(January 9, 2018 at 9:19 am)Khemikal Wrote:(January 9, 2018 at 9:13 am)Grandizer Wrote: Of course not. It's a case by case judgement.What, exactly, in -this- case leads to such judgement?
Quote:It's not just called that, it's considered that by scholars.Sure, Authentic Paul. Authentic paul is not, however, historic paul. It's simply the only category of paul in which there could -be- a historic paul.
The trouble is that the search begins and ends there..because there's nowhere else for it to go.
There's no need to go anywhere else. Analysing texts for consistency in style is what these scholars have done to determine that there was probably a guy who really was called Paul who wrote those epistles which we know exist.
Even Richard Carrier (a Jesus mythicist) argues for the probability of Paul being historical.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7643
