If theists understood "evidence"

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't believe Paul, for reasons that I have stated before, namely, I believe that Paul was a "storyteller" who told overt lies, in particular, his claim to have persecuted early Christians.  I think that this story was invented by Paul in order to give him credibility within the early Christian community, but within the known structure of the Roman Empire in Palestine, I think that his claims were impossible.  Neither the local nor the Roman authorities would have tolerated such behavior, either due to one of their citizens or one of their subjects.  Paul's claims are equivalent to someone claiming that Sheriff Joe Shapiro went to New York City, set up his own jail in a rented hotel room and started making his own arrests.  A few decades from now someone may write such a story, and while it may make for entertaining reading, it would be viewed as being an historical impossibility.  Ditto for Paul.

By the way, there is a principle of law at work here:



Paul is not a credible witness to history -- he likely suffered from epileptic seizures, which he interpreted as being of divine origin, he believed in a flat Earth, and he was a liar.

Do the majority of scholars support your view?  I never see this as a major argument articulated by scholars.

It seems to me, that during this time period, the Romans and the Jews had a complicated on again - off again relationship.   I also think that it is incorrect to compare modern practices to those of 1st century Rome (anachronistic fallacy).  During the time of Jesus (and Paul) they where trying to get along with the Jews,  shortly after, was the Jewish war.  There was a tension and power struggle between the two.   I don't think that the Romans had any problem with killing people, but the question is, would they have allowed the Jewish authorities to do so.  I'm certainly not any kind of authority or expert in this area, but given my knowledge of their relationship and the behavior of the Romans I think that the answer is it's complicated. It fluctuated and what they allowed or didn't allow depended on that complicated relationship which could change rapidly.

Let me break this down for you.  Of the four pauls, one is completely legendary, two are varying degrees of lying for christ, and "authentic paul" is only authentic insomuch as we think a guy wrote it.

That guy, limited to just that content, is very vague about his cred.  In that content, he merely claims to have persecuted christians, but how or where is left up to the imagination..with the exception that he says he never persecuted them in judea.  This is important...because judea is the only place that a jew could accost people on account of their faith, and whatever charges they brought would only apply to fellow jews (and this would only be true before the jewish war - after..lelz). Further, the character of authentic paul is a hellenist and not a hebrew scholar, not someone who'd had rabbinical training....not someone the theocratic authorities would send to ferret out other hellenists, why not start with him?  

So, knowing all of that, lets parse the persecution claim.  If paul was just some well to do nut who yelled at christians from time to time..it's plausible.  

If we imagine that paul was traveling the countryside as an arm of and with the blessing of the religious -and- secular authorities..merrily prosecuting christians in some more meaningful and legal sense.....in a word.  No.  

The hard limit in all of this is that the story must be set before the jewish war, or else the entire thing is completely implausible.  The generous summary here...is that paul is exaggerating when it comes to his level of education, importance, role in society, and past acts - and that's just in "authentic" paul, and assuming it was written in the 50's.  

The paul you have in mind, otoh, is completely fictitious...and yes..that is the position of the majority of new testament scholars.  Christians commonly confuse their paul with the paul of biblical scholarship - so I can't fault you for being a common christian...but now you know.  

You're welcome.  

It seems that we jumped topics completely now (leaping more than creeping).   I have discussed this recently, and you are going to have to support your claims with more than fanciful stories, like with evidence and reason.

Have we?  

No, we have not. I directly answered questions you asked. Yes, it is the majority opinion of new testament scholarship that the bulk of what is attributed to paul and about paul is not authentic. The majority of the paul as persecutor tidbits we have are in legendary paul. Limiting ourselves to authentic paul, we find a trivial and vague claim...that -must- be trivial and vague..or else it would not support either the person of paul or the dating of the authentics.

If we assume that authentic paul is historically authentic, we are left with a hellenist, not a hebrew....who inflated his background as needed for polemic in the decades preceding the jewish war.

So, what would you like to do? Affirm the narrative continuity of legends, and in the process argue -against- the notion of a historical paul in authentic paul..or accept authentic paul as historically accurate and place him within the context of damascene authority in the 30's to 50's?