The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[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.