The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[The Grand Nudger]

Lol... you haven't offered a single good reason to believe that either character is mythological or legendary. 

We did both agree that there are ignorant and un-serious claims attached to the character...the character -is- mythical and legendary, I thought we both agreed to that.  What we are discussing is a possible non mythical, non legendary "core" to that character, aren't we?  You are proposing that there is something in the pauline epistles that is not the usual mythological and legendary fluff we find elsewhere.    Aren't you?  I am of the opinion that the epistles -are- legendary/mythological fluff.  But my opinion doesn't matter so much, because with regards to your contention that Paul was a real boy, the contention that I joined into this discussion to pick up since you seemed unsatisfied with Min...is simply that I find the case made to be unconvincing, and I don't see how your appeals to shift that burden are going to convince me?

The burden is not on me to provide evidence that these writers who claimed themselves to be particular individuals addressing particular circumstances in their social lives were not in fact who they claimed to be. 

Ah, I see, so I would also have to prove that The Mad Arab from the Necronomicon  is a fictional character?  Might as well just assume he lived?  Yes, I'm sorry, the burden -is- on you on that count, because I've accepted Paul only for what I can demonstrate him to have been, a character in a book.  Any more than that will take evidence and reason, -not- the repeated claims of the narrative and the constant shifting of burden.   This is real simple, show me the evidence, and not the claim Nestor.  You can end this whole disagreement that simply....and yet you haven't.

If you take that position about every document that survives from ancient history, and not simply Christians or who ever you feel inclined to discredit, you're really just creating a ridiculous and impossible standard in which you'll basically have to say that 99% of the data that we have from everything older than 1,000 years is fiction and that no history of real human beings has survived. Not credible.

The all or nothing gambit, I'm unimpressed - and it still doesn't establish that there was a Paul.  Look, if you're happy to simply accept a claim and call it history be my guest. Who's looking to discredit anything, and how would one go about that? The narrative works regardless of whether or not there's any Paul, I'm actually rather impressed with the NT narrative, personally - and while your average christer may feel that the bible or their religion is somehow discredited by any criticism along these lines -I do not-...so you can save your breath on that angle.

.That said, yeah, it just so happens that often legendary and mythological writings purporting to be historical documents from "back in the day" are not the best sources for history one might wish for - regardless of the source or subject. The teutons couldn't -actually- turn into bears or fight with both arms hacked off for a fortnight.....and yet we are told by "historians" that they did. I assume you approach these other claims with a grain of salt, and that this statement doesn;t surprise you with any information of which you were previously unaware. /shrugs

I call him Paul cause that's what he calls himself. The same reason that I call the authors of Plato's or Cicero's more credible epistles, Plato and Cicero, even though scholarship has debated some of their respective epistles and has more or less unanimously agreed that some are legitimate while some are written by later students or fans... of... guess who? Yeah, Plato and Cicero. Most ancient figures had pseudographs written in their name.

I didn't realize that we were discussing any "Paul" as a literary convention, but rather "Paul" as an actual human being, about whom we can draw conclusions?   If I use your method, I must also accept that there was an Odin (and a whole host of other characters who identify themselves in a vast number of narratives purportedly written by the individuals in question...some of which are known to be fiction - which is an absurd suggestion on it's very face).......you realize?

This doesn't detract from their importance as evidence that the person who they're written under were real people, and often they give us a glimpse into what that person might have wrote (since someone writing about epicurean philosophy under the name of Plato obviously wouldn't have convinced many of its authenticity).

Again you refer to the claim as evidence of the accuracy of the claim...right after conceding that psuedography is a factor.  Staggering irony, man......

I'm still confused as to what it is you see as "the narrative" and if by it you mean that a man named Paul, who was "circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless," and became a Christian, then subsequently writing instructions to his friends and cohorts about organizing and managing churches, and including details such as that "five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure," what reasons you have to think that I or anyone else should doubt that the man who says he is Paul wrote them. 

You've been giving me wonderful reasons in your posts.....haven't you? Yes yes, Paul suffered for his labor, he had his own passion...you might say.................a prototype for christian martrydom........and a wonderful example of the idea of apostolic succession......those may be details, but I doubt that they are the details of any guy named Pauls actual life. This is the story the author wanted to tell (and that would be true regardless of whether or not the author was writing about an actual person or not....huh?).

Historiography and higher criticism are not employed exclusively to biblical texts; academics apply the same standards to the New Testament writings as they do to any other ancient work. So, what's the problem? 

That you still haven't demonstrated that Paul existed.  You'll need to stop assuming what I am asking you to establish as evidence of what I am asking you to establish, and you might want to stop pretending that it's silly to ask the question..or we'll get nowhere, eh? I thought we both agreed that studying Paul, as a man, would be relevant to a study of christainity's history..here we are......

If you're just talking about Acts, no I don't think that the entirety of the work is fiction. We know that Herod Aggripa II and Bernice were actual people. So was Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus or Gallio, who was the brother of Seneca. These characters may have never come into contact with Paul---that's a historical question that is fair to ask---asking me to prove that any of the names enumerated above were *real* people and not the fictional devices of numerous unknown writers is not. But Acts is irrelevant to the question of the historicity of Paul, as even without Acts (written much later than the epistles in Paul's name, and clearly with a different purpose), we still have such information as already mentioned from the Pharisaic Jew himself. 

-and London is a real city that was never beset by vampires or werewolves despite what you may read in Dracula.  None of those things you offered rescue acts from a classification as fiction (nor would they even be -capable- of rescuing the epistles).  I haven't asked you to prove anything, amigo, I'm simply seeking the evidence upon which you've hung your conclusion, that Paul was a real boy..lol.  Here again, you assume the item under dispute.  I also find it amusing that you feel that anything which shows that legend and myth are attached to the notion of Paul is irrelevant to the historicity of Paul........yes, lets remove all the myth and legend and then say "It';s silly to suggest this, you've given no reason".................clearly...you understand that I have.

I'm simply saying no one has any reason to take your suggestion seriously.

Seems to me, from your posts, that we do have reason to take my suggestion seriously.  I guess that's a simple difference of opinion though?

Paul's conversion experience is described by himself as a vision, a revelation, an appearance of Jesus, and he says that "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man-- whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.…" I don't doubt that, though the account of his conversion on the road to Damascus, not mentioned by Paul but by Luke, may be hyperbole/embellishment/mythological. 

I find your ability to compartmentalize impressive.

Visions, revelations, appearances, etc. are not that uncommon---writing letters that show no sign of fictional or narrative device, and convincing others that would be familiar with you that you're a person whom you are really not, and leaving no evidence to dispute your elaborate scam, would be quite extraordinary... which is why I think you must have more faith than I do to believe that latter scenario.

Except that those letters -do- show "signs" of narrative devices(lol?), as already covered.  Who said anything about an elaborate scam?  Are you going to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole again?  I like the touch at the end, about needing "more faith", unfortunately it doesn't actually have anything to do with our discussion, and you've yet to move the chains an inch.

This is really simple, do you have some evidence that is not contained within the claim..that leads you to believe that the narrative is factual?  If you do, lets just see -that- and skip the rest of this posturing eh? This right here:

"I call him Paul cause that's what he calls himself."

-does not work for me for obvious and well established reasons. If there isn't any more to this than that....I don't think that you and I have anything further to discuss, we simply aren't approaching the issue from reconcilable foundations. I'll need someone who is prepared to take on more than this, in order to determine what the life of Paul may have been to any standard acceptable -by me-.