Why was invented Paul?

[Secret Alias]

FWIW Jews had a hard time pronouncing 'Caesar.'

[Giuseppe]

a possible theory (excuse Peter but I am very tempted ):

the sourcerer Elymas is Simon Magus, who proclaimed himself ''the Power of God called Great'' (I go to memory).
Elymas/Eloima/Etoima/Atomas/Atomos ---> Simon called Atomos of Antiquities, aka Simon Magus (so Eisenman, Price & Parvus).

''Paul'' therefore would be the nickname of the man that was in conflict against the ''Great''.

He is 'Little' only because his enemy is (said to be) ''Great''.

Obviously this is all pure fiction of Acts.

The POSSIBLE (little concession to Peter) historical core would be that a ''Paul'' was necessary insofar someone - a rival Christian sect or man - proclaimed himself ''Great''. Therefore epistles were invented the first time in name of ''Paul'' super-apostle.


the 'snowball' effect did the rest.

(note: if a ''Paul'' was necessary against ''Simon Magus'', this would support the Price's theory that Marcionism coopted Simonianism and radical gnosis of esoterica etc.)

[Peter Kirby]

The passage has invited all sorts of speculation:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... s%208:9-24

Some would say that the rampant speculation began in the second century itself....

Justin Martyr (IMO) seems like the 'best' source for Simon due to being relatively early, from the same country, and treating the topic sort-of-incidentally in a work of non-fiction.

As for the passage in Acts, the first thing that is not clear to me: Is it ....

(1) The power of "God that is called Great"
(2) "The power of God," that is called "Great"

Honestly, IDK.

Next question would be whether the author of this story (the author of Acts) were influenced by the Pauline epistles and/or actual Simonianism and/or a parody of Marcionism (or something else) in the manner of telling. Knowing the sources the author was working with seems foundational to a redactional criticism of the passage. Which in turn would help us know what to make of it.

[MrMacSon]

I dont' think the man called ''Paul'' really existed because that man could exist insofar he wrote at least a bit of his letters but this would be not the case. No letters, no historical Paul. The two questions are strictly linked.

Yes, it is possible the letters were created around a literary/fictitious character. And by created I mean they, like the canonical gospels etc (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc) are the result of elaboration of previous ideas or stories about other preachers.

Though I would say "to have 'the Son in me' is" an alternative theology.

You mean ''is an alternative theology'' (different from Marcionite theology) the generic idea that the Spirit of Christ enters within a mortal man from his birth and until here I understand, but note that, for Marcionites, Paul was clearly an exception to this rule.

I mean't Pauline theology was, at one stage, different to pre- or early- gospel theology; and both could have been somewhat different to Marcionite theology.

I am intrigued by the ideas of the Dutch radicals such as AD Loman that the Pauline texts reflect a Gnostic-Messianic community that was, at one stage, in competition with a Jewish-Gnostic community that had Peter or Simon or both as the central characters of their writings.

Loman's argument was that these initially adversarial communities developed a truce and merged their texts to start to form what we know today as the New Testament.

But I don't understand this:

and I'd say - The redactors acknowledge gnostic origins (or syncretism) through the man called Paul the gnostic dualism between body and spirit.

Can you make more clear that sentence?

The texts we know today are, as the Catholic Encylcopedia says, likely to be the results of a 'development' - redaction (ie. editing); conflation. As I said above, I think that the Pauline texts reflect a Gnostic-Messianic community that were later redacted as they were aligned with the canonical gospels (and others).

[MrMacSon]

Don't underestimate the extraordinary fecundity of the 'hive mind' trying to milk all the connections they can out of these texts.

Are you referring to someone today? or someone in antiquity? or both?

There were lots of theologies in those days in the eastern Mediterranean

• - diversifying Judaic theologies; various pagan/mystery religions - Egyptian cults, Roman religion/s, Zoroastriansim, etc, etc.

[MrMacSon]

.
I agree that this is highly likely -

a possible theory (excuse Peter but I am very tempted ):

the sourcerer Elymas is Simon Magus, who proclaimed himself ''the Power of God called Great'' (I go to memory).
Elymas/Eloima/Etoima/Atomas/Atomos ---> Simon called Atomos of Antiquities, aka Simon Magus (so Eisenman, Price & Parvus).

''Paul'' therefore would be the nickname of the man that was in conflict against the ''Great''.

He is 'Little' only because his enemy is (said to be) ''Great''.

Obviously this is all pure fiction of Acts.

The POSSIBLE (little concession to Peter) historical core would be that a ''Paul'' was necessary insofar someone - a rival Christian sect or man - proclaimed himself ''Great''. Therefore epistles were invented the first time in name of ''Paul'' super-apostle.

the 'snowball' effect did the rest.

(note: if a ''Paul'' was necessary against ''Simon Magus'', this would support the Price's theory that Marcionism coopted Simonianism and radical gnosis of esoterica etc.)

This is along the lines of what AD Loman argued.

• >> ''Paul'' therefore would be the nickname of the man [representing those] that was in conflict against the ''Great''.

[MrMacSon]

Obviously this is all pure fiction of Acts.

Acts would be likely to reflect the coming together of the Pauline texts and the non-Pauline texts.

[Peter Kirby]

Don't underestimate the extraordinary fecundity of the 'hive mind' trying to milk all the connections they can out of these texts.

Are you referring to someone today? or someone in antiquity? or both?

I'm referring to everyone today. Of all the 'connections' posited and 'coincidences' ruled out of bounds, a lot of them are completely illusory.

[Bernard Muller]

Following through my comment on Carrier's blog: reference http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... 3#comments (comment 14.)
I asked Richard:

Dr. Carrier, can you explain why my comments (supporting your case) are so fallacious and implausible?
Cordially, Bernard

I got that answer:

Reply
Richard Carrier says
June 9, 2015 at 9:14 am
Every time I do that you send word walls of crazy. So, no. If you don’t know why by now, you won’t listen or learn why. Conversations with you are a waste of time. If you want me to link to my having told you this repeatedly over the years by now I will, because you seem to forget. There is no talking with you. I’m confident every sane and informed person can see how everything you say is based on improbabilities and possibiliter fallacies. I don’t need to walk them through it.

"Crazy", "impossibilter fallacies"? Do you agree? my initial comment to him was:

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 has 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’), Rome being the pinnacle of any apostolic carrier for a travelling apostle.
.
Also, I have this blog post in favor of Paul having existed and a least writing some letters:
http://historical-jesus.info/55.html
.
I reproduce below the ending of that blog post:
>> One more point: does the above verses look to come from a “fabricated Paul”?
According to 1 Cor 16:21, Paul did not write the letter, he dictated it.
And Paul, very likely, did not want to loose face in front of his scribe, probably one of his followers, by asking him to erase several verses or rewriting the letter (if on a scroll) or part of it (if on sheets). That would imply Paul made a mistake (& was not inspired from above!).
However, someone writing in the name of Paul in secret had the luxury to do some rewriting in order to remove any “faux pas”. <<

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Hypothesis to test: ''Paul'' was created only during the dispute already started. He would be the fictious character that had instantiate...

''... a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth. Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds can perch in its shade.''

(Mark 4:31-32)

The birds would be the impostors who spoke in name of ''Paul'' wanting to take advantage of his authority..

I think that that passage in Mark reveals already a scenario where it's known by ''Mark'' that Paul's letters are interpolated by christians of different factions.