Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Aleph One wrote:

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.

Diogenes the Cynic wrote that.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1590&start=10#p36697

Giuseppe wrote:My answer: no. It's surprising. It's unexpected, not probable

This is wrong.

As for the rest of your comments, I'm not even sure what you're saying half the time... and I'm not even sure whether it's poor English or just poor reasoning, as there has been plenty of both. (Could be both, of course.)

I have already apologized for my English and ask excuse again.

I'm saying in my last comments that the priors support ahistoricity of Paul insofar the name 'Paul' is improbable even as a nickname choosen really by someone from 50 CE the which life & destiny will are magically reflected into the parable of mustard seed (the 'small' that hides his future 'greatness') or polemically reflected in Matthean anti-gentile metaphor.

The name ''Saul'' is even more probable taken from Josephus. It's pratically impossible that the real name of mr ''Paul'' is not arrived until us, if he existed really.

Idem for Cefa/Peter: much improbable to be existed only in order to realize the symbolism of his name, the role of founder.


I wrote:

And remember Marcion, please. In my eyes, the idea that an enemy of YHWH makes his principal and unique hero a historical apostle that he knew to be a friend 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 enemy of YHWH, too, but we see 'enemies of YHWH' only in II CE and here arises an apparent contradiction (that you can resolve only if you remove the historicity of Paul).

This idea is so simple that I can permit my 'poor English' & my 'poor reasoning', too.

Giuseppe wrote:the name 'Paul' is improbable even as a nickname choosen really by someone from 50 CE

Clearly, this is what you believe, but this hasn't actually been shown.

If you want have power on a group in 50 CE, would you choose a nickname as ''PAULUS'' ?

Yes, But Only If:

1) you already know what you will do in life and what you left after death.

2) you have the certainty that all your future followers will know from start that you are 'Great' for the simple reason that you are named 'Small' and despite this you will do great things only by pure faith in Christ.

That these 2 conditions happened really in reality (and not in pure fiction), I doubt.

To start with, I'm not convinced that someone couldn't have the non-semitic name "Paul" from birth and still be a historical Paul.

Giuseppe wrote:If you want have power on a group in 50 CE, would you choose a nickname as ''PAULUS'' ?

You're assuming (for no good reason) that, if there were a selection of a name, that it was being made as part of some kind of scheme for acquiring power.

But wait. Richard replied me a second time:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... nt-1057005

“…you don’t call yourself ”Little” if what you want is a political power…” — Oh yes you do. Humility is a common tactic of those who want to gain influence.

Therefore: 'false humility'. A guy chooses the nikname ''Paul'' only because hides a big Will to Power, in nietzschean terms.

“Oh humble me. See how I don’t grab at power or act all haughty? I’m safe, see? So give me some power, please!” That’s how it worked. Today we call that passive-aggressive. Back then it was a rhetorical strategy.

But that could be the rethorical strategy of catholic Saint Paul, too. In marcionite letters, the image of Paul is diverse.

So a suggestive comment of Stuart about the marcionite Paul:

The Marcionite depiction of Paul is always authoritative, never passive, never delegating, never recognizing any equals. All self-deprecation and belittling are from later Catholic strata, including that statement about Paul being an "abortion."

http://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/2 ... 9472567524

If "Paul" was invented after the gospels, he certainly would have been one of the twelve (under a different name of course), not one who got his gospel through revelation from above and never witnessed the earthly Jesus.
In in epistles, Paul repeatedly had to defend his credendials. Being one of the twelve would have solved that.
Paul, through his letters, is far from being the ideal apostle, as a literary creation would have rendered him.
He had to fight to keep his converts from Corinth and Galatia under his spell (sometimes successfully, other times not). He had to acknowledge some of his competitors were superlative, that, at best, he would only measure up with them. He had opposition from Jews but also from his own Gentile converts (Corinth).
He had to admit his relation with the pillars of the church of Jerusalem was rather frigid, when his own converts thought these pillars were "saints" and deserved funds to be collected for them.
He also said he started on the wrong foot by persecuting proto-Christians.
None of his letters states he went to Rome as an apostle (that got fixed up in 'Acts'), preaching in Rome being the pinnacle of any apostolic career for a travelling apostle.

See also from the other thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1607&start=20#p36737
and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1607&start=20#p36763

Cordially, Bernard

I communicated to Carrier on his own blog my previous posting on this thread and also one from another: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1607&start=20#p36763
All in favor of Carrier's position. I got this surprising answer from him:

Just a bunch more possibiliter fallacies. And implausible ones at that. Standard Bernard Muller.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... 3#comments (comment 14)

"fallacies", "implausible": really?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:I communicated to Carrier on his own blog my previous posting on this thread and also one from another: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1607&start=20#p36763
All in favor of Carrier's position. I got this surprising answer from him:

Just a bunch more possibiliter fallacies. And implausible ones at that. Standard Bernard Muller.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... 3#comments (comment 14)

"fallacies", "implausible": really?

Cordially, Bernard

Yeah IDK what that's about exactly.

Other than that you've rubbed Carrier the wrong way, apparently, or that Carrier doesn't appreciate your manner of presentation.

So far I enjoy the dubious distinction of making the only blog reply to which Carrier doesn't provide a response.