The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[The Grand Nudger]

I was saying that the claim Paul was a mythological character is ignorant and un-serious. I think your attempts to make an argument for that claim---wait are you? because it seems like you kind of are but then I'm not seeing much of anything except for "I don't accept the abundance of testimonial evidence from the person himself or anyone else! Just 'cause!"---are thoroughly demonstrating that.

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?   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.  ??????

First, I don't know who the Mad Arab is so you'll have to explain the relevancy of the reference.

Your level of knowledge is irrelevant, I'm following the method you seem to have proposed, I;m assigning burden as you seem to see fit.  You must now educate yourself and prove precisely this:

 If he's nothing more than "a character in a book,"

.......

 I assume there aren't numerous letters written by the Mad Arab to his friends across Europe and Asia about issues dealing with life in same world that other historical people lived in, references to his self and others that only make sense in the context of real persons, an entire corpus of work written under his name, and then mentions by others regarding his actual existence without any dispute to the contrary...? If that's the case, I'm interested to pursue that comparison further. If not, I repeat: ignorant and un-serious.

Indeed there are numerous letters (this is the format of the entire book), written by the man himself, as claimed within the narrative.  The narrative does, in fact, the author claims..happen in "the real world" and many references are made to this world which I;m sure we'll both agree happen to be true.  I don;t know whether or not any of it makes any sense at all...but I can certainly say that it could -only- make sense in the context of real persons...and yes, the entire corpus, The Necronomicon, is attributed to him..again, in the narrative.  I think that you'll find that there are perople who both agree and disagree as to the existence of The Mad Arab...just as you find people who agree and disagree as to the existence of "Paul".   Is this your whole spiel though, if I disagree, the disagreement is 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?

You can't establish anyone was a real person if you just simply dismiss their writings or all references to them as works of fiction motivated by hidden powers operating in the dark, although I have to say that sounds a bit paranoid and extremely irrational.

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".

 You're basically saying that you do not accept any ancient document as evidence for the existence of real people because writers sometimes voluntarily or involuntarily contributed to fictional narratives and devices, could possibly get and pass along false information, and were oftentimes generally superstitious. That's not a very good reason to reject all writings older than 1,000 years, to me or to any historian now or in the past, but to each his own I suppose.

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

No, I did not realize that. Odin claimed to be an individual, offering us details about his life, such as his nationality, and wrote letters to his contemporaries and was purported to be a human being by others who lived shortly (read: 20-60 years) after his death? And nobody ever disputed it? Wow. That's remarkable, I'll grant you that. I can't wait to see your evidence for the claim.

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.  

Huh? No, I refer to the evidence, which mostly consist of letters,

yes, you refer to the claim...... 

over half a dozen considered authentic by all of his scholarship, as being written by the individual who put a (his) name (Paul) to them, as well as to others who reference that person as having written letters, and to multiple others who wrote using that person's identity. 

establishing a literary convention of Paul...which I am perfectly happy to concede the existence of.  We are not debating the literary convention of Paul, Nestor. 

This doesn't even take into consideration the mythological narrative that later came along describing some of those same events that the person in the original letters mentioned and more. My claim is that all of this is supportive of my view that the person in question was an actual human being who lived in the first century. It seems to me that all you have in favor of your proposition are appeals to ignorance. In logic that's called an informal fallacy.

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 see we've both made assertions but only one of us has given reasons why they are credible. I've enlisted historiography and higher criticism, which overwhelmingly agrees with me---

appealing to what...now?

that the existence of letters written under the name of Paul by a single individual in the first century,

already covered above, why are we debating things we don't disagree upon?

 followed by multiple other writers referencing him and describing his life or his letters,

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

 point towards Paul having once been a human being who lived under the Roman empire---

do they?...wow......

and thus far you've offered nothing except that "this is the story the author wanted to tell... just believe me because." That's not how you change a person's mind.

Sure....but I think I'll just let the text between us determine whats been said.  I'm not trying to change your mind, and my opinion - well justified or not, will not establish that your claim is true...so.....  

Once again, I suppose that's why your view is represented in secular academia by... hmm... precisely no one.

I'd like to see their evidence, of course these sorts of appeals don't mean much, and you know why...

I find your inability to think of myth as anything other than "fiction," and your overall lack of nuance when approaching the Bible shockingly unimpressive, but unfortunately all too common amongst the general populace of atheists that contribute here. 

-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?

"Signs" of narrative devices? In Paul's letters? Wait, is this another assertion you've made without providing any reason or evidence for, again?! C'mon man, try harder. "I don't believe Paul or anyone else who claims to have written on or about Paul because I don't believe it" is not working for me either. If you have some reason why we should just dismiss all of the evidence I've repeatedly outlined, I'll be glad to come back to this. In the meanwhile it doesn't seem worth anyone's time to keep arguing in circles.

Sure, you and I could debate this, and I offered it as a courtesy...but we've reached a point where I find myself reminding you, constantly, that no amount of me being wrong would establish that you are right.  No consensus can establish that.  It cannot simply be assumed.  We are not discussing literary convention, we are not discussing the existence of the narrative or other narratives, we are not discussing conspiracies, we are not discussing un-nuanced interpretations of the text or the motives of the authors.  We can skip, all of that.....if you'd like. 


You, have not established -that-. ....and that, ultimately, is why I do not believe that there is a "Paul the Man" in the text.  We don't -have- to argue in circles, I'm simply asking you for something more than "the text says so" as an explanation.  Those texts say many things Nestor. I don't think that either of us believes them all to be true. The only disagreement you and I have is what set to put any given thing in. You feel that the epistles cut to some truth about "Paul the Man". I do not, I feel that they are an expression of christian doctrine. I wonder, drawing from the epistles, what we are even discussing /w regards to some "Paul the Man" - as though we could tease the details of this life from the pages of this, particular, text? You are providing evidence of narrative continuity and literary convention. I am not arguing against either (I think that the epistles fit well enough and am satisfied with the evidence and scrutiny that has lead to the conclusion that at least seven share an author), only suggesting that evidence for those things does not establish an -actual- personage of "Paul the Man" any more than it would in any other narrative (Like Screwtape, Dracula, or the Necronomicon) - and stating that the claims made in the text, such as "the narrator calls himself paul" do not actually argue what you seek to establish.... though they are equally true in reference to those three stories just mentioned.