Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

(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.

It'd be sort of like talking about "famous rock and roll stars" and finding out that rock and roll went back to the mid-20th century... and knowing about the 21st century legends and references to Elvis in the 1950s... wouldn't that be a suggestive argument, at the least?

but the idea of ''people who preach about Christ who travel widely'' is associated from me sponte directly to idea of people wiling to be Torah-free.

Our problem, I remember you, is that we are without an hypothetical Gospel of Pillars (assuming they existed).

...therefore we cannot speculate on hypothetical proselitism by Pillars & company (fallacy of possibiliter) before the man/set of men called ''Paul''.

Peter Kirby wrote:I have actually mused over a personal hypothesis (probably harebrained), that Paul might have been of small stature and possibly even a dwarf. I have wondered this (and I am not arguing for it, just wondering if its possible), not only because of the name, but also because of the story he tells about being lowered in a basket, his self identification as an "abortion" (or a premature birth) and his allusion to some kind of unidentified physical malady (the "thorn in my flesh"). I think this sounds like somebody who seems to be addressing a visible physical condition or abnormality, and a nickname which might have been analogous to something like "Pee Wee" or "Tiny" might indicate a diminutive physical stature (even by ancient standards). That's just wild speculation on my part, though.

Hah I thought you were joking around at the start but somehow it doesn't seem out of the realm....

It made me think of a documentary I saw about this (amateur-?)historian who believed that the famous and feared viking warlord called Ivar "the Boneless" was called such due to his suffering from the same debilitating health condition as the film's protagonist/investigator (=dangerously soft bones, more akin to normal cartalidge; making him very tiny, and walking impossible). [Other historians suggested the Ivar's nickname was from....err, certain 'difficulties of function,' that left him unable to sire an heir.] Along those lines the Paul you describe would no-doubt challenge some of our preconceived notions concerning 'disability!'

My main doubt about Paul being (severely) disabled in a way that would effect his ability to walk, manipulate/carry things, etc, would be that as an apostle he's spending practically his entire life on the road, and especially considering we're talking the world of 2000 years past, leads me to believe any physical handicap more severe than (?) a lame arm/hand would be fatal to a career like his. But then again, who knows?

I attempt to sort my argument from name.


So 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)

It is expected at 100% that the character/icon of freedom from the Torah was invented in a marcionite community by the name ''Paul'' if that symbolism described by Detering is designed precisely in reaction to the metaphor anti-gentile of Matthew and in keeping with the evangelical parable of the mustard seed (according to which who seems 'small' in appearance hides implicitly already in itself its own greatness).

Viceversa, is it expected that an apostle with a personality so powerful and culture so broad as Paul (assuming existence & authorship of Pauline letters) will choose as a nickname exactly a name allusive of its (even phisical) weakness and insignificance and irrelevance in the face of an almost reverential worship of his personality from all the followers who he gathered far and wide in the Mediterranean, quasi predicting accidentally that his nickname 'Paul' will become the symbol of all that he represents alive and will represent after death???

My answer: no. It's surprising. It's unexpected, not probable, because the effect that produces this apparent (even phisical) weakness of Paul reflected in his name is that:

I tend to see him - in our interpolated letters - as a kind of hunchback of Notre Dame: i.e. the legend of a person externally miserable, but interiorly big (''the last is the first''). And no one denies that this representation is designed to make a point all literary/simbolic/allegorical. I wonder if this precise image of Apostle (as a sort of Little Big Man) was already in intention of his original creators or editors.

It would be a clue of false humility to adopt as proper name ''Little'' when a literalist reading of his name/nickname prevents a priori to follow someone so weak and insignificant, at least prima facie . . .

Would you accept willingly to follow a ''Little'' and revere him as your guru during his lifetime?

Especially for question of political propaganda, the leader, if wants the consensus, cannot name himself with ridiculous names, unless all recognize the simbolism implicit in his name (but this requires to assume that we deal with a literary character from the start).

Try to imagine if someone had called with a ridiculous name . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/06/opini ... 16390.html

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''.

Okay, that all makes perfect sense then. Thanks. For me, the most natural conclusion to draw is:
Matt wants to keep the Law (unlike some Christians he knows), a position which is endorsed by the letters of Paul, .....so Matt tells you his position (obey the law!), and throws in a wink to let everyone know who he's refuting here. To me this seems way more straight-forward and obvious than someone picking up on one little tiny reference to smallness in the whole of Matthew and creating an entire faux-character/letter collection just to oppose it.

I suppose it might make sense, perhaps, if the chain-of-events had some Marcionite writing a minimal, small 'reply dialogue' in order to refute that position of Mathew, and one way or another more and more unrelated topics got slipped into the mix, and before they knew it their little 'Paul' had become the defacto public relations face of Marcionism, and just kept with it. Although the fact that I have to go to such extreme lengths, in my own mind, just to make the idea seem "at least possible", probably doesn't bode well for winning me over here.

Giuseppe wrote: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?

Giuseppe wrote: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!

I think this is exactly the problem though! Paul's letters cover way more than just adherence to the Law. In the same way, I can't see how they're in any way single-handedly focused on showing how amazingly great Paul is, in exact opposition to what someone like (specifically-)Mattew would expect. And, obviously, that's far from his only characteristic illuminated by the epistles.

I see that your theory (on Paul's origins) is possible, and I see what led you to consider such a scenario, as well. What I'm missing though is why you think this one, specific theory about the origin of 'Paul' is necessarily better than all the other many interesting and plausible connections that could be drawn when looking at the texts and evidence.

Jeff

To me this seems way more straight-forward and obvious than someone picking up on one little tiny reference to smallness in the whole of Matthew and creating an entire faux-character/letter collection just to oppose it.

the point is that there is not only that specific point of Matthew, but there is the parable of the mustard seed, too (according to which who seems ‘small’ in appearance hides implicitly already in itself its own greatness) and there is the love of Jesus for the little ones, too. And I see in 1 Apocalypse of Peter the allusion to ''little ones'' as a set of men (presumably gnostic people) destined to rule over the actual archontes.

Although the fact that I have to go to such extreme lengths, in my own mind, just to make the idea seem "at least possible", probably doesn't bode well for winning me over here.

What say? On the other hand, we remain with no reference to this great man called Paul until Marcion

What I'm missing though is why you think this one, specific theory about the origin of 'Paul' is necessarily better than all the other many interesting and plausible connections that could be drawn when looking at the texts and evidence.

That I know, I don't see many alternatives. The 'hybrid Paul', the idea that in our 7 paulines there is the vox Pauli and the vox of interpolator at a fifty fifty level, is in my eyes less probable than other 2 possibilities (that Paul was real author and that Paul was a complete invention).

If we assume that Paul was a real, historical eprson, and that some 'core' epistles from the Pauline corpus are genuine exemplars of his writings, then why would his genuine writings ever become confused with pseudepigrapha written in his name?

And remember Marcion, please. In my eyes, the idea that an hater of YHWH makes his principal and unique hero a historical apostle that he knew to be a lover of YHWH is a priori an INNATURAL scenario. It's more probable viceversa: that the hero of Marcion (that is an hater of YHWH) was in turn an hater of YHWH, too, but we see 'haters of YHWH' only in II CE and here arises an apparent contradiction (that you can resolve only if you remove the historicity of Paul).

x Peter about Ebion:

Pseudo-Tertullian, Adv. omn. haer. 3 (translation of Klijn and Reinink, Patristic
Evidence, 125): “His successor was Ebion, not in agreement with Cerinthus in every
point, because he says that the world was made by God, not by angels, and because
it is written, no disciple is above (his) master, nor a servant above (his) lord, he
brings to the fore likewise the Law, of course for the purpose of excluding the
gospel and vindicating Judaism.” In the testimony of Pseudo-Tertullian, this reduces
their similarities merely to the denial of Jesus’ divinity, but for Epiphanius it seems
to have meant more than that. In any case, Ebion as presented by him is a collector
of heretical ideas (Pan. 30.1.1–3).

(A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”, Edited by Antti Marjanen & Petri Luomanen, p. 220, note 13)

The earliest accounts of the Ebionites, such as Irenaeus and his source (see
below pp. 250–51), do not mention that the movement was founded by Ebion.
This information appears for the first time in the texts of Tertullian and Hippolytus.
Therefore, Ebion is to be regarded as a fictive figure, created to give the impression
that, like many other “heretical” movements, also the Ebionites had a known
historical founder.
2 The word "ebyon occurs 58 times in the Hebrew Bible, 22 of these occurrences
are in Psalms. See, for example, Ps 9:19, 12:6, 35:10, 40:18 and 107:41.
3 The only Hebrew text where the word "ebyonim is clearly used as a title of a
group is a part of a commentary to Psalm 37 found in Qumran (4QpPs37):
Then the meek will inherit the earth and enjoy all the abundance that peace
brings. This refers to all of the company of the poor ['adath ha"ebyonim] who
endure the time of error but are delivered from all the snares of Belial. (The
Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation [trans. M. Wise, M. Abegg, Jr., and E. Cook;
San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996], 221.)

(ibid., p. 247, my bold)

Still on Peter's argument:

(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.

If Paul was a real man, he would have been - according to this picture given above by PK - a living legend in the eyes of the early Christians; he would've been vitually a ''rock star'' in the Roman empire, with thousands of adoring disciples, believing that they owed eternal life to his teachings. Then the writings of Paul have remained canonical and clearly recognized as such; there would not have been the slightest possibility for spurious writings to ever become confused with the genuine Pauline writings.

Much less there would have been the possibility that the first official Paul-propagandist - the propagandist of a Jew loyal to YHWH even if enemy of Torah - was the hater and enemy of YHWH par-excellence: Marcion.

(if you want to think otherwise, you should pay a price in calculus of consequent, I think).