The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

You don't think that you must demonstrate that there was an actual Paul, and that we have a way of determining who that was......if you want to make the claim that there was an actual paul........and that we know at least some of who he was?  Do you think it's up to me to prove that there wasn't?  Why? On my end, I know that I can show you the legendary and mythical Paul...and I was of the impression that we both agreed that there is such a thing. Don't you think that might demonstrate my position which is....nothing to do with 90% of your responses to me...that the Paul of the NT (yes, even those seven epistles) is legendary, and mythological - whatever else he may have been-.

(I don't want to hear any more of your bullshit about conspiracies and cons, honestly...it's pissing me off. If the only people you can argue with are conspiracists then go find one?)

-Do you think that you've done that, in this thread? I'll go back and re-read whatever it is you think is the most compelling. How does that sound? I want the details of Paul, as you see Paul (the real man, mind you, not the convention), and I'd like to see their source.

I gave you the relevant source material. You dismissed them and said that's not good enough for establishing the historicity of Paul and some information about his life, without any---much less rational---justification in my view. So there's really nothing else for me to oblige until you attempt some sort of justification for your mythicist narrative, which very much is conspiratorial. "Sorry" if that pisses you off. My suggestion is to stop being lazy and bring something to the table worth discussing if you want your belief to merit anyone's serious attention.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, no matter how many times I correct you, and request that you stop imposing positions on me, you're just gonna keep doing that>? Conspiracy may be important to you, you may have alot to say about it. I don't. I don;t see why it;s required as an explanation, or why you must paint my remarks.....despite that constant correction by myself, -as a conspiracy theory waiting to express itself. That's never going to happen, you realize?

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.  You have used those very words yourself........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's it, that's the whole disagreement between us, that is what I have continually expressed, that is what I have continually corrected you upon...and you have nothing to say about that, only constant straw manning horseshit. 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 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.  

-but that shit, up above, was what I got?  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. This is not the case - regardless of whether or not I have demonstrated this to you........do you understand -why- this is not the case? Why I must establish -precisely nothing- other than your inability to demonstrate what you have claimed to know...to support the criticism I've offered? Sure, sure, I think you're having difficulty doing that as you have to scramble over and around the legendary and mythical Paul...but what I think about Paul matters very little with regards to what you must demonstrate to be true. Why do you think I need an elaborate alternative explanation in order to rationally disagree? I have looked at what you offered as evidence, I'm willing to look again, and I did not see that what you offered could demonstrate that the claim made, a historical paul, was true. Not that it didn't, mind..that it -could not-.

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? If you would stop with the strawmanning, you might be able to see that over the mound of bullshit you've erected. I am simply asking you how you have conquered the legend, how you have overcome the myth. 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? Yes, Nestor, that even includes those seemingly innocuous claims as "I was born at x on the x of x"..........after all, Odin, Zues, Quetzecotal, Paul fucking Bunyan, and Jonathan Harker make similar, innocuous claims that are, regardless of their seeming innocence, fiction -part of the narrative-......and which, of any competeng, seemingly innocuous claims, are to be believed?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Does it really matter if Paul, Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, Peter, or any of the other characters were real or imaginary? The relevant question is do you, as a person of the 21st Century, agree with any of their viewpoints about how a person should live his life? You can get a lot of ideas and advice about relationships and morals from watchig movies and cartoons but do you base your life on the acts of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and Iron Man?

[The Grand Nudger]

To me?  No, it doesn't matter if they were real, imaginary, or a mix.  We have the story before us and the story is what counts, as far as I can tell, not the cast of characters.  It is an interesting subject, though, imo.  People have been fascinated by the "historical core" to this or that story since the time of Euhemerus, at the least.  These searches have been consistently turning up nada for centuries...but we're still looking...so...lol?

[Minimalist]

Does it really matter if Paul, Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, Peter, or any of the other characters were real or imaginary?

Not really, but it is amusing watching their fan clubs get worked up when they are challenged.  Sort of what I imagine an Elvis fan club meeting is like.

What is most amusing is that the people who shout most loudly that there is a "historical core" to their particular brand of bullshit would be the same ones who would deny most loudly that any other religion dreamed up by the human imagination has a "historical core."  

[Esquilax]

The next year, I made a similar offer on YouTube to Jesus. I would convert to Christianity and spend the rest of my days preaching his Gospel as he saw fit to direct if he would only show up personally to claim me as his willing and devoted servant by the end of the day on 7/7/07 Eastern Standard Time. Once again, no takers.

No doubt this will be dismissed out of hand, as you made the offer on equal standing, and were not appropriately grovelling and submissive. In essence, you'll be discounted entirely because you didn't presuppose the truth of the bible and imbue Jesus with the authority and dominance that you're trying to get him to prove, before he did so.

[Minimalist]

Jesus is an insecure little fucker, isn't he?

[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.

[Minimalist]

You are not catching the essence of Carrier's discussion about 'argument by epistle' then.

2. The Peculiar Indifference of Paul and his Christians


As a psychologist once put it (about Paul's letter to fellow congregants in
Rome, whom he had not yet met and thus can't have shared his own stories
with):

Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a twenty-page
letter passionately wanting to share her excitement about a new teacher.
This letter has only one topic, your friend's new teacher. [But] at the end
of her letter, you still do not know one thing about her teacher. Yet, Paul
presents the central figure of his theology this way . . . . It [seems] impossible
to imagine how Paul could avoid telling one story or parable of--or
fai I to note one physical trait or personal quality of-Jesus.


Indeed, Paul mentions 'Jesus' or 'Christ' in his seven authentic letters at
least 280 times-and that doesn't count other references to him as only 'the
Lord' or 'Son of God'. Altogether, Paul found over three hundred occasions
to mention Jesus (by some name or title), and on at least half of those
occasions he tells us some particular fact or other about this Jesus. But (as
we'll see) not one of those facts connects Jesus with an earthly life (without
adding suppositions not in the text). His crucifixion is mentioned over
fifteen times; and his resurrection, over thirty times. But never any details.
So those could have occurred in outer space (as explained in Chapter 3). We
hear very little else.9

In fact, as we' l l see in this chapter, the only Jesus Paul shows any knowledge
of is a celestial being, not an earthly man. Paul's Jesus is only ever
in the heavens. Never once is his baptism mentioned, or his ministry, or
his trial, or any of his miracles, or any historical details about what he was
like, what he did, or suffered, or where he was from, or where he had been,
or what people he knew. No memories from those who knew him are ever
reported. Paul never mentions Galilee or Nazareth, or Pilate or Mary or
Joseph, or any miracles Jesus did or any miraculous powers he is supposed
to have displayed . . . or anything about the life of Jesus not in the Gospels.
Paul never references any event in Jesus' life as an example to follow
(beyond the abstractions of love, endurance and submissiveness), and never
places anything Jesus said in any earthly historical context whatever. So
far as these letters tell us, no Christian ever asked Paul about these things,
either. Nor did any of these things ever become relevant in any dispute Paul
had with anyone. Not one of his opponents, so far as Paul mentions, ever
referenced a fact about Jesus' life in support of their arguments. And no
one ever doubted anything claimed about Jesus and asked for witnesses to
confirm it or explain it or give more details. The interest Tacitus showed in
Pliny 's father is never exhibited by any of them, nor is Pliny's eagerness to
talk about his father ever exhibited by Paul in his eagerness to talk about
Jesus-and yet Paul talks obsessively and repeatedly about Jesus.


Carrier pgs 514-15

[Mudhammam]

I'm not sure if that post was in reference to something I said, Min---if not ignore this---but if so, I don't know what the fuck it is you're babbling about.