his German trilogy on Paul). It includes history of scholarship on Paul. And it discusses opposition to (human) Paul in several NT books and in later writings, such as the pseudo-Clementine literature. So, that book is one rather detailed set of reasons why I consider Paul a person in history.

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.

There are many proposals; I suppose that no human can fully research and reply to all of them. You are free to speculatively psychoanalyse and register disdain for my choice not to write a lengthy essay on historical Paul if that is how you wish to spend your time and don't wish to read Luedemann's book. Personally, I am more interested in some other portions of the Bible (in both OT and NT) than the epistles. Good day.
With all due respect, you cannot even be bothered to summarize the book's arguments in favour of Paul's historicity - to the contrary, your summary suggests that the book in question assumes that Paul existed as a person upon the Earth by taking at more-or-less face value all references to Paul as being a human upon the Earth at given times.
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 2:36 am I mentioned previously a book that, imo, gives good reasons to conclude that Paul was historical. It is by Gerd Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989; a revised English translation of his vol. 2 of his German trilogy on Paul). It includes history of scholarship on Paul. And it discusses opposition to (human) Paul in several NT books and in later writings, such as the pseudo-Clementine literature. So, that book is one rather detailed set of reasons why I consider Paul a person in history.. . . .

Good day.
Readers interested in learning Stephen Goranson's grounds for the historicity of Paul can read them at https://archive.org/details/oppositiont ... 2up?q=paul -- The book is available online to read there. The closest any specific mention comes to the question of the historicity of Paul is on page 58 where Gerd Ludemann discusses the historical reliability of certain evidence pertaining to Acts 21.

Ludemann refers readers to his earlier volume which is also at archive.org: https://archive.org/details/paulapostle ... up?q=exist

In other words, the question of P's historicity has not been addressed except indirectly in this source. Certainly none of the questions and problems raised by those who have questioned the historicity of Paul are ever touched upon by Ludemann back in 1989.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by StephenGoranson »

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. Earlier this year, he died. Perhaps another reminder to try to use our limited time wisely.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Paul --- A Criminal and a Liar

Post by ABuddhist »

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. Earlier this year, he died. Perhaps another reminder to try to use our limited time wisely.
It is one thing to be learned about Paul, but it is another thing to provide an argument for Paul's historicity - which Lüdemann apparently did not do in the book that you cite, according to Neil's more detailed discussion.

Look, I know about an argument in favour of Paul's historicity by Dr. Richard Carrier - and I can summarize it if no-one else will. It can be read here: "The Historicity of Paul the Apostle" by Richard Carrier on June 6, 2015 [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7643].
Post Reply