Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Giuseppe wrote:In case of Paul (in reference to case raised from his name) we have:

1) the hostile metaphor of Matthew against the free-Torah ''least''.

2) a presumed author of letters that really did all that he could in order to realize precisely that simbolism behind his name - and ONLY THAT.

Pure coincidence?

If you're that impressed with what you're saying (I'm certainly not, but whatever, clearly you think this is amazing), you could posit an alternative explanation, according to which the adoption of the name "Paul" occurred midway through life, sometime after this person came into contact with the earliest Jesus-believers. The "Acts of the Apostles," after all, allows such an idea about this person anyway (introducing him with another name, "Saul"), so it wouldn't just be complete speculation either.

Richard replied:

Even the coincidence of Paulus meaning “littleboy” does not entail intention (Paulus was also a very common and prestigious Roman name, e.g. Aemilius Paulus) and even insofar as it did, it could well be the initiation name Paul chose for himself when he converted, precisely because of its symbolism.

But it's very improbable that a Saul (or a mister X) choosed, after the babptism, the name 'Paul' knowing in advance or during his existence his future destiny (a 'little' destined to become 'great' - a Little Big Man par excellence!). I know that the our Paul is a person with a high opinion of himself, but not to this extent!

1) the hostile metaphor of Matthew against the free-Torah ''least''.

The author could have been aware of the name of "Paul" and its meaning, if writing after the letters attributed to "Paul."

This might indicate a connection being made to the name of Paul (negatively) here in Matthew -- or a connection being made by the letter-writer to this concept -- but it certainly doesn't tell us which ... but that's the thing we'd need to know.

2) a presumed author of letters that really did all that he could in order to realize precisely that simbolism behind his name - and ONLY THAT.

This is, honestly, meaningless.

And, if "Paulus" was actually the birth name of the letter writer (... or an adopted name), it would not be surprising if he would write passages that referred obliquely to his name ('least among the apostles') and that he would frame his former persecution of the church or Johnny-come-lately status as an apostle in such terms. People are generally very aware of their own name.

Giuseppe wrote:Richard replied:

Even the coincidence of Paulus meaning “littleboy” does not entail intention (Paulus was also a very common and prestigious Roman name, e.g. Aemilius Paulus) and even insofar as it did, it could well be the initiation name Paul chose for himself when he converted, precisely because of its symbolism.

But it's very improbable that a Saul (or a mister X) choosed, after the babptism, the name 'Paul' knowing in advance or during his existence his future destiny (a 'little' destined to become 'great' - a Little Big Man par excellence!). I know that the our Paul is a person with a high opinion of himself, but not to this extent!

Nothing about the name "Paul" means that a person with that name is "destined to become great."

I would call it 'false humility'.

(in hypothesis that my name is Little well knowing that I am considered Great by all my fans).

I ask you only to consider the possibility that Matthew (with the metaphor smallness vs greatness) is prior all the pauline letters, insofar I consider 'the other way around'.

Giuseppe wrote:I would call it 'false humility'.

(in hypothesis that my name is Little well knowing that I am considered Great by all my fans).

Giuseppe wrote:I ask you only to consider the possibility that Matthew (with the metaphor smallness vs greatness) is prior all the pauline letters, insofar I consider 'the other way around'.

Sure. But when something is only a possibility (at best), we need to look elsewhere for the actual evidence that supports all the speculation.

But in while I would have raised the prior at least at fifty-fifty about the question. Therefore it is to be examined only the consequent.

Giuseppe wrote:But in while I would have raised the prior at least at fifty-fifty about the question. Therefore it is to be examined only the consequent.

Yes, I am not so sure about Carrier saying that the "prior probability" of Saul/Paul is oh-so-very-high. Yeah, it's higher than Jesus. But that doesn't mean it's better than half. (On the other hand, it still might be, depending on what "reference class" we use.)

By the way...

What if we make a weird sort of 'first mover' argument?

(1) There are people who preach about Christ who travel widely and speak extensively and are famous within the Christ movement.
(2) Therefore, there must be someone who was first, chronologically, who meets that description.
(3) There were some kind of "Christ movement" already in the mid-first-century (see Suetonius & Tacitus on Nero & the Christians).
(4) If there was some kind "Christ movement" already in the mid-first century, there was probably at least one person who meets that description then.
(5) Therefore, there was probably at least one person who met that description then.
(6) Therefore, the first person who met that description must probably belong to the mid-first-century or earlier.
(7) The most renowned example of a person who meets that description and was active in the mid first century or earlier is a "Saul" or "Paul."
(8) Because the very description implies fame of a sort, the actual first such person would probably end up being the most renowned later.
(9) Therefore, this "Saul" or "Paul," who was the first person preaching about Christ who traveled extensively and was sort-of famous, probably existed.

I would disagree with the point (2) in this sense: in my view, the idea of freedom from Torah (at least for Christian gentiles only) is born in minds of more men quasi at the same time [therefore there is not a ''first'' or a ''second''], therefore it's impossible to come back to a specific individual creator of that idea (unless you invent him as a mere liteary compendium of that set, if you are a marcionite, and name him ''paul'' in order to picture his great future - already during his existence, at point that 'even the birds take refuge under his tree').

Giuseppe wrote:I would disagree with the point (2) in this sense: in my view, the idea of freedom from Torah (at least for Christian gentiles only) is born in minds of more men quasi at the same time [therefore there is not a ''first'' or a ''second''], therefore it's impossible to come back to a specific individual creator of that idea (unless you invent him as a mere liteary compendium of that set, if you are a marcionite, and name him ''paul'' in order to picture his great future - already during his existence, at point that 'even the birds take refuge under his tree').

You've changed the definition of the set under discussion:

From "people who preach about Christ who travel widely and speak extensively and are famous within the Christ movement" ...

to

Your thing (doesn't matter what it is... in your case, people with "the idea of freedom from Torah").

Even if you might be correct about the set that you're talking about... doesn't mean anything for the set mentioned in the argument.