The Apostle Paul Was A Myth Too? It Appears He Was.

[Geezer]

A number of scholarly works are now available that deal with the question of whether or not there was a historical Jesus. That question was something I had to deal with during my de-conversion process. I found sufficient scholarly evidence that convinced me there was no historical Jesus.

 

 

I’ve noted, in several of my post, the group I affiliated with as a Christian worshipped the Bible first, Paul second, then Jesus and then God. They would, of course, deny that but their actions and teaching confirms that is indeed what they were doing.

 

 

Even before I left Christianity I sometimes wondered if Jesus was real or a myth. Even as a Christian Jesus progression from prophet to messiah to son of God to God incarnate struck me as suspicious.

 

 

I don’t recall ever doubting that the Apostle Paul existed in the flesh though. Paul’s teaching on grace pretty much made him my main man. Paul offered a ray of hope because I was a member of a strict extremely legalistic, works based, Bible literalists,taken to ridiculous extremes sect of Christianity.

 

 

Therefore, anything that offered some relief from the oppressive legalism that dominated my life was eagerly embraced. And Paul, at least in my world at that time, offered hope.

 

 

Some knowledgeable posters here have made a few comments from time to time in their posts questioning whether or not there was a historical Paul. Those comments peaked my curiosity and motivated to research that question more thoroughly. I found two scholars, Robert M. Price and Hermann Detering, that deal with that question. Earl Doherty also touches on that question in some of his work.

 

 

I’ve found two books that provide evidence for a mythical Apostle Paul.

 

 

The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul by Robert M Price &
The Fabricated Paul. Early Christianity In The Twilight. By Herman Detering

 

 

It seems, just as there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, there is also no evidence for a historical Paul either. The authors provide evidence why Paul became such a force in the Protestant sects of Christianity though. When I read why Paul became such a dominate part of Protestant forms of Christianity I realized why he became my main man.

[Blood]

I think the root problem here is the word "evidence" and the nature of evidence. 

 

There's lots of texts concerning King Arthur. These are not really "evidence" of anything tangible in reality. They're fictional stories based on folklore and imagination. 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

As a woman, Paul was not my main man.

[Burny]

As a woman, Paul was not my main man.

 

I get that (even though I'm not a woman ) but even more interesting is that "Paul" (real or not) was actually not so bad to woman, but a number of books written under his name and (wrongly) assumed to be written by him are quite nasty to your gender. "Paul" apparently supported much more freedom of women than most people realize... But that's neither here nor there because most main stream churches ignore the vast amount of evidence that Biblical Scholars have been bringing forward for the last 100+ years on the subject of who wrote what in the Bible.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

As a woman, Paul was not my main man.

 

I get that (even though I'm not a woman ) but even more interesting is that "Paul" (real or not) was actually not so bad to woman, but a number of books written under his name and (wrongly) assumed to be written by him are quite nasty to your gender. "Paul" apparently supported much more freedom of women than most people realize... But that's neither here nor there because most main stream churches ignore the vast amount of evidence that Biblical Scholars have been bringing forward for the last 100+ years on the subject of who wrote what in the Bible.

 

Yes, in terms of the impact of these books on women through xianity, the issue of who actually wrote them is about splitting hairs.

[Geezer]

I think the root problem here is the word "evidence" and the nature of evidence. 

 

There's lots of texts concerning King Arthur. These are not really "evidence" of anything tangible in reality. They're fictional stories based on folklore and imagination. 

 

 

I agree, that's why I used the word evidence. The word circumstantial used as a modifier would be appropriate too, I think. I believe most people, who study, or have some interest in ancient history, acknowledge it would be almost impossible to provide anything that would qualify as incontrovertible, irrefutable, or incontestable evidence that would prove the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless new technology is developed that will likely never happen.

 

 

So, we are left to draw informed conclusions, theories, and educated guesses based on the information that exists and how that is interpreted.Based on that I think scholars have made a believable case for both Jesus and Paul being mythical characters. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

I think most scholars hold that there are seven genuine Pauline epistles: Romans, I Cor., II Cor., Gal., Phil., I Thess., Philemon. There is still sharp controversy over the historicity of Acts. The Acts Seminar puts it well into the second century. So what it says about Paul would not be reliable on that assumption.

 

I haven't worked on Paul though so I don't know how strong are the claims of the seven supposedly genuine epistles.

[Blood]

Paul's "letters" are not "real letters to real churches" like the NRSV says. "Real letters" of the time were not 7,000 words long. They are carefully crafted polemical literature written in the epistolary genre, like the Cynic Epistles and Seneca's letters. 

 

The letters are quite unbelievable if written by a Jew. The letters preach hatred toward the Jews and hatred toward the Law/Torah. The author doesn't know anything about Judaism as it existed in his day. They sound like they were written by a Christian apologist. Why would a Christian apologist pretend he was a Jew, if in fact he hated Jews? I don't know. The mind of the ancient theologian is not something we moderns can understand. 

[M4rio]

I don't have any insight here, just noting that the topic is interesting. I think Dennis McDonald has some work about Acts and about the gospel stories mirroring very closely Greek epics like the Odyssey and Iliad. I was blown away by his research in The Homeric Epics and The Gospel of Mark.

 

Look up his essay about Elpenor and Eutychus (spelling?), it's quite intriguing, and if it is *not* a fictional story in the Bible about Paul, then one wonders how it would be possible to actually *know* that it is not fictional.

[Geezer]

Obviously, I am not a scholar. Just a guy with a passion for history. I've been reading secular religious scholars for several years now and I've become aware of the peer pressure both secular scholars and apologist are sometimes put under. Apologist are probably more vulnerable to peer pressure for obvious reasons, but even some secular scholars apparently have peer imposed boundaries.

 

It seems for years it was okay for a secular scholar to say there is no evidence that Jesus was in any way divine, but it wasn't okay to say he never existed. That has changed, but there still appears to be some sacred cows that are still off limits.

 

I think it was Price that noted if Paul's authentic writing are read as Gnostic they make more sense. If the writer of Paul's authentic letters was a Gnostic, writing under Paul's name, that would be helpful when it comes to interpreting those letters.   

[Learner]

I am no scholar either, but just an average guy who's read some books on both sides of the issue.  Personally, I can't help but get the impression that Mythicists are like young-earth creationists, and the likes of Ehrman, Sanders, Allison are like mainstream evolutionary scientists.  No matter the small handful of scholars Mythicists can come up with, the majority of scholarship is still on the side of a historical Jesus.  Now, that's not an argument in and of itself, but this is the impression I keep getting as one who used to be a YEC when I was a Christian.

[M4rio]

Learner, that's interesting.

 

I confess I am only familiar with Ehrman, mostly, on that side. I've read a little bit of Karen Armstrong, Elaine Pagels, and Marcus Borg too.

 

On the mythicist side, I've read a bit of Earl Doherty, Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and maybe a few others too.

 

Disclosing my bias: I was deeply affected by Price's book Beyond Born Again. After reading it, I felt no attraction to the idea of Jesus as a "personal savior" ever again. I feel lost in the sea of historicist versus mythicist diatribe and have a hard time knowing what I really should read that is considered "credible".

 

All I know is that the idea of Jesus as a miracle working supernatural being who walks on water *literally* and causes many dead saints to come back to life and walk around Jerusalem *literally* seems *literally ridiculous* to me. Hey even Mike Licona questions that.

[Cousin Ricky]

 

I am convinced that there was a historical Paul. We have 13 epistles allegedly written by Paul, and the consensus of textual criticism is that 7 of them were written by the same person. I will presume that person to be Paul, or Saul, or whoever the hell he really was.

So far, the only deniers of Paul’s historicity that I’ve seen are the people who claim that Christianity was invented by Constantine in the 4th century. They claim that all the books of the New Testament were forged by scribes under Constantine’s direction. I put these people in the same category as those mythicists who are criticized by Richard Carrier. There is a plethora of Christian gospels, epistles, and treatises attributed to, or referenced by, church fathers prior to Constantine. It strains credibility that all these church fathers were invented as part of a huge, unwieldy conspiracy. As with the Moon landing conspiracy, the conspiracy would be more difficult to pull off than the activity they’d be trying to fake.

The first thing I did after reading the OP was to look up Price’s and Detering’s fields of expertise. They are theologians, not historians. Until some professional historians examine their arguments, I will have to take them with a pile of salt.

 

 

As a woman, Paul was not my main man.

 

I get that (even though I'm not a woman ) but even more interesting is that "Paul" (real or not) was actually not so bad to woman, but a number of books written under his name and (wrongly) assumed to be written by him are quite nasty to your gender. "Paul" apparently supported much more freedom of women than most people realize... But that's neither here nor there because most main stream churches ignore the vast amount of evidence that Biblical Scholars have been bringing forward for the last 100+ years on the subject of who wrote what in the Bible.

 

 

As I know nothing of textual criticism, I have to rely on the experts as to which of the Pauline epistles are genuine and which are pseudepigraphs. But treating their consensus as a given, I’ve already noticed a pattern: most of the Pauline misogyny is in the pseudepigraphs! And there is even a case that a notorious misogynistic passage in one of the genuine epistles (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) is an interpolation. I once heard a Roman Catholic priest cite a Pauline passage as evidence that Paul favored ordination of women, although I don’t remember the passage. It appears that Paul was far less misogynistic than later church rulers made him out to be.

[Geezer]

Why would it matter if Paul's letters are authentic or not? The only thing that matters is whether Jesus was God incarnate. Paul interest me because his alleged writings differ so greatly from Jesus supposed teaching. Paul and Jesus were clearly not on the same theological page. Paul says the law was nailed to the cross. Jesus said the law was still valid. Paul and Jesus were proclaiming very different theologies.

 

If Paul, or whoever wrote using Paul's name, was a Gnostic then his writing make considerably more sense. I think it is pretty clear Paul's writing, at the very lest, reflect Gnostic thinking which was very popular at that time.

 

Whether Paul was a real person or a myth isn't important. Again, the only thing that really matters is whether Jesus was God incarnate or not. I am not aware of any evidence that would support Jesus and God being one and the same entity, but I do enjoy reading all the various scholars thoughts and interpretations of the numerous secular and religious documents that have survived antiquity.

[Geezer]

Skeptics might want to go back and read Blood's post. He is simply sighting reasons why Paul's letters are problematic for some scholars.

[Burny]

 

 

As a woman, Paul was not my main man.

 

I get that (even though I'm not a woman ) but even more interesting is that "Paul" (real or not) was actually not so bad to woman, but a number of books written under his name and (wrongly) assumed to be written by him are quite nasty to your gender. "Paul" apparently supported much more freedom of women than most people realize... But that's neither here nor there because most main stream churches ignore the vast amount of evidence that Biblical Scholars have been bringing forward for the last 100+ years on the subject of who wrote what in the Bible.

 

Yes, in terms of the impact of these books on women through xianity, the issue of who actually wrote them is about splitting hairs.

 

 

Amen to that!

[Guest Furball]

His letters also contradict themselves, some times within the same letter. His version of the gospel changes as well. Strange that someone who was chosen by jesus and taught his doctrine by jesus (by personal revelation) preaches a different message than jesus preached in the synoptic gospels. Even back in 300 a.d. augustine in his confessions admits people were already calling the gospels copies and saying they didn't have the originals. If they couldn't figure this stuff out way back then, neither will i today. boo hoo

[Blood]

I am no scholar either, but just an average guy who's read some books on both sides of the issue.  Personally, I can't help but get the impression that Mythicists are like young-earth creationists, and the likes of Ehrman, Sanders, Allison are like mainstream evolutionary scientists.  No matter the small handful of scholars Mythicists can come up with, the majority of scholarship is still on the side of a historical Jesus.  Now, that's not an argument in and of itself, but this is the impression I keep getting as one who used to be a YEC when I was a Christian.

 

Indeed, many "mythicists" hold naive and misinformed opinions. I wouldn't say that about Price, Brodie, Carrier, or Doherty, however. 

 

Ehrman, Sanders, and Allison are good scholars, no doubt, but make no mistake that their field is theology. That carriers a lot of baggage and assumption with it, even if they profess to be secular. 

[Blood]

The first thing I did after reading the OP was to look up Price’s and Detering’s fields of expertise. They are theologians, not historians. Until some professional historians examine their arguments, I will have to take them with a pile of salt.

 

 

As I know nothing of textual criticism, I have to rely on the experts as to which of the Pauline epistles are genuine and which are pseudepigraphs. But treating their consensus as a given, I’ve already noticed a pattern: most of the Pauline misogyny is in the pseudepigraphs! And there is even a case that a notorious misogynistic passage in one of the genuine epistles (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) is an interpolation. I once heard a Roman Catholic priest cite a Pauline passage as evidence that Paul favored ordination of women, although I don’t remember the passage. It appears that Paul was far less misogynistic than later church rulers made him out to be.

 

Your second point cancels out your first one. If you're going to dismiss opinions about the Pauline epistles based on the person's doctorate, then you've dismissed all opinions about Paul. The only person with a PhD in Ancient History to rigorously address the Pauline Epistles at all is, as far as I know, Richard Carrier. 

 

All of this stuff is pretty much the sole purview of theologians. 

 

I'd be very careful about "interpolations" in the Pauline epistles. Much of it appears to me apologetics-based, waving away passages that are inconvenient or weird to modern theologians. 

[Blood]

Why would it matter if Paul's letters are authentic or not? 

 

That's kind of like asking, "Why does it matter if the Bible was written by anonymous scribes making things up or by historical individuals recording actual events?" 

 

Of course, we will never be able to "prove" a "historical Paul" wrote (or didn't write) the letters. All we can do is form opinions of probability based on what we know about the context of the time. 

[Ravenstar]

I have no education in this area, but from what I understand Paul was a Pharisee before his conversion, was he not? In that light he most certainly should have known Torah law inside and out, he should have had a very intimate knowledge of Judaism - do the letters reflect this? Even if his conversion left him with an animosity towards it he still should have expressed himself as a Jew… and his language and syntax should have been based in Hebrew (He may have spoken or written in Greek but the underlying thought process would have been with a Hebrew root… as his education in religion would have been in Hebrew).

 

Can we determine this with a study of his use of language?

[Blood]

I have no education in this area, but from what I understand Paul was a Pharisee before his conversion, was he not? In that light he most certainly should have known Torah law inside and out, he should have had a very intimate knowledge of Judaism - do the letters reflect this? Even if his conversion left him with an animosity towards it he still should have expressed himself as a Jew… and his language and syntax should have been based in Hebrew (He may have spoken or written in Greek but the underlying thought process would have been with a Hebrew root… as his education in religion would have been in Hebrew).

 

Can we determine this with a study of his use of language?

 

If he knows the Torah law inside and out, why does he hate it so much? His attitude is a total reversal of what we read in Josephus, that Jews are taught to revere the Torah. Paul hates the Torah. Jesus is the "end of the Law." The Law is over with. Piss on the Law. 

 

If Paul is a Jew, why does he hate Jews so much? Why is he solely concerned with "salvation for the Gentiles"? 

 

Paul wrote in Semiticized Greek, and his superficial knowledge of the scriptures is based solely on the Septuagint. There is not the slightest hint that the author of the epistles knows Hebrew, or was brought up in a Hebrew environment, or has the least concern for correct exegesis or translation from the Hebrew Bible. 

 

He sounds exactly like a Christian apologist pretending to be a Pharisee, though why someone would do that is beyond my conception. 

[Ravenstar]

To legitimize his claim as a Jew, 'like Jesus', I would think. A hellenized apologist wouldn't carry quite so much weight with his audience as a 'reformed devout Jew". Quite clever, actually.

 

Yet, Jesus (Those who wrote the gospels) did not hate the Torah… he points to it quite frequently (if out of context). It was needed to create the background and to legitimize Jesus as the descendent of David, and the inheritor of Yahweh.

 

Considering that the texts are supposedly contemporary (1) it's quite the puzzle… the Pauline texts are almost anti-semitic, while the gospels are anything but - though they reproach the leaders of the Tabernacle for hypocrisy.

 

1) Supposed to have occurred in the same say, oh, 50 year period.

[mymistake]

My take is that if several works were created by one man then he was the real Paul regardless of what other details about him might be misinformation.  Paul might have been the name he gave himself.  He might have misrepresented his background.  Clearly some Bible books were copy cat artists imitating Paul.  But as long at the original was a single man there was a Paul, even if we don't know anything else about him.  As I see it, the only way Paul could be a myth is if the first Pauline works were created by a group.  If two or more authors collaborated to start the Paul letters then sure it was a myth.  

 

I would rate the mythical paul hypothesis as unlikely.  However if it were true we wouldn't be able to confirm it unless the men behind it were gloating or otherwise confessed in writing.  Highly unlikely.

 

It seems very plausible to me that a con artist calling himself Paul created several religious texts that gained popularity after his death.  And after that other authors tried to tag along for the ride.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I am no scholar either, but just an average guy who's read some books on both sides of the issue.  Personally, I can't help but get the impression that Mythicists are like young-earth creationists, and the likes of Ehrman, Sanders, Allison are like mainstream evolutionary scientists.  No matter the small handful of scholars Mythicists can come up with, the majority of scholarship is still on the side of a historical Jesus.  Now, that's not an argument in and of itself, but this is the impression I keep getting as one who used to be a YEC when I was a Christian.

 

This looks a lot like the argument from popularity fallacy to me.  But I think, in any case, it has been disproven by Blood's comment that most of these scholars are theologians.  Many would question whether theology should even be considered an academic discipline.