The historical Paul

[fallingblood]

Stop confusing him with facts.

Parenthetically, I do believe that Maccoby makes some reasonably good arguments concerning Paul, but rejecting Paul's historicity would be little more than an act of adolescent obstinacy.

I would say Maccoby is definitely better than Eisenman. The problem that I have with Maccoby is that he seems to be going back to a lot of old polemic. And I understand the reason behind that, and it definitely has a lot to do with Christian apologists throughout the centuries, who have done a great injustice to the study of Paul.

 

[gnostic]

Not really. Off the top of my head, I can't really think of any outside sources.

I can't think of anything at the top of my head.

Like, I've read the following historical accounts, who wrote of that periods: Tacitus (excellent), Suetonius (poor), both Pliny (Elder and Younger), Josephus (average). However, they have been so long ago (at least 20 years now), that I don't remember specific details. At the time of reading these histories, I wasn't looking for Jesus or anyone else.

Of these historians (at least what I can recall), Josephus only mentioned 2 prominent Christians - John the Baptist (The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 5) and James, as "brother of Jesus" (The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9). Whether the other historians mention Jesus or someone else in his circle, I don't remember.

I don't believe Josephus wrote about Jesus in Book 18, Chapter 3 of The Antiquities of the Jews. This was written by someone else. So I am ignoring since it is not authentically written by Josephus.

And since, it has been awhile since I have read in historical literature, I was hoping that someone would supply information/sources about the historical Paul.

I just surprise that Paul being more widely travelled than Jesus, and had longer ministry than Jesus, that there would be more about (non-Christian sources) history of Paul than Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

Stop confusing him with facts.

Parenthetically, I do believe that Maccoby makes some reasonably good arguments concerning Paul, but rejecting Paul's historicity would be little more than an act of adolescent obstinacy.

you not only have comprehensive issues


but your rather rude

I dont reject pauls historicity

 

[fallingblood]

I can't think of anything at the top of my head.

Like, I've read the following historical accounts, who wrote of that periods: Tacitus (excellent), Suetonius (poor), both Pliny (Elder and Younger), Josephus (average). However, they have been so long ago (at least 20 years now), that I don't remember specific details. Of these historians, Josephus only mentioned 2 prominent Christians - John the Baptist (The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 5) and James, as "brother of Jesus" (The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9).

I don't believe Josephus wrote about Jesus in Book 18, Chapter 3 of The Antiquities of the Jews. This was written by someone else. So I am ignoring since it is not authentically written by Josephus.

And since, it has been awhile since I have read in historical literature, I was hoping that someone would supply information/sources about the historical Paul.

I just surprise that Paul being more widely travelled than Jesus, and had longer ministry than Jesus, that there would be more about (non-Christian sources) history of Paul than Jesus.

Paul, in the grand scheme of things, really wasn't that important. I think that is why there really is not much written about him. He was just one more traveling minister preaching the message of Jesus. And he tells us himself that he was not the only one with a similar message.

That and he was not essential for the movement. With or without Paul, the movement was still going. Paul just got lucky because he could write, and people decided to save some of his letters.

And with Paul, I don't think he really made a big impact. He was just one more traveling preacher. And one that really didn't have a big following. He set up some churches, but he didn't have many following him really. And he wasn't trying to start a new movement. He was just trying to get more people into the Jesus movement.

So with all of that, I think it makes sense that we really don't see much about Paul. He just wasn't really an important figure.

 

[outhouse]

I would say Maccoby is definitely better than Eisenman. The problem that I have with Maccoby is that he seems to be going back to a lot of old polemic. And I understand the reason behind that, and it definitely has a lot to do with Christian apologists throughout the centuries, who have done a great injustice to the study of Paul.

Macoby was the one scholar off the top of my head that follows my thoughts.


ill gather some info on why I base, a lack of a possible histroricity to paul as a pharisee

 

[outhouse]

at and he was not essential for the movement. With or without Paul, the movement was still going. Paul just got lucky because he could write, and people decided to save some of his letters.

And with Paul, I don't think he really made a big impact. He was just one more traveling preacher. And one that really didn't have a big following. He set up some churches, but he didn't have many following him really. And he wasn't trying to start a new movement. He was just trying to get more people into the Jesus movement.

So with all of that, I think it makes sense that we really don't see much about Paul. He just wasn't really an important figure.

I think your downplaying paul dramatically

who knows what christianity would be like now without paul jump starting it and taking the movement in his direction

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Paul.

I just surprise that Paul being more widely travelled than Jesus, and had longer ministry than Jesus, that there would be more about (non-Christian sources) history of Paul than Jesus.

Why would they be? There were hundreds of cults around in ancient times and very little in written about them in any Roman histories. So why would ancient Roman historians be interested in writing about the cult of Paul or Jesus? They just weren't that important.

They only wrote about them when some significant social or political impact was made, hence Tacitus writing about the Christians.

 

[gnostic]

That and he was not essential for the movement. With or without Paul, the movement was still going. Paul just got lucky because he could write, and people decided to save some of his letters.

That make sense.

 

[gnostic]

Why would they be? There were hundreds of cults around in ancient times and very little in written about them in any Roman histories.

I supposed that true. There were many cults popping up around this time.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I supposed that true. There were many cults popping up around this time.

And remember the Romans tended to throw away "Prophets" like yesterdays garbage. Do you remember your garbage? No? So why write about it?

 

[gnostic]

And remember the Romans tended to throw away "Prophets" like yesterdays garbage. Do you remember your garbage? No? So why write about it?

I have no prophets or saints...no messiah...and no religion.

Like I said before, I don't remember many details of what I've read over 20 years ago, especially if I had only read once. Many of the classical Greek and Roman histories and much of the epistles of the New Testament, I only have vague memories.

For example, I have read the gospels several times in the past, so I have better memories of the gospels than I do the Acts, epistles or Revelation. Actually I remember the Genesis better than everything else, particularly from chapters 1 to 11, because I am interested in the Creation myth; and this is because I have read Genesis dozens of times.

As to history, I remember Greek history (especially from works of Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon because I have read them several times), than I do of Roman history from Tacitus, Suetonius, etc, which I have only read once.

And because of I recall less of the historical accounts of the Imperial Roman period, then I was hoping if someone else remember if any there are any historical reference, outside of the Bible, non-canonical scriptures, traditions and writings of the Church Fathers.

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps, I should have made myself clear about this thread in the OP. Sorry. Especially to you, CynthiaCypher.

I am not questioning Paul's existence. I just want to know if there are other sources out there, other than the Church ones, or the scripture ones.

I don't see anything wrong with asking, why there are none or little of his presence, especially when you considered that he has established churches in Greece, Syria and Asia Minor.

 

[obi one]

I am familiar with Paul's life, as given in the Acts, and though I have read his epistles, it has been a long since I've read them, so I remember the Acts better than I do his epistles.

I have noticed that there has been few recent threads that are about the "historical Jesus". So I don't want to cover Jesus' historicity in this thread.

From what I understand of Christian history, the churches owe more to Paul's contribution and writings/theology than any of the other apostles. Paul's ministry had lasted decades, longer than Jesus' 3 years, as well as being more widely travelled than Jesus.

Apart from reading the Acts, I have not really research Paul's life.

So other than the Bible and Church traditions, are there any outside sources that prove Paul's historicity?

An authoritative comment with regards to Paul came from Yeshua. Look into how the record shows that Paul supposedly received his name. The record shows that his original name was Saul, but Paul means "least", and Yeshua said that those who annuls one of the least of the commandments, shall be called "least". (Mt 5:19-20) On the other hand, if you want to be called "great" in the kingdom of heaven, then it would be best not to follow Paul's example.
My vison of the guy, is that he was a short, fat guy, with Napolionic complex. But you have to take things you read on the WEB with a grain of salt.

 

[Marcion]

I am familiar with Paul's life, as given in the Acts, and though I have read his epistles, it has been a long since I've read them, so I remember the Acts better than I do his epistles.

I have noticed that there has been few recent threads that are about the "historical Jesus". So I don't want to cover Jesus' historicity in this thread.

From what I understand of Christian history, the churches owe more to Paul's contribution and writings/theology than any of the other apostles. Paul's ministry had lasted decades, longer than Jesus' 3 years, as well as being more widely travelled than Jesus.

Apart from reading the Acts, I have not really research Paul's life.

So other than the Bible and Church traditions, are there any outside sources that prove Paul's historicity?

There don't seem to be any reliable sources other than the Bible and Church tradition nor can we presume to know that the Epistles were written by a historical Paul living in the first century.

Marcion was the first to include them in his canon and I believe that in their original pre-redaction form they were produced by Marcion and perhaps his followers in the second century.
Acts is I believe largely mythical, not a true history of the early church.
There must have been a historical Paul, but nothing like the person portrayed in Acts and not the author of those so-called "letters".

If Paul was really an important apostle in the first century and if those so-called "letters" were really so important that people kept them as important scriptures, then why is there no mention of them in the whole rest of the New Testament?
Also, the Paul of the Epistles takes it for granted that people worshipping need not cover their head.
Which former Jew would ever take such a heathen [Greek] standpoint and not feel obliged to defend such a big shift in his practices?

 

[fallingblood]

There don't seem to be any reliable sources other than the Bible and Church tradition nor can we presume to know that the Epistles were written by a historical Paul living in the first century.

Marcion was the first to include them in his canon and I believe that in their original pre-redaction form they were produced by Marcion and perhaps his followers in the second century.
Acts is I believe largely mythical, not a true history of the early church.
There must have been a historical Paul, but nothing like the person portrayed in Acts and not the author of those so-called "letters".

If Paul was really an important apostle in the first century and if those so-called "letters" were really so important that people kept them as important scriptures, then why is there no mention of them in the whole rest of the New Testament?
Also, the Paul of the Epistles takes it for granted that people worshipping need not cover their head.
Which former Jew would ever take such a heathen [Greek] standpoint and not feel obliged to defend such a big shift in his practices?

Actually, there is no reason to doubt that Paul wrote at least the undisputed letters. There really is no reason at all.

Paul also wasn't that important to all Christians. Yes, he has some importance, but there were other Christians who either hadn't heard of him, or were more attached to a different missionary. Paul was only one among at least a handful of missionaries going to the Gentiles. People really just over exaggerate how important he was.

Also, Paul of the Epistles does not take it for granted that people worshipping need not cover their heads. He actually addresses such in one of his letters. More so, we don't have everything he wrote, nor said. So he could have spoke about it even more.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, there is no reason to doubt that Paul wrote at least the undisputed letters.

Probably true ...

 

[CynthiaCypher]

If Paul was really an important apostle in the first century and if those so-called "letters" were really so important that people kept them as important scriptures, then why is there no mention of them in the whole rest of the New Testament?

Do you realize how much of the NT is Paul related?

 

[Marcion]

Then can anyone give me any extra-canonical proof that the Epistles were written by the historical Paul?
Just affirming that there "cannot be any doubt" that Paul wrote the Epistles is no proof at all.
Who the real author of the so-called "undisputed" letters was, isn't clear, because we have no first century sources pointing in a historical Paul's direction.
Actually, we have absolutely nothing besides what is in the second century christian canon. Appealing to things that might have been there is no proof at all.

Paul is an invention of the person who wanted to set his ideology against the older one that mixed the Jewish law and the Jewish view of God with worship of Jesus.
His view is a more Gnostic one, where the physical Jesus and the Jewish law are pushed in the background and replaced by the Christ Jesus who lives in everyone who believes in him.

No doubt there were anecdotes about the first century Paul who must have left quite an impression in his time. But it is very unclear who that person really was if there is no connection to the second century fiction in the New Testament.

After the main body of the church centered on Rome had suppressed the Marcion branch, the letters were adapted and included in the canon as we know it today.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

That and he was not essential for the movement. With or without Paul, the movement was still going.

Is this a normal type of comment for discussion of scholarship? In the light of the following verse?

Acts.9
[15] But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Perhaps, I should have made myself clear about this thread in the OP. Sorry. Especially to you, CynthiaCypher.

I am not questioning Paul's existence. I just want to know if there are other sources out there, other than the Church ones, or the scripture ones.

I don't see anything wrong with asking, why there are none or little of his presence, especially when you considered that he has established churches in Greece, Syria and Asia Minor.

Perhaps, the material that Paul deals with, and how it is expressed is why it is still around.
If you are looking purely from a non-religious scholarly perspective, or perhaps an agnostic or atheistic perspective, than your question is natural.
If you are of faith, Paul's words are the words of God, as he would simply be a slave to be honest about it, to what God wanted written.

There are no other sources. We either take the bible to learn about Paul, or we don't.

On a side, note, I would venture to say if Paul could answer your question, he would advise to focus more on Jesus and God

One thing Paul did often was to downplay himself, and talk about what crap pile of a person he was, and that all glory should go to God and Jesus.