Who existed ? When ? Where ?

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

The Epistles in the NT [James, 1 Peter , Jude, John, Hebrews] are ignorant of the so-called Pauline Epistles.

The Gospels in the NT [Matthew, Mark, Luke and John] are ignorant of the so-called Pauline Epistles.

How do you know all of them are ignorant? Do you think if they knew about the epistles, they had to tell it in their writings?
Anyway, some of them made use of concepts and doctrines as seen in the Pauline epistles.

Every NT book, including all so-called Pauline Epistles, were invented at least after the writings attributed to Pliny the younger [after c 115 CE].

All the so-called Pauline letters were invented at least after "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus [ at least after c 170 CE].

So is it after 115 CE or 170 CE?

As for corroboration of Pauline epistles by Christian texts, the first one is by 1 Clement, generally dated late 1st century (according to the internal evidence, my dating is 81 CE. Justifications in http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html, then search on: 5.2 Dating )

Cordially, Bernard

[Secret Alias]

I think the best argument for historicism is that it's the simplest explanation for the evidence. With that said the best argument against historicism IMHO is that the material in our canon was not pristinely preserved. The texts themselves were chosen, the texts themselves were arranged into a canon with some thought that they 'belong together' to present a strong argument for a certain understanding of Jesus. To think that the motivation of the editor was to preserve 'the most reliable' information, the oldest, best preserved about Jesus is hopelessly naive. It's like saying that the reason Republicans exclusively watch Foxnews - or the reason people used to read Playboy - was because of the accuracy of the reporting.

[Jax]

Gday all,

The current Pauline canon is very unlikely to represent what Paul himself originally wrote given the theological battles over his letters in the second century.

Yes, even the good letters are sometimes a confused mish-mash of sections.

(It also remains possible that the name "Paul" used on the letters was not the name by which the "Paul" was known by to others in his circle.)

So is there a clue in the name 'Paul' ? Mr Small / Humble ?
You can trust a bloke called 'Humble'.
Or was there a competing faction 'Big' ? Like Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

This really is quite a deep rabbit hole.

Kapyong

The highlighted quote of yours is actually why I feel that Paul is actually an historical person. We look at, for instance, 2 Corinthians and can see at least five individual smaller letters and a possible later interpolation; in Romans three distinct letters, Thessalonians two letters, Philippians three, etc. The letters are also heavily interpolated by later persons attempting to force Paul into their theology. Why do that if the original letters weren't authentic? Why not just start from scratch as Colossians, Ephians and Pilemon as a group do and what the Pastorals do? There is also the problem of coherence. The "Prison" letters and the "Pastorals" are very coherent and cohesive in content; not so with the letters that we think are authentic, in them Paul is all over the place, just what one would expect of letters written to address problems as they crop up. Created content would have a more structured narrative in my opinion, like the "prison" and "Pastoral" letters do. It's noteworthy that the "Prison" and "Pastoral" letters cannot be deconstructed into smaller letters like the "authentic" letters can.

At some point someone took a bunch of letters and redacted them and then composed larger letters out of the bits that they liked, this leads me to expect that the original letters were authentic, just not quite what the redactor wanted, hence the redacted compositions. Trouble is however, the redactor had to stay true to the originals as they were historic and a form of scripture as revealed by the Lord through Paul, so they couldn't be changed, only recompiled into a more pleasing format.
I'm willing to bet that once we have weeded out the interpolations that were added later we will have a fairly true sample of the letters of Paul, just with some of the more mundane content missing.

As to the name 'Paulos' could it be a nickname like "shorty"? At one point he says that he isn't impressive in person, perhaps it's because he is short. I seem to recall that later tradition had Paul as short and bow legged. An interesting detail.

Paulos: a Greek transliteration of the Roman name Paulus was a very uncommon name for Roman males and only used by two Gens and then only rarely, it then becomes an extremely unlikely name for a Jewish man.

"This really is quite a deep rabbit hole."

Fun and interesting though.

[Jax]

Paul’s seven letters (or five? six?), flawed as they may be, are as close as we can get to primary evidence in the search for early Christian origins.

James, John and Cephas/Peter? Their scant stories, such as they are presented by Paul, may very well have been fabricated by Paul, or he may have very loosely based them on real people. The concepts associated with those men held by many today could very likely have been shaped by the author of GMark, as he brought Paul’s heavenly Christ spirit down to earth in his tale set in recent times --- a tale far more accessible to a wider audience than Paul’s scripture-based heavenly Christ.

Strictly my opinion of course, to rely on Robert M. Price to paint an accurate picture of Paul is to be misguided. Have you read his relatively recent, The Amazing Colossal Apostle ? In my opinion, Price has built a complex house of cards with an all-too shaky foundation.

Even more problematic, in my opinion, Price has missed or ignored the consistent personality and on-going human dramas threaded through several of Paul’s letters --- on-going dramas that would be inconceivable in Price’s picture of a “pile of literary scraps” (p. 534) consisting of fragments patched together by so many competing factions over so many decades.

Added verisimilitude in Paul’s letters? It’s possible. But the five letters (generally considered to be authentic) addressed to his congregations reveal human dramas, Paul’s hubris and thirst for authority, distinct personalities and cultural paradigms for each congregation, and clashes of cultures between Paul’s Jewish provenance and his gentile converts that are all so well integrated, intertwined, and consistent that for it all to have been concocted by a clever author or redactor to add believe-ability to the letters is itself beyond reasonable belief.

And one can’t ignore that portions of Galatians and 1 Corinthians fit together like interlocking puzzle pieces (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2396). Together they reveal a significant portion of Paul’s back-story.

I think Price’s characterizations of a “pile of literary scraps” and “a pile of flaking puzzle pieces” (p. 534) provide a much better description of his evidence, than of Paul’s letters.


some drama – viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3253&p=71356#p71356

What five might those be Sir?

[robert j]

... Added verisimilitude in Paul’s letters? It’s possible. But the five letters (generally considered to be authentic) addressed to his congregations reveal human dramas, Paul’s hubris and thirst for authority, distinct personalities and cultural paradigms for each congregation, and clashes of cultures between Paul’s Jewish provenance and his gentile converts that are all so well integrated, intertwined, and consistent that for it all to have been concocted by a clever author or redactor to add believe-ability to the letters is itself beyond reasonable belief...

What five might those be Sir?

Your highlighting didn't extend far enough, and my wording wasn't adequately clear. I was referring to --- Of the seven letters generally considered to be authentic, the five of those addressed to his congregations. Those would be 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians and 1 and 2 Corinthians.

Recognizing that some of those are compilations of more than one original letter.

[MrMacSon]

... I feel that Paul is actually an historical person. We look at, for instance, 2 Corinthians and can see at least five individual smaller letters and a possible later interpolation; in Romans three distinct letters, Thessalonians two letters, Philippians three, etc. The letters are also heavily interpolated by later persons attempting to force Paul into their theology ...

...At some point someone took a bunch of letters and redacted them and then composed larger letters out of the bits that they liked, this leads me to expect that the original letters were authentic, just not quite what the redactor wanted, hence the redacted compositions.

Yes, it possible Paul was a real person, but that raises the question of when? ie. in what period?

Trouble is however, the redactor had to stay true to the originals as they were historic and a form of scripture as revealed by the Lord through Paul, so they couldn't be changed, only recompiled into a more pleasing format.

¹ What do you mean here? They would have been historic in that they existed? But did they then reflect 1st century history (ie. before redaction)?

or, do they now reflect 1st century history b/c they were redacted to do so??



You make some good points, and ask some good questions -

... Why not just start from scratch as Colossians, Ephians and Pilemon as a group do and what the Pastorals do? There is also the problem of coherence. The "Prison" letters and the "Pastorals" are very coherent and cohesive in content; not so with the letters that we think are authentic, in them Paul is all over the place, just what one would expect of letters written to address problems as they crop up. Created content would have a more structured narrative in my opinion, like the "prison" and "Pastoral" letters do. It's noteworthy that the "Prison" and "Pastoral" letters cannot be deconstructed into smaller letters like the "authentic" letters can.

At some point someone took a bunch of letters and redacted them and then composed larger letters out of the bits that they liked, this leads me to expect that the original letters were authentic, just not quite what the redactor wanted, hence the redacted compositions ...

... the originals ...were ... a form of scripture .... through Paul ... [later] recompiled into a more pleasing format.

I'm willing to bet that once we have weeded out the interpolations that were added later we will have a fairly true sample of the letters of Paul, just with some of the more mundane content missing.

As to the name 'Paulos' could it be a nickname like "shorty"? At one point he says that he isn't impressive in person, perhaps it's because he is short. I seem to recall that later tradition had Paul as short and bow legged. An interesting detail.

Paulos: a Greek transliteration of the Roman name Paulus was a very uncommon name for Roman males and only used by two Gens and then only rarely, it then becomes an extremely unlikely name for a Jewish man.

"This really is quite a deep rabbit hole."

Fun and interesting though.

[Jax]

... the five [Pauline] letters (generally considered to be authentic) addressed to his congregations reveal human dramas, Paul’s hubris and thirst for authority, distinct personalities and cultural paradigms for each congregation, and clashes of cultures between Paul’s Jewish provenance and his gentile converts that are all so well integrated, intertwined, and consistent that for it all to have been concocted by a clever author or redactor to add believe-ability to the letters is itself beyond reasonable belief.

And one can’t ignore that portions of Galatians and 1 Corinthians fit together like interlocking puzzle pieces (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2396). Together they reveal a significant portion of Paul’s back-story.

Sure. The letters may reflect real situations. And 'the five' may have mostly been written by one person.

But when? I think they could have been written in the early-mid 2nd century, yet the author (or a redactor) could have borrowed some aspects from texts about the mid 1st century Judea, such as the texts of Josephus, and others.

This used to be my view as well, a second century Paul would help to answer the almost complete lack of Christian material from the 1st century. However on an other forum site called Historum I came across a poster named Moros who proposed a pre-BCE Paul http://historum.com/religion/100672-whe ... ctive.html a concept that I am investigating and which seems to hold promise. The whole reason for Paul to be in the areas that he was just seems to make so much more sense in the 1st century BCE.

[MrMacSon]

.. The [Pauline and other NT] letters may reflect real situations. And 'the [cor Pauline] five' may have mostly been written by one person.

But when? I think they could have been written in the early-mid 2nd century, yet the author (or a redactor) could have borrowed some aspects from texts about the mid 1st century Judea, such as the texts of Josephus, and others.

This used to be my view as well, a second century Paul would help to answer the almost complete lack of Christian material from the 1st century.

However on an other forum site called Historum I came across a poster named Moros who proposed a pre-BCE Paul -

http://historum.com/religion/100672-whe ... ctive.html - a concept that I am investigating, and which seems to hold promise. The whole reason for Paul to be in the areas that he was just seems to make so much more sense in the 1st century BCE.

Paul is mostly active in Asia Minor and around the Aegean sea [in a 'post-'diasporic'' way]. He is also very Christ-centric, and I think Christ is a largely a late 1st century to 2nd century concept.

.

[robert j]

Paul is mostly active in Asia Minor and around the Aegean sea [in a 'post-'diasporic'' way].

What does that mean?

[Jax]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1806&p=41271&hilit=robin#p41271

Why did Marcion adopt the gospel of Luke?
Re: Why did Marcion adopt the gospel of Luke?
Robin Lane Fox dates the escape of Paul to 36/37 AD.
In 36/7 it is entirely credible to find Aretas’s agents active so far north in Damascus: Aretas had won a great victory over Herod Antipas in the wake of the divorce scandal and had overrun bits of the tetrarchy of Philip, Herod’s brother, who had died in 33/4 .Not until early 37 did Antipas manage to mobilize Roman support against the Petran king and defeat him.


Paul’s dangers in Damascus fit beautifully into the interval while Aretas’s troops could still make the most of their northern gains.

The Unauthorized version : truth and fiction the Bible
Robin Lane Fox
Penguin Books, 1991, page 305
ISBN 9780141022963

Unfortunately there is no evidence of Aretas IV having made any gains in the north, especially Damascus, and every good reason to expect that he did not. The Romans controlled that area at that time and Damascus was one of their cities. They would have responded with force had Aretas IV attacked and held those areas.

Actually, Paul's three year stay in Damascus fits in much better when Aretas III occupied Damascus from 85-72 BCE and then later from 69-63 BCE with Tigranes II occupying Damascus for three years from 72-69 BCE.