The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

Do you think that it is ignorant and un-serious to conclude that the Paul who's scraps could cure by mail is legendary or mythical? 

Surely you must know what a red herring is.

 I've concluded, personally, that there are many ignorant and un-serious claims attached to the character which can be, or must be, ignored..if one is to discuss "Paul the Man" - if such a man existed, and however we might determine that.  Do I think the the Paul of the NT, even of the epistles... is a legendary/mythical Paul, rather than an autobiographical Paul, yes, of course.  ??????

Without reason or evidence... In other words, because of faith. ??????

....... Indeed there are numerous letters (this is the format of the entire book), written by the man himself, as claimed within the narrative.

Paul's epistles, and none of the NT writings, were originally composed as part of a book. You can't be such a fool that I have to literally spell out every fact relevant to the discussion prior to it taking off... so please, stop playing dumb and making fallacious comparisons, or go read up on the composition of the Bible. This is precisely why I keep reiterating that you, and people who make similar arguments, are

  ignorant and unserious.  I can't help but shake the feeling that you might forget to establish the only relevant issue in pursuit of that particular narrative.  You have alot of work to do.....if you stick to your method, eh?

 LOL. It's not my method. It's the method employed by historians for every single ancient text ever produced. 

Again you suggest conspiracy....I thought that this was ignorant and unserious?  In any case, I don't think that your claim here is true, we know much about people who were, so far as we can tell, illiterate, and we know that much that has been written -about people- is not, strictly speaking, factual.  So we know that we do not -need- to swallow the claims of narratives written by or about any particular character in order to establish particulars about the life of any historical personage.  I'm sure you wouldn't believe -everything- a king had to say about himself (or anything that any author had to say about himself or another, by fiat)...and I think that this skepticism is well-founded.  I;m applying it to "Paul".  

Surely you must have insight into this "narrative" that existed prior to the "mystery author" penning Paul's epistles... and moreover, placing them into this lost "book," such as in your suggestion of the "Mad Arab." I suggest conspiracy theory because you have no valid reasons or sound evidence to back up your narrative whatsoever, whereas mine is at least consistent with the methods of actual historians who comb through texts to determine their date of composition and information about the writer, beyond which we can only work with what the texts say. So, from the stand point of parsimony, your simple rejections are also assertions to the contrary (someone else wrote them for such and such a reason and no one was aware of the true authorship because....) for which you've provided not a single iota of evidence for.

Who said anything about rejection?  Go argue that with someone who holds the position? 

 That's your position here, after all. It seems to be the only contribution to historical analysis that you and others who think along similar lines have been able to make thus far, which of course, is an argument from ignorance---needless to say, not a good one.

I think that down this road, lay an endless list of qualifiers made by you that will terminate with a "if the story is not precisely the same then they are entirely different".  It won;t matter, because we'll still be discussing a story for which you have provided me no evidence to consider.  You have continually referred to the claim.  I don't believe the claim, like I don't believe in many claims...so pointing to the claim will not convince me -of- the claim, Nestor.  

"The story" is that a man named Paul wrote letters, at various times, from various places, to various people. The evidence is that this is what we in fact possess, along with multiple instances of attestation to this story by other writers, of various literary skills and intentions, existing in various places, at various times. This is in large part how history of the past is pieced together to form a coherent picture. If you stick to it, you might be able to piece together a coherent picture of your own that others while find insightful. 

We are not debating the literary convention of Paul, Nestor. 

We are debating if it is more likely than not that Paul is nothing but a literary convention. And not surprisingly, you haven't been able to even begin to make that argument.

The claim supports the claim....I remain unconvinced.  You are referring to narrative continuity.  I don't dispute that there is narrative continuity.  Next?

I'll ask... again... what's the narrative you believe existed at the time Paul's epistles were written that explains their pseudographical nature (in your mind) and what is your evidence for this?

appealing to what...now?

The methods and rules developed by historians to establish the authenticity of works in dispute.

The existence of those narratives is not in question......

Did they arrive out of a vacuum? Who's this Paul that caused this anonymous writer to invoke his name on countless occasions when relating his personal testimony and ecclesiastical instruction to his peers in various locations? You have offered nothing as an explanation as to what this "narrative" is or why "Paul" would be a name employed when there is no evidence for the existence of any Paul prior to the epistles. 

-yet again, you'll have to have that discussion with someone who holds that position.  I have a great appreciation for fiction.  Fiction can be -many things-.......so I;m not sure what you're bitching and moaning about, or how this applies to the community?

Your appeals to the Screwtape Letters or "The Mad Arab," whose a character in a "book" that consists of letters, speaks for itself.

[Minimalist]

Nestor, don't pretend that this idea has not been studied extensively.  Even nutty xtians, like James Tabor cited below, see the obvious problems with the paul story that the church has cobbled together.  As he notes, these questions have been asked for just about as long as people have been looking for ( and not finding ) a historical "jesus."  (Whatever the fuck that means.)

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...ical-paul/

What can we reliably know about Paul and how can we know it? As is the case with Jesus, this is not an easy question. Historians have been involved in what has been called the “Quest for the Historical Jesus” for the past one hundred and seventy-five years, evaluating and sifting through our sources, trying to determine what we can reliably say about him.[/url] As it happens, the quest for the historical Paul began almost simultaneously, inaugurated by the German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur.[url=http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/#note02][ii] Baur put his finger squarely on the problem: There are [i]four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others. New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point.[/i]

The church can no longer murder people who dispute their bullshit and, as a result, they have a serious problem keeping it together.

[Mudhammam]

Thanks Min. Of course, I referred yourself and others to that exact link about ten pages ago. Tabor is not a "Paul mythicist"; neither is Richard Carrier. Neither is anyone with a damn clue.

[Minimalist]

You know, I don't sit around waiting for your threads to pop up so I can read them.  You have to be in the right place at the right time.

So...everyone who disagrees with your particular position is wrong, huh?  Even Baur?   You sure you aren't catholic?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

[Edited the below about a million times. Sort it out Rob.]

I'll try.

OK, we're done.

A pity. You won't find many Christians willing to deal with as much crap as this forum churns out. So, if you want to talk, I'm your guy.

If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between telling what you think is the truth, and actually being correct, you're being extremely dishonest and using a massive double standard.

To the contrary. I'll say it again. There is a huge difference between being

1) sincere (and wrong) about something you believe to be true, and
2) sincere (and right) about something you know to be true.

People are willing to die for either of those. What I reject is the idea that eleven apostles all died for something that they knew was a lie.

You're saying someone who has done careful research must be correct about everything. Unless, of course, their research is about a different religion. You're happy to distinguish between belief and fact for every person ever, including your most trusted friends, but not for the authors of one particular specific book.

---

I'm not saying that at all. But it stands to reason that while the authors of the gospels may have been off on the number of women at the foot of the cross or whether it was 4,000 or 5,000 people fed with two loaves and a fish, there is not much chance that they were in error about Jesus being seen alive three days after the crucifixion. There would have been no reason to even write the gospels without that central fact, would there?

---

I didn't say it was all fiction, I was very clear to make that point. You're not addressing my points, you're strawmanning me and just using evasive fallacious reasoning. I could address all the fallacies, but it would be pointless while you hold the above stance.

Hopefully, I have just made it clear that I do NOT hold the "above stance", so address all you want.

The general consensus is that the gospels were not written by eye witnesses, by the way.

It depends on which gospel you are referring to. Mark and Luke, no. As for your "consensus", maybe you should read some different books.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that they were, and you still need to be dishonest to try and make the case. I acknowledged there may have been a "real Jesus" beneath the story, yet you are talking as if I said the opposite.

See above. I'm not doing anything dishonest...I don't need to.

Your case boils down to "You should just believe it because the bible has some historical accuracy". Well, so does Spider-Man. New York exists, but it doesn't mean Spider-Man does.

Your first sentence is an oversimplification (and you know it).

Whether you believe the bible depends on whether or not you've already decided it is true for other reasons,

Is that universally true for all who become Christians, Rob? If not, then your argument fails - not because it is not true is some cases but because reading the Bible is what BRINGS some people to conversion.

which I'm sad to see you're not willing to discuss. If you change your mind about that, I'll rejoin the discussion. Or if you admit to some of this dishonesty. If what you say is actually true, you should not need all these dishonest and fallacious arguments to try and convince me. And to convince us is the point of this, for which you are failing I'm afraid.

I admit no dishonest. I suspect misunderstanding. If we were at a pub having a pint or two, this probably wouldn't have happened.

The burden of proof is on you, as you are making the claim.

Granted. That's why I joined the forum. To explain and defend the Christian faith.

Even if all the crazy stuff in the bible did happen, so what? It's clearly all finished now. No evidence of anything like that going on today. It seems god is dead or has lost interest.

Ah...now that is a separate discussion. For now, I'll leave you with this thought: A silent God is better than a non-existent one.

Yes, people can die for things they know are false. People can do all sorts of strange things. And again, this only establishes that they thought they were correct, not that they were actually correct. You acknowledge this distinction in every person ever alive, except bible authors.

You've just contradicted yourself in these two phrases:

"people can die for things they know are false"
"this only establishes they they thought they were correct"

Rob, if they thought they were correct then they did not know they are false. Hello?

That last point I made, about this distinction, is what you need to think about if you take anything away from your discussion from me.

Hopefully, this posts indicates that I have.

You also feel the need to misrepresent what atheism is in order to try and shift the burden of proof. I guess you didn't read my website:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k

Not all atheists are strong atheists. And to ask us to prove the bible wrong... the argument from ignorance. Here is my article about logical fallacies, in case anyone is unsure what exactly I'm talking about when I reference a particular one:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!logical-fallacies/cwi1

I did read your website...including all the fallacies (some of which I would rephrase, btw)...the whole thing (I think). And yes, not all atheists are strong atheists. (I'm not sure you're an atheist at all, but we'll see what the discussion reveals.)

One final thought. I can't speak for every atheist of course, but personally I have no agenda. I have no particular reason to want to disbelieve in gods. I just do, because I'm unconvinced. If there actually is a god, I don't care. I would carry on my life exactly the same way.

So, maybe it's not really a matter of being unconvinced so much as it is that you are indifferent?

I would assume a being of such power would have no interest in anything I do, nor require anything from me.

And what God has been trying to tell you is that you are wrong. On both counts. But start with the first part until you feel more at ease.

So I'll continue to put those people and animals around me first because I know what I do matters to them. If christianity was true, I wouldn't care. I would carry on my life exactly the same way. It would just mean either god was an evil bastard, or the bible is misrepresenting him. So what, I don't care. Nothing I can do about it.

Hitchens said basically the same thing.

So you see, it makes no difference to me either way. This allows me a kind of objectivity, because I have no vested interest either way. If there is a god and he is of good moral character, he would be pleased with how I am living my life I think. If he is any other type of god, I don't particularly care what he thinks.

He may very well be pleased with you, Rob. And one thing is certain: He loves you.

---

Remember those zombies that popped out of their graves and went to visit their buddies when Jesus died?  Is that a true story or pure BS?  If it's pure BS then why isn't the story of the resurrection pure BS?  Paul said that if the real dead don't rise then his story is pure BS.  Based on your knowledge of human history do dead people return to life?  Have you received visits from any of your dead relatives?

[The Grand Nudger]

Surely you must know what a red herring is.

How long can I expect you to avoid demonstrating the veracity of your own position by criticizing that of another?  Can we skip to the part where you realize that you haven't even begun to address my comments?

Without reason or evidence... In other words, because of faith. ??????

I don't believe in miracle rags curing afflictions, and I don't take the word of a frothing demagogue when "he" claims to be somebody or to have done something.....you think this takes faith?  

Paul's epistles, and none of the NT writings, were originally composed as part of a book. You can't be such a fool that I have to literally spell out every fact relevant to the discussion prior to it taking off... so please, stop playing dumb and making fallacious comparisons, or go read up on the composition of the Bible. This is precisely why I keep reiterating that you, and people who make similar arguments, are

-snipped-
Ad you can keep claiming that, but it won't help you to establish any Paul, now will it?   What do you think it means, that none of the writings were composed as a book?  DSo you think that this somehow address some remark of mine?  Which, and how?

 LOL. It's not my method. It's the method employed by historians for every single ancient text ever produced. 

-and you, here and now, are it's advocate.  I find it unconvincing.  

Surely you must have insight into this "narrative" that existed prior to the "mystery author" penning Paul's epistles... and moreover, placing them into this lost "book," such as in your suggestion of the "Mad Arab." I suggest conspiracy theory because you have no valid reasons or sound evidence to back up your narrative whatsoever, whereas mine is at least consistent with the methods of actual historians who comb through texts to determine their date of composition and information about the writer, beyond which we can only work with what the texts say. So, from the stand point of parsimony, your simple rejections are also assertions to the contrary (someone else wrote them for such and such a reason and no one was aware of the true authorship because....) for which you've provided not a single iota of evidence for.

You suggest conspiracy because you are both incapable of demonstrating the existence of paul -or- responding to my actual position.  If you want to talk about how ridiculous some other persons position is..be my guest, but I don't know what it has to do with me.  My narrative, is simply that the NT, including the epistles, are a part of a narrative.  I have given reasons, we've both agreed that those things (we have agreed..haven't we, about the miracles rags bit?), we -both- understand that at least some of the claims are just stories.  Yeah?

 That's your position here, after all. It seems to be the only contribution to historical analysis that you and others who think along similar lines have been able to make thus far, which of course, is an argument from ignorance---needless to say, not a good one.

I think you need to stop providing "my position", or arguing against that which -you- have provided...and get down to the brass tacks of explaining to me why, assuming there is a reason other than "the text says so" that you have accepted that there is any Paul to be found in those texts.   

"The story" is that a man named Paul wrote letters, at various times, from various places, to various people. The evidence is that this is what we in fact possess, along with multiple instances of attestation to this story by other writers, of various literary skills and intentions, existing in various places, at various times. This is in large part how history of the past is pieced together to form a coherent picture. If you stick to it, you might be able to piece together a coherent picture of your own that others while find insightful. 

That's the redacted version of the story (missing in much detail....) that you feel comfortable defending, sure..we've already agreed to remove a whole host of ridiculous shit from the conversation.  You seem to think I need more reason than that concession.  I haven't seen you stick to it and tell me anything about Paul that overcomes my objections and general skepticism.  You keep telling me that the work has been done...but that matters little unless you want to show that work.

We are debating if it is more likely than not that Paul is nothing but a literary convention. And not surprisingly, you haven't been able to even begin to make that argument.

Likely...lol?  No, I can assure you that we are not having that debate.  You've claimed that there is a Paul the Man, that it is well established (and consequently, that any skepticism is un-serious and ignorant..lol).  I don't think that it is.  

I'll ask... again... what's the narrative you believe existed at the time Paul's epistles were written that explains their pseudographical nature (in your mind) and what is your evidence for this?

-is my answer supposed to help you demonstrate the existence of Paul or are you trolling me to stretch this out knowing full well, at this point, that you cannot?  Who said anything about pseudography (other than yourself)?   Argue other peoples positions......with them.......Nestor.  

The methods and rules developed by historians to establish the authenticity of works in dispute.

-and if their method mirrors your own, ala.. "Paul says he's Paul in the story, and other stories about paul totally say he's pual too! so I guess we go with that" I'm unsatisfied. 

Did they arrive out of a vacuum? Who's this Paul that caused this anonymous writer to invoke his name on countless occasions when relating his personal testimony and ecclesiastical instruction to his peers in various locations? You have offered nothing as an explanation as to what this "narrative" is or why "Paul" would be a name employed when there is no evidence for the existence of any Paul prior to the epistles. 

I don't imagine that they did, no.   Who -is- this Paul, indeed..again, as before, that's a question for you, not me.  The narrative...holy shit..Nestor...is the very narrative you are referring to, including the epistles.  What do you think I've been talking about all this time......?  Would you like to go over some of the details of those epistles...? Pick your favorite, that, to you, seems to offer the most information about Paul, the man. Wouldn't that be productive? We've already removed the ghosts and goblins, I think that we could find ourselves some "mundane miracles" left, after having done so. What do you think?

Your appeals to the Screwtape Letters or "The Mad Arab," whose a character in a "book" that consists of letters, speaks for itself.

-as does your inability to demonstrate what you have repeatedly claimed, instead arguing against positions of your own insertion.. with the constant refrain that another position is unserious, and ignorant.  

Just, show, me, some, Paul.  Do work.  

[Mudhammam]

You know, I don't sit around waiting for your threads to pop up so I can read them.  You have to be in the right place at the right time.

Well, you do realize that it was a reply to you, who said that I should add something to your and Wyrd's discussion. Kind of pointless to ask someone to contribute and then ignore their contribution, no?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Jorm-

I'll just say this and let it drop because you seem like a nice person whose time has not yet come.

When a police officer or an FBI agent wants to learn how to spot counterfeit currency, does he or she spend a lot of time looking at fake bills? Nope.  They study real bills carefully, and this enables the to spot the fake ones quickly.

Now, by sheer grace of God, I was born into a Protestant Christian family. Later, moved by God, I converted to Catholicism. So, overall, I've spent nearly half a century studying the real deal. Did I do some minor comparative study along the way. Yeah, some. And from an apologetics point of view, I've read a LOT about Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Protestantism, some on Orthodoxy, and a bit on Islam.

From all of this, I can assure you that I don't need to spend a lot of time studying the Baha'i faith to know that Baha'u'llah was NOT a manifestation of God.

Part of the reason that I'm online doing what I do is so that you don't have to spend 50 years figuring that out.

Just in case anyone was looking for an example, the above is about as good an example of cognitive dissonance as you're ever likely to encounter.

[Mudhammam]

How long can I expect you to avoid demonstrating the veracity of your own position by criticizing that of another?  Can we skip to the part where you realize that you haven't even begun to address my comments?

You should trying repeating exactly what you just said, but this time do it in front of a mirror.

I don't believe in miracle rags curing afflictions, and I don't take the word of a frothing demagogue when "he" claims to be somebody or to have done something.....you think this takes faith?  

I think it takes faith to say that you believe someone had the motivation to write under Paul's name when there is no record of anyone with the name of Paul having any significance in the ancient world whatsoever prior to these letters, and then, without any reason but with a pretension of seriousness you add, that they were able to successfully fool everyone in their audience into believing that this fictitious character of no notoriety whatsoever somehow had credibility to them.

Ad you can keep claiming that, but it won't help you to establish any Paul, now will it?   What do you think it means, that none of the writings were composed as a book?  DSo you think that this somehow address some remark of mine?  Which, and how?

I think it means that your comparison was totally asinine and hardly deserving of the time I've spent explaining why.

-and you, here and now, are it's advocate.  I find it unconvincing.  

Yeah... I gathered that... lol. Now explain why.

You suggest conspiracy because you are both incapable of demonstrating the existence of paul -or- responding to my actual position.  If you want to talk about how ridiculous some other persons position is..be my guest, but I don't know what it has to do with me.  My narrative, is simply that the NT, including the epistles, are a part of a narrative.  I have given reasons, we've both agreed that those things (we have agreed..haven't we, about the miracles rags bit?), we -both- understand that at least some of the claims are just stories.  Yeah?

Your actual position: They're part of a narrative... which omits of any actual persons... though they were perceived by their contemporaneous readers as individuals they knew and could possibly expect see and hear again in the near future... created by writers with intentions you just can't seem to come up with, and yet---the most hilarious part---I'm supposed to respond to your non-reasons for this "theory," which you insist doesn't involve conspiracy on the part of the authors. Uh-huh.

As I see the rest of your bare assertions only seek to shift the burden of proof to me, ignoring Occam's razor and all of the data that actually exists while insisting that we play by special rules when it comes to any document found inside the Bible, I think I'm done trying to have a reasonable discussion with you here. If you have further questions, I'll be glad to proceed, but if you're going to just keep replying with, "I am happy to remain in ignorance and/or refuse to explain what I think really probably happened, with the evidence that is available, instead demanding that you provide more data that I can simply dismiss just because it's an easier game to play that doesn't involve much thought," it's not worth anyone's effort.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.