Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

No motive existed then to invent that name.

What about those in the first century who made comments on him

Interesting. You must be thinking of 1 Clement as the first century authority who 'made comments on' Paul. 1 Clement shows obvious says of secondary and tertiary expansion. I think the original author of 1 Clement also wrote 2 Clement and likely the ascetic texts ascribed to Clement. 1 Clement was completely reworked from top too bottom and now stands as a jumbled confused mess. No one can read 1 Clement from beginning to end in one go and not sense that its meandering style isn't reflective of secondary and tertiary expansion.

It is interesting to note how similar the language of 1 Clement is to Paul without actually citing him verbatim. I once did a study of it. It's uncanny how Pauline bits of 1 Clement often appear.

Secret Alias wrote:

does Paul or does not Paul have complete historicity as being a Teacher whos communities in the 50's wrote the text we have today?

The dating is based on the clues that are embedded in a particular recension of the Pauline writings amplified by Acts. A community which rejected Acts or did not know of its existence and had a shorter different recension of the Pauline epistles might have had an earlier or later date for the activities of the apostle. If you are asking me whether or not I think Paul was active c 50 CE I'd say sure that's very likely. But if you follow that up with the question of whether other communities might have had an earlier or later dating for the beginning or end of his activities I'd have to say yes there is evidence to support at least the former.

If your typically wretched sentence formation is asking me to endorse the current set of Pauline writings as the original set established by the apostle - no I can't do that.

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

But either way its a personal problem, as you are assuming conclusions that are not probable.

No a simply 'no' would not suffice as you have a habit of wrapping up three or four assertions or ideas in a single sentence. If you took more time to craft your questions so they could be answered with a simply yes or no I would gladly oblige.

outhouse wrote: Love it.

Regardless, does Paul or does not Paul have complete historicity as being a Teacher whose communities in the 50's wrote the text we have today?

Thing is, I am not sure how to answer this because I have never heard a question worded quite this way before. If you are asking whether I think that the apostle Paul that we find in the epistles was a real, historical person who wrote in century I, my longstanding and current answer is yes, I think that Paul existed.

But the way you phrase it makes me wonder whether you mean something more than that. Does Paul have "complete historicity"? That sounds so official, and if it means that I never ought to allow myself to explore in directions that would cast his existence into doubt, well, I guess the answer would be no, I do not think his existence is beyond speculating against. I recently experienced a sudden and unexpected "Simon Magus equals Paul" moment. I think it has passed now, but I do not feel like I violated some international scholarly treaty for having harbored such a thought. I am free to explore as the evidence leads.

Ben.

To support a mythical Paul is to claim anachronisms in the letters, do you ignore this?

No motive existed then to invent that name.

Another annoyingly cretinous statement. Let's leave aside the question of why the author of Acts had the Jews think Paul was the Egyptian or 'the motive' behind the author of the Pseudo-Clementines thinking he was Simon (and thus rejecting the entire history of Acts). I will ask you a question - how does Acts explain the motive for Saul adopting the name 'Paul'? Do you have an explanation for why he took this name based on the internal evidence from Acts?

outhouse wrote:To support a mythical Paul is to claim anachronisms in the letters, do you ignore this?

Can you give an example of what you mean?

Ben C. Smith wrote:

outhouse wrote: Love it.

Regardless, does Paul or does not Paul have complete historicity as being a Teacher whose communities in the 50's wrote the text we have today?

Thing is, I am not sure how to answer this because I have never heard a question worded quite this way before. If you are asking whether I think that the apostle Paul that we find in the epistles was a real, historical person who wrote in century I, my longstanding and current answer is yes, I think that Paul existed.

But the way you phrase it makes me wonder whether you mean something more than that. Does Paul have "complete historicity"? That sounds so official, and if it means that I never ought to allow myself to explore in directions that would cast his existence into doubt, well, I guess the answer would be no, I do not think his existence is beyond speculating against. I recently experienced a sudden and unexpected "Simon Magus equals Paul" moment. I think it has passed now, but I do not feel like I violated some international scholarly treaty for having harbored such a thought. I am free to explore as the evidence leads.

Ben.

In short it simple states Paul to have been a teacher of the new movement, written in the 50's, has a high degree of plausibility and probably existed. With more evidence in support then many characters from this time period. I stated earlier further study in his historicity is not out of the question, but his [stephens] conclusions remain unsubstantiated.

My wording against Stephen is not as quite thought out as I would with say you. Giving you the respect you deserve, I would choose my words more wisely so to speak.

I find his work sort of a rhetorical hack and slash and so I offer the same in return.

Why not show all of us some of your talents by answering a question you raised about motives earlier. I will ask you again the question - how does Acts explain the motive for Saul adopting the name 'Paul'? Do you have an explanation for why he took this name based on the internal evidence from Acts?