I don't have anything to say about the main question here, other than that I think it would take more substantial scholarship on the question than the usual facile apologetic that is offered for such things, as well as counting the positives that a Christian like Paul may have contributed to Western Civilization, one also has to keep in mind that Christianity also contributed the strain of thought which led to the extermination of six million Jews in World War II. One has to look at both the upside as well as the downside of any such hypothetical contributions, as well as making the previously mentioned distinction as to whether the thinker was more an effect of already present cultural effects, rather than its originator, and especially whether the ideas represented were truly original with, and a consequence of, the activity of Paul.

Regardless, I found the following interesting, even though it doesn't exactly respond to the central question.

Quote:Paul’s Historical Importance

A number of years ago, maybe 20 years ago now, there a survey was taken of college professors in a variety of fields—history, political science, philosophy, classics—in which they asked these professors who, in their opinion, was the most important person in the history of Western civilization. Now, if I were to ask that question of my class at Chapel Hill, the answer would come back, Jesus was the most important person in the history of Western civilization; and, in fact, I think a case could be made that Jesus was the most important person. As it turns out, though, in this particular survey, Jesus came in tied for fifth. He tied with the apostle Paul for fifth place. The most important person in the survey, to the surprise of my students, was Alexander the Great. The logic was that Alexander the Great was the one who spread Greek culture throughout the Mediterranean world. Without Greek culture, our form of civilization wouldn’t exist. The Romans eventually conquered basically the same region that Alexander the Great had conquered. They continued to perpetuate Greek customs and culture and religion and language, so that this became the culture of the Mediterranean world that was inherited after the Roman Empire, down into the Middle Ages, down to today; so that on this logic, Alexander the Great was the most significant figure in the history of Western civilization because without him, Jesus would not have been able to make the impact that he did.

In any event, in this survey it’s interesting that Paul and Jesus tied for fifth. Why would they tie? In the opinion of the scholars who were being surveyed, they tied because without Paul, the religion that Jesus promoted would not have become what we call Christianity. According to this opinion, Jesus was a Jewish prophet and teacher who didn’t start out to found a new religion. They said that Jesus preached about the God of the Jews, and he taught about the Hebrew Bible, and the law of Moses, and how people could best follow the law. They viewed it that Jesus was a Jew promoting a form of Judaism. Paul, however, changed the religion of Jesus, so that it was no longer the religion of Jesus, but it was the religion about Jesus.

The Historic Importance of Saint Paul

It was paul himself™ who claimed to have become all things to all men.   That people on opposite sides of an issue have commonly thought of themselves as...in some way, followers of paul, is amusing.

(July 26, 2018 at 7:00 pm)Khemikal Wrote: -and that's the rub.  Christianity has always been based on the zeitgeist of the time.  So, today...you have a bunch of Muricans thinking Socialism™ is the end of the world.....?  

Expect to see that in their sermons.

In any case it's tremendously stupid to say Christianity has been effective at making people more compassionate, ethical and loving. One only needs to remember at Early Christian intolerance, Crusades, colonialism, Dark Ages, witch trials, American Puritans persecuting others, Christian treatment of natives, Christians & slavery, Bible Belt problems.

Alex had the additional advantage of having been a real person, Jorm.  Helps a lot!

Another point one needs to be clear on regarding the central question, if we're interested in Paul's specific contributions, accepted at face value, it must be understood that scholars hold a number of the traditionally attributed Pauline epistles to be of questionable authorship, if not outright forgeries. That raises an ancillary question of whether certain Pauline contributions are actually Paulline, and if, as may be the case, not, the question of whether those authors' contributions are likewise originators or mere hangers-on.

Quote:Letters attributed to St. Paul:

Of the thirteen NT letters attributed to Paul, most scholars today distinguish between two groups: those written by Paul himself vs. those written by his followers. However, since not all scholars are in agreement regarding the authorship of certain letters, rather than calling the two groups the “true” letters vs. the “false” ones, it is better to distinguish between the “undisputed” letters vs. the “disputed” ones.

• The seven “Undisputed Letters” (a.k.a. the “Authentic Pauline Letters”).
  These can be put into three subgroups chronologically:
  • The Earliest Letter (ca. 50-51 AD): 1 Thessalonians
    
  • The Middle Letters (mid 50's): 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Galatians
    
  • The Latest Letter (ca. 57-58 AD): Romans
    About 95-99% of scholars today agree that all of these letters were actually written by Paul himself.
  
  
• The six “Disputed Letters” (a.k.a. the “Deutero-Pauline Epistles”).
  For two of these, the scholarly divide is about 50/50 (that is, about 50% of scholars think they were written by Paul himself, while the other 50% think they are “pseudepigraphic” or written later by a follower of Paul):
  
  • If 2 Thessalonians is authentic, Paul probably wrote it soon after 1 Thess (in order to correct some misunderstandings caused by 1 Thess itself), since it is so similar in form and content to 1 Thess.
    
  • If Colossians is authentic, Paul probably wrote it near the end of his life (after spending several years in prison), since the theology expressed in it is rather different from Paul's earlier letters.
    
  • If either or both of these letters are pseudepigraphic, then they were probably written in the last few decades of the first Christian century.
  
  
• For the other four letters, about 80% of scholars think they were not written by Paul himself, but by one of his followers after his death:
  • Ephesians is almost definitely a later expansion of Colossians, since they are so similar in structure and theology, but quite different from Paul's earlier letters; Ephesians was probably written to serve as a “cover letter” for an early collection of Pauline letters.
    
  • The Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus) were most likely written late in the first century by some member(s) of the “Pauline School” who wanted to adapt his teachings to changing circumstances.
    Note: Judging a particular letter to be pseudepigraphic does not mean that it is any less valuable than the other letters, but only that it was written later by someone other than Paul.
    All thirteen of the letters attributed to Paul are still considered “canonical”; all of them are still part of the Holy Bible and foundational for the Christian Church.
    Distinguishing the letters based on actual authorship, however, allows scholars to see more clearly the development of early Christian theology and practice.
  
  
• The so-called Epistle to the Hebrews is definitely not written by Paul, and is not even explicitly attributed to him.
  • For centuries, many Christians counted it as the fourteenth work in the Pauline corpus, mainly because the epistolary ending mentions Timothy, Paul's closest associate (see Heb 13:23).
    
  • However, contrary to all other letters and epistles, the opening of Hebrews does not name its author at all.
    
  • In literary genre, therefore, Hebrews is not really a “letter”; rather, it is a “homily” (a scripture-based sermon).

The Deutero-Pauline Letters

In addition to the questions raised by pseudo-Pauline writings is that of whether or not there existed other writings by other authors at the time which advanced the ideas which we in our hindsight are giving Paul credit for, but which may have had significant contributors from both within the Christian movement and without. In that case, some of the Pauline contributions are only Pauline in the sense that Paul's writings survived, and the others do not. It's impossible to say in hindsight just how much is original to Paul and Jesus simply because any evidence of such was simply not preserved. In addition, it behooves us to recognize that Paul's contributions would not have had any effect if not for later Christians following in Paul's footsteps, perhaps in many cases fleshing out what is merely hinted at, intentionally or not, in Paul's writings. There are whole libraries of thought devoted to the supposed intents and meaning of biblical authors which, in some cases, may simply be an artifact of the attempt to find such meaning in the original text, which, the original author was essentially not cognizant of and not intending such meanings at all.

---

---

(July 27, 2018 at 2:30 am)Minimalist Wrote: Alex had the additional advantage of having been a real person, Jorm.  Helps a lot!

Yes and no. Someone had to write those letters, even if not an actual Paul. Perhaps a Pauline community, similar to that at Qumran. Ultimately, without a lot of knowledge of the actual philosophical under currents of the time, it may be impossible to attribute anything specifically to Paul. I suspect, given other experience, that both Greco and Roman political and philosophical movements of the time were more advanced than the pro-Pauline camp makes readily known, essentially raising Paul up by pushing the contributions of those others down. Which, in addition to our vast ignorance of the age, is one reason I'm skeptical of these types of arguments such as those of Steve, Holland, and other authors.

As noted previously, one has to take the bad with the good, and among Paul's other contributions regarding shame related to the body and natural instinct, one has to count his contribution to anti-homosexual prejudice among the negatives. Little about any inherent dignity of human life in his condemnation of homosexuality. As well, in considering his views on women, while there is implicit support for the idea that he had a positive view of women and their role in the church, it must be remembered that it was the misogynistic passages in his writing which stood out and formed the locus of anti-women attitudes throughout the middle ages and into our modern era. Having an implicitly laudatory attitude is small consolation if the more explicit effects of one's writings are grossly oppressive. (On a personal note, although I'm not making an explicit argument for it, Paul's concentration on faith versus works perpetuates a religious view which seems to encourage hypocrisy as well as perpetuating a religion that basically rests upon a supposed thought crime. The enormous amount of devastation that Christianity has left in its wake, both in terms of death and oppression related to people being seen as "believing the wrong things" is enormous.)

Quote:In Republican Rome, the poorly attested Lex Scantinia penalized an adult male for committing a sex crime (stuprum) against an underage male citizen (ingenuus). It is unclear whether the penalty was death or a fine. The law may also have been used to prosecute adult male citizens who willingly took a pathic role in same-sex acts, but prosecutions are rarely recorded and the provisions of the law are vague; as John Boswell has noted, "if there was a law against homosexual relations, no one in Cicero's day knew anything about it." When the Roman Empire came under Christian rule, all male homosexual activity was increasingly repressed, often on pain of death. In 342 CE, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal. Shortly after, in the year 390 CE, emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive. Emperor Justinian I (527–565 CE) made homosexuals a scapegoat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."

Laws and codes prohibiting homosexual practice were in force in Europe from the fourth to the twentieth centuries, and Muslim countries have had similar laws from the beginnings of Islam in the seventh century up to and including the present day. Abbasid Baghdad, under the Caliph Al-Hadi (785–786 CE), punished homosexuality with death.

Wikipedia || Violence against LGBT people

(As a side note, the fact that same-sex marriages had to be explicitly outlawed seems to strongly suggest that same-sex marriages were in fact a reality at the time. The idea that they would make a law outlawing a practice that did not occur is absurd. And thus, Steve's contention that same-sex marriage does not exist in history in another thread would seem to be an exaggeration, at best.)

Just my 2 pence:

I guess there's a difference between someone writing an account as themselves, and purposely inventing a character to tell a narrative through (real or otherwise).

(July 26, 2018 at 3:48 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 26, 2018 at 3:24 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Then why do so many theists point to Constantine as an important figure to the rise of Christianity?

You mean aside from his conversion and him legalizing Christianity at the time?  Jesus Christ Brian.

Christianity was legal at the time. What Constantine did was largely replace the imperial cult with christianity (to be completed a couple of generations later with the suppression of all competing religions).

On the very rare occasions that christians got into trouble it was solely due to their refusal to sacrifice and give praise to the imperial cult, considered by Rome a civic and patriotic rather than a religious duty.

(July 27, 2018 at 10:39 am)Wololo Wrote:

(July 26, 2018 at 3:48 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You mean aside from his conversion and him legalizing Christianity at the time?  Jesus Christ Brian.

Christianity was legal at the time. What Constantine did was largely replace the imperial cult with christianity (to be completed a couple of generations later with the suppression of all competing religions).

On the very rare occasions that christians got into trouble it was solely due to their refusal to sacrifice and give praise to the imperial cult, considered by Rome a civic and patriotic rather than a religious duty.

My bad.  I'm guilty of a simplistic reading, apparently.

Quote:The Edict of Milan (Latin: Edictum Mediolanense) was the February 313 AD agreement to treat Christians benevolently within the Roman Empire. Western Roman Emperor Constantine I and Licinius, who controlled the Balkans, met in Milan and, among other things, agreed to change policies towards Christians following the Edict of Toleration by Galerius issued two years earlier in Serdica. The Edict of Milan gave Christianity a legal status, but did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire; this took place under Emperor Theodosius I in 380 AD.

. . . . . .

Ever since the fall of the Severan dynasty in 235 AD, rivals for the imperial throne had bid for support by either favouring or persecuting Christians. The previous Edict of Toleration by Galerius had been recently issued by the emperor Galerius from Serdica and was posted at Nicomedia on 30 April 311. By its provisions, the Christians, who had "followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity", were granted an indulgence.

   

Quote:Wherefore, for this our indulgence, they ought to pray to their God for our safety, for that of the republic, and for their own, that the commonwealth may continue uninjured on every side, and that they may be able to live securely in their homes.

Their confiscated property, however, was not restored until 313, when instructions were given for the Christians' meeting places and other properties to be returned and compensation paid by the state to the current owners:

Quote:    the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception.

It directed the provincial magistrates to execute this order at once with all energy so that public order may be restored and the continuance of divine favour may "preserve and prosper our successes together with the good of the state."

The actual letters have never been retrieved. However, they are quoted at length in Lactantius' On the Deaths of the Persecutors (De mortibus persecutorum), which gives the Latin text of both Galerius's Edict of Toleration as posted at Nicomedia on 30 April 311 and of Licinius's letter of toleration and restitution addressed to the governor of Bithynia and posted at Nicomedia on 13 June 313.

Eusebius of Caesarea translated both documents into Greek in his History of the Church (Historia Ecclesiastica). His version of the letter of Licinius must derive from a copy posted in the province of Palaestina Prima (probably at its capital, Caesarea) in the late summer or early autumn of 313, but the origin of his copy of Galerius's Edict of 311 is unknown since that does not seem to have been promulgated in Caesarea. In his description of the events in Milan in his Life of Constantine, Eusebius eliminated the role of Licinius, whom he portrayed as the evil foil to his hero Constantine.

The Edict was in effect directed against Maximinus Daia, the Caesar in the East who was at that time styling himself as Augustus. Having received the emperor Galerius' instruction to repeal the persecution in 311, Maximinus had instructed his subordinates to desist, but had not released Christians from prisons or virtual death-sentences in the mines, as Constantine and Licinius had both done in the West.

Following Galerius' death, Maximin was no longer constrained; he enthusiastically took up renewed persecutions in the eastern territories under his control, encouraging petitions against Christians. One of those petitions, addressed not only to Maximin but also to Constantine and Licinius, is preserved in a stone inscription at Arycanda in Lycia, and is a "request that the Christians, who have long been disloyal and still persist in the same mischievous intent, should at last be put down and not be suffered by any absurd novelty to offend against the honour due to the gods."

The Edict [of Milan] is popularly thought to concern only Christianity, and even to make Christianity the official religion of the Empire (which recognition did not actually occur until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380). Indeed, the Edict expressly grants religious liberty not only to Christians, who had been the object of special persecution, but goes even further and grants liberty to all religions:

Quote:    When you see that this has been granted to [Christians] by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity of any religion.
   — "Edict of Milan", Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors (De Mortibus Persecutorum), ch. 48. opera, ed. 0. F. Fritzsche, II, p 288 sq. (Bibl Patr. Ecc. Lat. XI).[9]

Since Licinius composed the Edict with the intent of publishing it in the east upon his hoped-for victory over Maximinus, it expresses the religious policy accepted by Licinius, a pagan, rather than that of Constantine, who was already a Christian. Constantine's own policy went beyond merely tolerating Christianity: he tolerated paganism and other religions, but he actively promoted Christianity.

Wikipedia || Edict of Milan [emphasis mine]