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

[♦ ficino ♦]

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.

So far my hunch is that much of the story of Paul in the Book of Acts is fictionalized but that there was a Paul who wrote at least seven of the epistles attributed to him.  In Galatians the writer says that he lived a very observant life as a Jew and persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.  Then he had his first revelation.  I don't see what's improbable about this basic outline.  The dude was pretty clearly unhinged AND charismatic.

[Guest Furball]

He wasn't too observant. If he was he would have been devoutly in the temple at the time jesus was throwing the money changers tables over. Paul would have been keenly aware who jesus of nazareth was. There is no way paul as saul could have been one of the top dogs in jerusalem and not have known who jesus was with all that jesus did in the temple. -peace  p.s. it's all fake so....

[Blood]

It's intriguing to think that perhaps the apostles were portrayed as idiots in the gospel story because the writer intended to introduce the only "real" apostle, Paul, 

in a subsequent story. Or perhaps the writer didn't intend that, but a convert of the new religion picked up on that theme and invented the Paul mythos as a way to upstage the "Markan" gospel sect. 

 

That would kind of make sense. But the texts and testimonia we have don't support that idea. Marcion's gospel was Luke not Mark, and Luke is derivative of Mark. 

Likewise, there is little to no correspondence between the gospel of Mark and the Pauline epistles, as you expect if they emanated from the same person or sect. 

[M4rio]

It's been a long time since I have looked into this stuff, but I remember some interesting commentary from Dennis MacDonald on this, including how it was a common literary pattern to display followers of a hero as bumbling and less than the hero.

 

In the Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark he goes much, much further than just basic comparisons to detail compelling patterns of showing Jesus as a superior hero to Odysseus. I found the book very convincing, as a lay person. Several critiques exist that question his reading and his parallels, but it seems to me it's an overstep to call it "parallelomania", which is sometimes leveled against critics who dare to claim that Christianity has antecedents in pagan religions and syncretistic origins.

[Vigile]

It's intriguing to think that perhaps the apostles were portrayed as idiots in the gospel story because the writer intended to introduce the only "real" apostle, Paul,

 

This seems to imply an entire narrative was planned by the writers.  I'm certainly no scholar, so perhaps there was, but it's my understanding that the NT is just a conglomeration of disjointed letters and books that were not combined until the council of Nicea 300 odd years after the fact.  How then could a narrative be intended by the authors? 

 

[Woodsy]

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.

My experience exactly! Well put, Geezer.

[Blood]

 

It's intriguing to think that perhaps the apostles were portrayed as idiots in the gospel story because the writer intended to introduce the only "real" apostle, Paul,

 

This seems to imply an entire narrative was planned by the writers.  I'm certainly no scholar, so perhaps there was, but it's my understanding that the NT is just a conglomeration of disjointed letters and books that were not combined until the council of Nicea 300 odd years after the fact.  How then could a narrative be intended by the authors? 

 

 

 

The canon of the New Testament was not discussed at Nicea. Nobody actually knows when, where, why, or who "canonized" certain books.

[Cousin Ricky]

He wasn't too observant. If he was he would have been devoutly in the temple at the time jesus was throwing the money changers tables over. Paul would have been keenly aware who jesus of nazareth was. There is no way paul as saul could have been one of the top dogs in jerusalem and not have known who jesus was with all that jesus did in the temple. -peace  p.s. it's all fake so....

 

But here, you're assuming that there was a historical Jesus who historically ran amok in the temple. If this event never happened, then there's no reason for a historical Saul to have noticed it.

[mymistake]

 

It's intriguing to think that perhaps the apostles were portrayed as idiots in the gospel story because the writer intended to introduce the only "real" apostle, Paul,

 

This seems to imply an entire narrative was planned by the writers.  I'm certainly no scholar, so perhaps there was, but it's my understanding that the NT is just a conglomeration of disjointed letters and books that were not combined until the council of Nicea 300 odd years after the fact.  How then could a narrative be intended by the authors? 

 

 

 

 

I think the NT originated from multiple authors and multiple editors who represented many different factions.  I'm sure some of these factions were in direct competition with each other and would have viewed each other as enemies/false religions.  When Rome took over that was simply a brand new (and much more successful) faction.

 

 

 

By the way I have been reading Romans looking for evidence that Paul was a myth.  Whoever else he was the author of Romans sure was a hateful little hypocrite.

[Learner]

One thought I just had that might have some bearing on this question of if Paul was a myth is the differing theologies and dating of 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians. 1 Thess is considered genuinely Pauline and dated as the earliest of his letters. I think one reason it's dated so early (50's) is because it clearly shows that people were starting to wonder what would happen to their deceased relatives who died before Jesus came back, clearly assuming Jesus' return would be imminent and "in that GENERATION." 2 Thess is not considered Pauline, and it basically says: "Don't listen to anyone who says Jesus is coming back soon, cuz he ain't," which shows a later theoligical development when people changed their theology to expect Jesus not coming back very soon.

 

So the thing I want to point out is that the earliest Pauline letter seems clearly to be from a very early stage of Christianity. So it doesn't seem this letter would be made up by some second-century Christian. (This is a new topic of discussion for me, so I'm just thinking out loud here)

[Learner]

In other words, with the Thessalonians epistles, the scenario that makes most sense to me is:

 

Someone (Paul) writes 1 Thessalonians very early on when people expect Jesus to return within their generation. Jesus doesn't return in that generation. Someone years later forges a letter in Paul's name to tie-up the obvious loose ends (Christian "C.Y.A.") so Christians will keep believing.

[Vigile]

 

 

It's intriguing to think that perhaps the apostles were portrayed as idiots in the gospel story because the writer intended to introduce the only "real" apostle, Paul,

 

This seems to imply an entire narrative was planned by the writers.  I'm certainly no scholar, so perhaps there was, but it's my understanding that the NT is just a conglomeration of disjointed letters and books that were not combined until the council of Nicea 300 odd years after the fact.  How then could a narrative be intended by the authors? 

 

 

 

The canon of the New Testament was not discussed at Nicea. Nobody actually knows when, where, why, or who "canonized" certain books.

 

 

Regardless, the point still stands.  How could there be a preconsidered narrative if the final product were decided upon at some later date?

 

[Blood]

 

 

 

It's intriguing to think that perhaps the apostles were portrayed as idiots in the gospel story because the writer intended to introduce the only "real" apostle, Paul,

 

This seems to imply an entire narrative was planned by the writers.  I'm certainly no scholar, so perhaps there was, but it's my understanding that the NT is just a conglomeration of disjointed letters and books that were not combined until the council of Nicea 300 odd years after the fact.  How then could a narrative be intended by the authors? 

 

 

 

The canon of the New Testament was not discussed at Nicea. Nobody actually knows when, where, why, or who "canonized" certain books.

 

 

Regardless, the point still stands.  How could there be a preconsidered narrative if the final product were decided upon at some later date?

 

 

 

We don't know the date these things were "canonized." It could have been as early as 100 or 125. 

[FarflungWanderer]

I don't have any evidence for this, but I get the feeling that there was a historical Paul who caused a schism between Christians, trying to gain members and acceptance from Rome. Those who disagreed were writ out of history, and Paul was whitewashed into the next best thing to Jesus (he even chastised Paul in one of the books).

 

If there was a historical Paul, he was no where near saintly, and he assuredly tried to tailor Christianity to gain Roman acceptance and a rapid growth in members.

[Cousin Ricky]

We don't know the date these things were "canonized." It could have been as early as 100 or 125. 

 

It was not as early as 100 CE, because not all the books and epistles had been written by then. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Peter were almost certainly 2nd century works. Luke, John and Acts have a wide error bar and may or may not have been written by 100 CE.

 

I believe all the writings of the New Testament were attested by the middle of the 2nd century, though. Claims that they were written later would require a massive conspiracy theory—not that such a theory hasn’t been proposed.

 

I don't know when the various patriarchies pruned out the Septuagint (LXX) to create their versions of the Old Testament. The timing of the canonization of the Tanakh would be relevant. Those writings in the Roman Catholic OT that are not in the Tanakh are termed deuterocanonical (“second listed”) by the RCC, indicating some awareness of the Jewish canonization proceedings. In addition, not all the books of the LXX are included, indicating some controversy over which books should be included.

 

Of course, all of the deuterocanonical writings were declared apocryphal and dumped by the Protestant Reformation many centuries later.

 

If there was a historical Paul, he was no where near saintly, and he assuredly tried to tailor Christianity to gain Roman acceptance and a rapid growth in members.

 

Certainly!