The Quest for the Historical Paul

[vorlon13]

So . . .

did the Corinthians write back ???

[Minimalist]

The obvious problem with this paul shit is that, as Tabor says, 4 'pauls' have been identified.  Obviously 3 of them had to have been manufactured by later propagandists to make a point which must have seemed dreadfully important to them at the time but is now largely horseshit.

The thing is, there is no more reason to assume that the first paul is any more real than the others.  After all, if xtianity can take off with a made-up jesus it sure as shit doesn't need a real "paul."

Which is what Van Manen is trying to say.

[Minimalist]

A preacher who "gets it."

http://www.shuckandjive.xyz/2011/04/what...ction.html

The original plan was to create a color-coded Acts similar to the color-coded gospels in The Five Gospels and . But as they got into it, they realized it wasn't needed.

They discovered that Acts is mostly fiction.

Jesus ascending to heaven? Fiction
Twelve (Male) Apostles? Fiction
Receiving the Spirit at Pentecost? Fiction
Preaching of Peter? Fiction
Conversion of Paul? Fiction
Journeys of Paul? Fiction

The Acts Seminar concluded that Acts is a second century work, perhaps as late as 130 CE.

Now he just needs to develop the idea to its logical post-Marcion conclusion.

[Polaris]

I always assumed Paul was executed in 67 CE, which also helps to pinpoint the dating of Acts since his death is never mentioned in that compilation.

[Minimalist]

That's merely a tradition.  The only written reference to "paul's" death  - and "peter's" too, for that matter is in first Clement which merely says:

1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...tfoot.html

Nothing about execution.  There's also a tradition that "paul" went to Spain.  There could be a tradition that he went to Mars.  So what?  It's just a tradition, there is no evidence behind it.

I suspect the reason that Acts does not deal with the issue is because that part of the yarn had not been written yet.  Remember, it was Marcion who popularized "paul's" epistles.  A lot of editing would have been needed to make that stuff conform to the tales being put out by the so-called proto-orthodox to borrow Bart Ehrman's term.  For one thing, Marcion was exceedingly anti-semitic.  A jew who rejected his own people would have been quite useful for Marcion but causes some obvious problems for the proto-orthodox.  Perhaps Acts was merely a trial balloon?

[Mudhammam]

Aretas IV of Nabatea, who died in 40 AD, never occupied Damascus which was part of what the Romans called "The Decapolis."

What's your evidence that he "never occupied Damascus"?

[Minimalist]

Not a single Greco-Roman or Jewish writer indicates that once Pompey took Damascus it ever left Roman control once the squabbling between Antony and Octavian came to an end.  Damascus, as a member of what was known as the Decapolis was theoretically an independent hellenistic city state...although the Roman Legate of Syria was firmly in charge. 

Again, Aretas IV was noted in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews as fleeing from Lucius Vitellius in 37 AD when Tiberius died.  For reasons of Roman politics Vitellius was sent back to his primary duty which was keeping an eye on Parthia and Armenia.

Again, if you find some historical evidence feel free to submit it.  I've already been through Tacitus, Suetonius, Appian, Plutarch, and Josephus.  You see Damascus was also the westerm terminus of The Silk Road which made it far too valuable to simply give away to every schmuck who came along.  That was not how the Romans grew their empire.

Oh, one last thing.  Josephus recounts that in 66 when the XIIth Legion was ambushed by Jewish rebels on the way back from Jerusalem, the good citizens of Damascus rose up and massacred the jews living there.

[Mudhammam]

In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to infer that Paul's reference to Aretas is consistent with what we know about Aretas IV.

[pocaracas]

If Paul & Co. weren't Pharisees nor Sadducees, what to say of the possibility that they were (or became) Essenes?
The timeline seems to fit with the common Essene timeline - showing up at around the late second century AC, first century BC.
Following a Teacher of Righteousness.
Preaching a humble life of poverty.

Headquarters conveniently located near the road that connects Jerusalem to Damascus.

[Minimalist]

In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to infer that Paul's reference to Aretas is consistent with what we know about Aretas IV.

Except for the part about ruling Damascus...which pretty much makes the whole thing useless for jesus freaks.