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

[M4rio]

 

Could it be that there was a single author of those 7 Pauline letters, but that some of the content is fiction?

 

That is, might there have been a "Paul", but his accounts and deeds were not all real?

 

It seems that this is the hypothesis taken by a few -- none of which I have read personally other than a few Dennis MacDonald essays.

 

But, I'd be curious to hear what others who have read more in depth think.

 

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.

[mymistake]

Could it be that there was a single author of those 7 Pauline letters, but that some of the content is fiction?

 

That is, might there have been a "Paul", but his accounts and deeds were not all real?

 

It seems that this is the hypothesis taken by a few -- none of which I have read personally other than a few Dennis MacDonald essays.

 

But, I'd be curious to hear what others who have read more in depth think.

 

 

 

Interesting idea.  Is it still the real Paul if one author made up all the details?  That would reduce Paul to a fictional character even if he was the concept of a single original author.  Well if evidence turned up indicating that then I would still call that original author "Paul".  Most fiction writers put a bit of themselves into the protagonist.  

[Vigile]

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.

 

It seems an unfair comparison.  YEC are making a positive claim in the face of no evidence.  Mythicists, at least as far as I can tell, are simply pointing out the fact there is zero contemporary evidence for a historical Jesus.  Moreover, if you strip the unsupportable claims away, i.e., the miracles, you are left with a handful of speeches and parables.  Drilling down further, if you strip the stories away that predate Jesus by hundreds of years (born of a virgin, golden rule, etc...) there isn't much historical Jesus left to hang a hat on. 

 

Ultimately, the question comes down to, was there a symbolic figure the gospels were loosely based on (and I stress loosely, because clearly no one walked on water, healed the blind or raised the dead) or were they simply allegory or worse? 

 

I'm no scholar either, so perhaps I'm talking out of my you know what here. 

[Guest Furball]

Paul's treatment of the law can go anyway one sees. He taught that jesus was the end of the law for justification, not the end of the law itself. It's why he teaches against the law for justification, but tells the people to keep the second half of the decalogue later in romans. Paul really confuses people because he goes to so much length to preach salvation by grace, and that it's god who works through you, yet he also teaches in other areas that you need to maintain good works, to keep the law to keep your salvation etc etc.  He tells people they have to run for salvation in corinthians, but in romans he tells them salvation is to the one who doesn't run. It's almost like paul is arguing against his own system of beliefs. He cannot decide if the law is honorable and good and perfect or that it's bad. He says the law works wrath, but then tells people to keep the law later in the same book. Paul also in corinthians 15 tells of his version of the gospel. His gospel says jesus was buried, there is no mention of a tomb. The greek word is etaphe (i don't know how to put a line over the last e in the word so forgive me). Etaphe means burial in the ground, not a stone sepulchre. When it comes to jesus resurrection paul uses the greek word egeiro (to wake up from sleeping) instead of the word anastasis (resurrection). When jesus was sleeping in the boat his disciples egeiro (woke him up). Also in this passage in corinthians 15 (pauls gospel), when he mentions jesus having appreared to people he uses the word ophthe, which means spiritual vision, the same greek word paul uses to describe his vision on the demascus road. It should be noted that scholars have found that the passage in corinthians 15 (pauls gospel), was already a hymn being used at that time. 

[Cianna200]

Paul is the reason why most Christians believe what they do now, the true leader of Christianity.

[Guest Furball]

Jesus told his disciples to baptize people without which they couldn't be saved, then paul thanks the lord that he never baptized people. (except the few names he lists) ----and the confusion continues.

[Vigile]

Paul's treatment of the law can go anyway one sees. He taught that jesus was the end of the law for justification, not the end of the law itself. It's why he teaches against the law for justification, but tells the people to keep the second half of the decalogue later in romans. Paul really confuses people because he goes to so much length to preach salvation by grace, and that it's god who works through you, yet he also teaches in other areas that you need to maintain good works, to keep the law to keep your salvation etc etc.

 

Exactly right tortured.  He hedged his bets, which I think goes a long ways in explaining why xianity has been so successful as a meme.  It keeps everyone guessing, never quite secure in their position, ultimately working like a carrot and a stick, keeping believers subject to the hamster wheel unless and until they just step off.   Without this, complacency would have eroded believers until the faith died off with the older generations. 

[Guest Furball]

True, true, and true. It's the bibles inability to teach salvation in a simple to understand formula that made me go nuts. The more i studied salvation and "how" to be saved according to the doctrines of paul and the bible as a whole, the more confusing it got, and the crazier i got. I never felt saved even as a believer. 

[Vigile]

I had an old roommate who took it so seriously (I'll preface this by stating to the best of my knowledge, he was perfectly sane before he went off the deep end) he spent 3 days fasting and literally praying in the closet out of guilt for his masturbation.  After this episode, he went nuts over a girl in our church who rejected him and he ran 10 miles barefoot.  He was picked up by the police with broken bones in his feet and was deported back to England as the state didn't want to pick up his psych tab. 

 

Nothing good comes from trying to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." 

[M4rio]

That's very sad. Wow. 

 

I had an old roommate who took it so seriously (I'll preface this by stating to the best of my knowledge, he was perfectly sane before he went off the deep end) he spent 3 days fasting and literally praying in the closet out of guilt for his masturbation.  After this episode, he went nuts over a girl in our church who rejected him and he ran 10 miles barefoot.  He was picked up by the police with broken bones in his feet and was deported back to England as the state didn't want to pick up his psych tab. 

 

Nothing good comes from trying to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." 

[Geezer]

I know lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything, but that isn't an absolute truth. Lack of evidence when there should be evidence is problematic and at least implies relevant information is missing. If Jesus and Paul were as well known as the Bible indicates they supposedly were then proving they existed in the flesh should not be difficult, but in both cases there simply is no verifiable evidence that either of these Biblical character ever existed in human form. That is the crux of the problem, and that leads to the reasonable and logical conclusion that they were mythical characters. I realize that is over simplifying the problem, but when all the dust settles that is a plausible resolution for the problem of these figures having no identifiable paper trail.  

[Blood]

I know lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything, but that isn't an absolute truth. Lack of evidence when there should be evidence is problematic and at least implies relevant information is missing. If Jesus and Paul were as well known as the Bible indicates they supposedly were then proving they existed in the flesh should not be difficult, but in both cases there simply is no verifiable evidence that either of these Biblical character ever existed in human form. That is the crux of the problem, and that leads to the reasonable and logical conclusion that they were mythical characters. I realize that is over simplifying the problem, but when all the dust settles that is a plausible resolution for the problem of these figures having no identifiable paper trail.  

 

I disagree. There was no reason why someone like Plutarch or Cassius Dio would have heard about Jesus or Paul, or would have cared even if they did. The Mithras religion was established at around the same time in Rome, and yet Plutarch only mentions it once in passing, and doesn't say a thing about the people involved. There were lots of religions that receive little to no attention from historians or writers of the time. 

 

Plus, the vast majority of what was written down at the time has perished. 

[Joshpantera]

Some think that Marcion forged the Pauline Epistles since they enter into the literary and historical record through Marcion claiming to have found them in Antioch. I don't know how strong the argument is because I've only browsed it a few times. But it does sort of sound a lot like King Josiah mysteriously finding lost writings of the Law. Church Lady says: "Well isn't that convenient?" 

 

 The so-called authentic Paul seems Gnostic?

 

Marcion was Gnostic. Maybe he really did find the letters of some former 1st century Gnostic and just loved them enough to broadcast and expand on. Or maybe the fictional Paul was his creation? It's hard to say. 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

I know lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything, but that isn't an absolute truth. Lack of evidence when there should be evidence is problematic and at least implies relevant information is missing. If Jesus and Paul were as well known as the Bible indicates they supposedly were then proving they existed in the flesh should not be difficult, but in both cases there simply is no verifiable evidence that either of these Biblical character ever existed in human form. That is the crux of the problem, and that leads to the reasonable and logical conclusion that they were mythical characters. I realize that is over simplifying the problem, but when all the dust settles that is a plausible resolution for the problem of these figures having no identifiable paper trail.  

 

I disagree. There was no reason why someone like Plutarch or Cassius Dio would have heard about Jesus or Paul, or would have cared even if they did. The Mithras religion was established at around the same time in Rome, and yet Plutarch only mentions it once in passing, and doesn't say a thing about the people involved. There were lots of religions that receive little to no attention from historians or writers of the time. 

 

Plus, the vast majority of what was written down at the time has perished. 

 

 

Just have to say for the benefit of any lurkers... if god was all-loving, why would he choose to send his message to humans at a time when most of the written records would perish?  Doesn't make sense, does it?

[Geezer]

 

I know lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything, but that isn't an absolute truth. Lack of evidence when there should be evidence is problematic and at least implies relevant information is missing. If Jesus and Paul were as well known as the Bible indicates they supposedly were then proving they existed in the flesh should not be difficult, but in both cases there simply is no verifiable evidence that either of these Biblical character ever existed in human form. That is the crux of the problem, and that leads to the reasonable and logical conclusion that they were mythical characters. I realize that is over simplifying the problem, but when all the dust settles that is a plausible resolution for the problem of these figures having no identifiable paper trail.  

 

I disagree. There was no reason why someone like Plutarch or Cassius Dio would have heard about Jesus or Paul, or would have cared even if they did. The Mithras religion was established at around the same time in Rome, and yet Plutarch only mentions it once in passing, and doesn't say a thing about the people involved. There were lots of religions that receive little to no attention from historians or writers of the time. 

 

Plus, the vast majority of what was written down at the time has perished. 

 

 

 

You're the scholar I'm just a curious guy. In my simple mind I'm wondering how someone who raised people from the dead, feeds thousands with a couple of fishes, heals the sick, and has thousands of followers is able to fly under the radar and is able to go completely unnoticed in history? I just wonder how such a thing would be possible, or even likely. 

 

Some self appointed Apostle of this miracle working Jewish Messiah openly challenges Jewish tradition, and the teaching of the Messiah that he supposedly worships as the one true God, and ends up creating a new religion but he too somehow manages to fly under the radar and is ignored by history. 

 

The one and only place these two icons are found is in a collection of religious writings that are declared, by a council of men, to be divinely inspired and therefore inerrant. There are no known eyewitnesses to the exploits of these two ancient icons and no one knows who wrote, what is now called the Bible, where their exploits are recorded. 

 

I am left to decide if these two icons were real people who did miraculous things but their exploits and supernatural abilities went unnoticed, except for a few people who apparently were so underwhelmed they didn't tell anybody about what they saw, and no one thought these two guys were impressive enough to jot their exploits down and record their supernatural deeds for history. 

 

So, two thousand years or so later mankind is left to decide if these two guys were real people who did, and said, some stuff that kind of, or sort of, amazed a few folk but didn't overwhelm anyone. So, maybe they pulled a rabbit out of a hat and a few hundred years later that story took on a life of its own and now the story says they pulled a dead person out of their grave, but none of the witnesses that saw the rabbit being pulled out of the hat are alive anymore, so the stores grow more and more incredible and people begin to believe they are true. The Jewish guy that did, and said, some strange stuff eventually is promoted by storytellers to the position of being the God of Creation, or maybe all of it was just mythical stories made up by nomadic sheep herders. 

 

Until I discover some solid evidence that convinces me otherwise I'm going with Christianity and all it's characters and stories being myths. If these two men existed in the flesh they were something other than rock stars in the communities they frequented. 

[themonkeyman]

If Paul was real we will never know. The scriptures are not originals so what is to say perhaps Cyril of Alexandria wrote 7 and then others wrote there own.

 

Paul was supposed to be a pharasie and its funny how we have no historians speaking of this outright critic. Even Jews who condemned jesus said squat about Paul.

 

Its my opinion Paul is a fabrication.

 

There are 184 new testament books that we have parts of and a majority are tampered or fabricated. So what is to say that Paul was not a fabrication.

 

I'd say prove to me a single historian speaking about Paul between 66 and 110 ad heck we have works about Apolinus of Tyana who was Jesus competitor fully documented.

 

We also have orpheus who did amazing feats. From what I know Rome and Jews at the time despised one another so what's to say Paul was not used by the Romans to steal Jewish followers

[Joshpantera]

Quote:

Saul of Tarsus – a witness for Jesus?

One is informed by Acts that St Paul's early day stance was as "Saul, the Christian persecutor". Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen's stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3), becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?

Paul's role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the godman's death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of Nazareth had no great impact. After all, Saul was a contemporary of Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem ("at the feet of Gamaliel" – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the godman was overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees.

Would not Saul, a young religious hothead ("exceedingly zealous of the traditions" – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an enthusiastic witness to JC's blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where was Saul during "passion week", surely in Jerusalem with the other zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a word of the crucifixion?

Two Pauls – One Illusion

The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with the conundrum that chunks of Paul's own story, gleaned from the epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live with the "divine mystery" of it all. Perish the thought that they might recognize the whole saga is a work of pious fiction.

[JadedAtheist]

I think the problem with the any sort of ancient work is that it's very hard to verify anything. Educated guesses are the best we have and while I understand that the general consensus was that there was a Jesus and there was a Paul - I am a bit doubtful of the Jesus thing. Paul on the other hand, I tend to think that he existed. the only reason I say that is because when I read some of the epistles of Paul I get a strong sense of this being from the same person with real desires regarding his church plants. This is extremely subjective and doesn't hold under any sort of scrutiny but that is basically the reason for my leaning towards him existing. All in all I don't really care if he does or not.

[Blood]

I think the whole idea of historicizing Christian origins only happened when the church scholars encountered the works of Josephus. Prior to then, it was all mysticism and Septuagint readings. Now, they seized the opportunity to place the human being "Jesus" in a plausible-sounding recent history in Palestine (an area they were unfamiliar with). This presented a lot of new questions and problems, such as, what happened after Jesus's death? They found mention of somebody named Yacob (James) in Josephus and imagined him to be a leader of a "Jerusalem church" that never existed. The Paul character evolved as an antithesis to this. 

 

Christianity was and is a deliberate deception or pious fraud based on fictional stories re-written from the Bible, Josephus, and other literary sources. A child can detect this, if exposed to the sources. That it is still, to this day, presented and popularly understood as legitimate "history" is astonishing. It shows the extreme levels people will go to maintain cherished illusions. 

[Geezer]

If my experience is typical, then I think the most difficult part of the de-conversion process is getting your mind free from the intense indoctrination it has been subjected to. Your mind cannot process information rationally and logically until you can put your bias aside. Once you've freed your mind, the critical scholarship that's readily available, when read and studied, will do the rest. Your faith will collapse like a house of cards and you will wonder why you ever believed such nonsense in the first place.

[Guest Furball]

Paul was also the perfect character. No simple jew would suffice for the story of paul. It had to be the most devout super jew to make the story seem credible. Introducing paul, super jew who sat at none other than super teacher gamaliels feet. Then make paul seem to hate christianity and call for their lives, but then wait, oh he (the super jesus hating jew) now has a miraculous conversion, and now he is all about jesus. If you read between the lines, paul is a fictional character. If the super jesus hating jew could be converted, then jesus must be real and all the other jews are now without excuse. i call b.s.

[Blood]

Paul was also the perfect character. No simple jew would suffice for the story of paul. It had to be the most devout super jew to make the story seem credible. Introducing paul, super jew who sat at none other than super teacher gamaliels feet. Then make paul seem to hate christianity and call for their lives, but then wait, oh he (the super jesus hating jew) now has a miraculous conversion, and now he is all about jesus. If you read between the lines, paul is a fictional character. If the super jesus hating jew could be converted, then jesus must be real and all the other jews are now without excuse. i call b.s.

 

Yes, I've observed that as well. The "evil Jew" who persecuted the poor, saintly Christians but then sees the error of his ways is a caricature. How did the demented minds who dreamed up this nonsense ever convince people it was all real?

[mymistake]

Paul was also the perfect character. No simple jew would suffice for the story of paul. It had to be the most devout super jew to make the story seem credible. Introducing paul, super jew who sat at none other than super teacher gamaliels feet. Then make paul seem to hate christianity and call for their lives, but then wait, oh he (the super jesus hating jew) now has a miraculous conversion, and now he is all about jesus. If you read between the lines, paul is a fictional character. If the super jesus hating jew could be converted, then jesus must be real and all the other jews are now without excuse. i call b.s.

 

 

 

In your opinion were the supposedly authentic "Pauline" letters written by a single author or commissioned by a group?  I'm trying to understand the concept of a mythical Paul.  I would appreciate it if you could expand on the idea, theorize and so on.

[Vigile]

Paul was also the perfect character. No simple jew would suffice for the story of paul. It had to be the most devout super jew to make the story seem credible. Introducing paul, super jew who sat at none other than super teacher gamaliels feet. Then make paul seem to hate christianity and call for their lives, but then wait, oh he (the super jesus hating jew) now has a miraculous conversion, and now he is all about jesus. If you read between the lines, paul is a fictional character. If the super jesus hating jew could be converted, then jesus must be real and all the other jews are now without excuse. i call b.s.

 

*wins the thread*  Shut 'er down now. 

[Geezer]

Scholars have long ago discovered Paul was not the author of all the 13 letters tradition says he wrote. A lot of the OT writings are known to have had multiple authors. If the Jesus character was a myth, I don't see it being a big leap to believe Paul was too, since there appears to be little or no evidence that supports either of them having existed in the flesh.

 

I'm not sure why it would matter whether Paul was a real person or not since he appears to have no knowledge of an earthly Jesus.