The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

Do we not agree that there is a legendary or mythical Paul?  You're asking me to demonstrate what you seem to have already agreed to Nestor.

No. We don't agree because you seem to think that if there were later legendary accounts of Paul then that casts doubt on all of the earlier material we possess, all of which strongly suggests that the person who wrote at least half a dozen of the letters was a man who called himself Paul, was intimately acquainted with his readership, lived in the first-century, converted from Pharisaic Judaism to becaming a Christian proselytizer, etc., eventually leading to his status as a Saint. You've presented nothing but one post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy after another (among others) that could be applied to many figures who gained notoriety in the ancient world. Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar were also mythologized but it would be ridiculous to assume as a result that every document or artifact containing information about their lives and exploits should be presumed a relic of fraud and fiction. Virgil was deified shortly after his death. Do you automatically presume that every work attributed to Virgil must therefore be part of a "narrative"? Epicurus? The list could go on.

we simply have a disagreement as to how far that legendary/mythical paul extends, where he stops, and where "the real paul" begins...if there is a real paul.

That discussion isn't even possible if you just assume everything presented contains nothing but a "story" presented as authentic epistles and references to an actual person but are *really* part of a single "narrative" analogous to the Screwtape Letters (lol).

I asked you to isolate the most compelling piece of evidence, in your estimation, for a historical Paul. Sure, I may not have found it convincing the first go round, try again.

I did so in the post prior to you responding directly to me... I should think you probably saw it... hence your reply... so go back and read it. I made four separate points. You haven't addressed any of them.

I asked you to pick an epistle (which is ludicrous, btw, as the claim won't prove the claim.....and so that discussion is entirely for the benefit of your own position) so we could consider whether or not those epistles -also- had those legendary and mythological aspects we have both agreed -do exist- in the character of Paul.  

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
There's seven for you to consider.

You seem to be under the impression that I must demonstrate some counterpoint to you, that I must provide some other compelling explanation or this "Historical Paul" business is credible.

Of course. You think there is a more reasonable explanation for the existence of the Pauline epistles. I've been disappointed thus far in your failure to present any reason or evidence for your silly explanation.

I'm asking questions and advancing a position which has been asked and advanced for as long as people have been searching for the historical Paul...so lets stop pretending that my comments are unserious, shall we?

Do you think any quest for a historical Paul (or Jesus or Clement) starts with the assumption that these figures did not exist? Lol... good luck with historical reconstruction if that's how you approach ancient writings.

Knowing that legend and myth is present in the narrative...(and we both know this, right?).......how have you determined that a specific set of claims is factual, rather than legendary or mythical?

Seriously... I've already stated two ways... twice... let me state them a third time... historiography and higher criticism. Carrier suggests a new approach using Baye's Theorem. I'm not sure of the results when applied to ancient figures besides Jesus but since he does not doubt that Paul was a person who wrote epistles I assume Paul passes that criteria, as he does the others, with flying colors.