The Quest for the Historical Paul

[Minimalist]

The conclusion of "The Amazing Colossal Apostle" by Price.

Protestantism is based on Martin Luther, and Luther’s theology is based on Paul, but Paul stands based on nothing at all. Paul does not have a unitary voice, is not a single author whose implied opinions might be synthesized and parroted. He is not even a single historical figure. He is certainly not a divine apostle who received his gospel, not from man nor through men, but directly from God one climactic day on his way to Damascus. That story, as we saw, is pure fiction, based on 2 Maccabees and Euripides’s Bacchae.

No author, no authority, only texts—and finally not even texts but fragments. All we can do, it seems to me, is read them for what they have to say, or seem to be saying, and let them strike us as they may. Very likely, many of them will open our eyes to interesting new possibilities, may unveil responsibilities we tried our best to forget we had. Some will edify and some will challenge, and it will no doubt prove to have been well worth reading them, but we cannot hide behind the artificial figure of Paul with his “apostolic authority.” We are used to hearing fundamentalists appropriate Paul’s mantle to thunder dogmas and whisper pieties unattested in the texts. Today we witness the same spectacle in politically correct New Testament scholars with their own Pauline ventriloquist dummies issuing screeds against American imperialism and capitalism. The role of the Pauline texts in these endeavors is like that of the grocery list in Walter M. Miller Jr.’s novel, A Canticle for Liebowitz, in which survivors of a nuclear holocaust venerate the only cryptic text surviving from the pre-bomb era.

One cannot help thinking it is all quite as cynical and manipulative as any self-appointed Grand Inquisitor’s work ever was. Like the scams of television preachers, it is a shameless use of the Bible for ulterior ends. Like the pseudepigraphists of old, today’s Paul-quoters usurp authority for themselves. Inevitably one must suspect they do it because they lack confidence that their ideas, carefully attributed to Paul, will convince anyone unless ramrodded home with his backing. But the amazing colossal apostle to whose sky-filling authority they appeal turns out to be no more real than the radioactive giant in the old science fiction movie, The Amazing Colossal Man: it was all just a trick of the light with cheap special effects.

By the way, A Canticle For Leibowitz is much better literature than any of this paul shit.

[Pat Mustard]

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

No it isn't Paul said Aretus ruled Damascus, Aretus IV never ruled the city. You can't extrapolate from your preconceived assumptions to say that events agree with them, you need to provide evidence.

[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.

No it isn't Paul said Aretus ruled Damascus, Aretus IV never ruled the city. You can't extrapolate from your preconceived assumptions to say that events agree with them, you need to provide evidence.

The only evidence, as far as I know, is that (per Josephus) his ancestor Aretus III ruled Damascus and coins found which depict Aretus IV describe him as "Aretas, King of the Nabataeans, Friend of his People," the Nabataeans a community associated with the region that historically would have included Damascus. So, nothing Paul says is inconsistent with this fact.

Your claim that he never ruled the city doesn't appear to be supported by any evidence, though.

[Minimalist]

Look, I'm not your secretary.  If you want to read this stuff be my guest.

Josephus, in Antiquities Book XIII recounts how Aretas (III) while deeply involved in the dynastic machinations of the collapsing Hasmonean Dynasty was called to Damascus by the government thereof.  Judging by the other personalities involved this event dates to the mid 80's, BC.

In Antiquities Book XIV Josephus recounts how Pompey the Great's lieutenant, Aemillius Scaurus, "liberated" Damascus from Aretas and marched on to Jerusalem.  Pompey's activities in Syria/Palestine date to 64-62 BC.

The next mention of "Aretas" in Antiquities is in the mid 30's AD when Aretas IV, having foolishly attacked Herod Antipas found himself running from the army of Lucius Vitellius, then Imperial Legate of Syria.  The only thing that saved Aretas IV was the death of Tiberius in March of 37, AD.  No mention of him controlling Damascus.

Now you can hang on to your fairy tales as much as you like but the historical EVIDENCE says otherwise.

[Mudhammam]

You're allowed to draw whatever inferences you'd like. You just can't pretend that the evidence contradicts the assertion in Paul.

This is just basic logic. I know it's not your strong suit, Min.

[Minimalist]

I deal in facts....not this "logic" bullshit which frequently, as in your case, begins from a failed premise.

You wish to believe in fucking "paul?"  Go ahead.  No skin off my dick.

[Mudhammam]

I deal in facts....not this "logic" bullshit which frequently, as in your case, begins from a failed premise.

You wish to believe in fucking "paul?"  Go ahead.  No skin off my dick.

Indeed, some only see "logic" in scare quotes.

[Minimalist]

Not an answer...of which you obviously have none.

Keep on believing, jackass.

[Mudhammam]

Not an answer...of which you obviously have none.

Keep on believing, jackass.

I hadn't realized that there was a worthwhile question in there. 

But please, continue to rattle on about nothing. It seems your brain could stand to benefit from at least the attempt.

[Minimalist]

Of course you haven't.  Such a heresy would never cross your tiny little jesus freak mind.

You remind me of Madeline Kahn....






Grow up, son.  You've been bullshitted your whole life.