Paul Never Existed

[The Nice Centurion]

Additionally we got a good possibility that Paul never existed!

Yeah, sure.

Go with that.

Question for debate:

Is that true ?

What are the pro & contra ?

[LittleNipper]

If so, I would like to know, who wrote them and why he gave credit to Paul. If you can't give any reasonable answer to that, i have no good reason to believe it was not Paul.

Oh, there are many good reasons to believe it wasn't Paul.

• The vocabulary of the pastoral epistles is radically different than that of the epistles generally accepted as genuine. Not only does the author (or do the authors) or the pastorals use words that Paul doesn't, they often give different meaning to the words they have in common. Finally, the vocabulary of the pastorals more closely matches that of other Christian authors of the second century.
• The topics discussed in the pastorals include topics and church structure that more closely align with the state of the Church in the second century after Paul was dead than with the earlier Church.
• The earliest references to the pastoral epistles in other Christian writings don't appear until at least the mid to late second century.

We've led the horse to water. I suspect that the horse would rather drink from a river in Egypt, though.

You are questioning something that has been questioned before and accepted by the educated elite as genuine and reasonably attributed to a man whose name was changed to Paul: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi ... nd%20faith. And you may also wish to read the following (or maybe not). https://evidenceforchristianity.org/is- ... al-person/

[Difflugia]

You are questioning something that has been questioned before and accepted by the educated elite as genuine and reasonably attributed

That wasn't among your reasons, though. Your reasoning was that Paul was real because NASA went to the Moon and Alexander the Great was a real Macedonian emperor. If you'd like to switch to the opinions of genuine scholars, you're welcome to move the goalposts there.

to a man whose name was changed to Paul:

Now you're trying to smuggle in more claims. Acts says that Paul used to be named Saul, but whether Acts is correct about that isn't the same as whether Paul existed or he wrote any of the extant epistles. Expanding your claims doesn't create evidence for your earlier statement.

Just so we're on the same page, your earlier claims were that Paul was real because the Moon landing isn't a hoax and that there is far more evidence for the existence of Paul than for the existence of Alexander the Great. The first is fallacious and the second is objectively untrue.

1213 is arguing that the Pauline epistles were written by Paul, but we have strong evidence that at least some of them weren't.

And you may also wish to read the following (or maybe not).

Which of these new claims are you interested in defending? Are you abandoning your earlier claims or is this the start of a Gish gallop?

[LittleNipper]

You are questioning something that has been questioned before and accepted by the educated elite as genuine and reasonably attributed

That wasn't among your reasons, though. Your reasoning was that Paul was real because NASA went to the Moon and Alexander the Great was a real Macedonian emperor. If you'd like to switch to the opinions of genuine scholars, you're welcome to move the goalposts there.

to a man whose name was changed to Paul:

Now you're trying to smuggle in more claims. Acts says that Paul used to be named Saul, but whether Acts is correct about that isn't the same as whether Paul existed or he wrote any of the extant epistles. Expanding your claims doesn't create evidence for your earlier statement.

Just so we're on the same page, your earlier claims were that Paul was real because the Moon landing isn't a hoax and that there is far more evidence for the existence of Paul than for the existence of Alexander the Great. The first is fallacious and the second is objectively untrue.

1213 is arguing that the Pauline epistles were written by Paul, but we have strong evidence that at least some of them weren't.

And you may also wish to read the following (or maybe not).

Which of these new claims are you interested in defending? Are you abandoning your earlier claims or is this the start of a Gish gallop?

What did Alexander the Great write? He could be a storybook character much like Hector and Paris and the Trojan horse. Hundreds of years passed before the story of Alexander was written/fabricated. The New Testament revelation was begun within 45 years after the death and resurrection of CHRIST JESUS. In fact the cannon of the NEW TESTAMENT books were all written before 95 AD, and we have multiple books and many copies. How many ancient copies regarding Alexander the Great exist?

[bjs1]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]
Every main consens explains that Paul wrote only a small part of his letters.

The consensus is the Paul wrote more than half the letters attributed to him, perhaps as many as 10 out of 13, which is not a small part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_e ... nd%20Titus).

But what if he didnt even write this small part?

This does feel a lot liking saying "The moon landing was a hoax!" That is, all the evidence suggests certain truths (the moon landing happened, and Paul existed). There is no evidence to contradict these truths. It is possible the evidence was all faked, but other than personal bias there doesnt seem to be any reason to reject the obvious as true.

[Difflugia]

What did Alexander the Great write? He could be a storybook character much like Hector and Paris and the Trojan horse.

Considering that we have artifacts from his reign that mention him by name from various parts of the empire, your claim doesn't actually help your case. You're just raising the bar to a height that Paul can't hope to reach. We have contemporary inscriptions commemorating him dedicating buildings. There are contemporary Egyptian inscriptions commemorating his reign as pharaoh following his defeat of the Persian emperor Darius III. There were official mints across the empire that struck coins with the inscription "King Alexander."

Hundreds of years passed before the story of Alexander was written/fabricated.

Hundreds of years passed before the particular histories that we now have were written down, but we have evidence of his reign as Macedonian general and emperor from his lifetime. Even if we view the written histories in the terrible light you'd like us to, all that means is that we can't be sure of many of the details of his life. If you're trying to argue that his very existence is in doubt, though, you'll have to do better than that.

The New Testament revelation was begun within 45 years after the death and resurrection of CHRIST JESUS.

I thought we were talking about Paul.

In fact the cannon of the NEW TESTAMENT books were all written before 95 AD,

That's not a fact. At least the pastoral epistles are second century compositions and 2 Peter is likely so. 1 Peter, James, and the Johannine epistles were written around 100 AD and may have been written before 95 AD, but that's uncertain enough that it's a bit hyperbolic to claim a pre-95 date as "fact."

and we have multiple books and many copies.

We'd have the same number of copies whether the Pauline epistles were written by Paul or Marcion. That doesn't help this particular argument.

How many ancient copies regarding Alexander the Great exist?

What does that have to do with whether Alexander was real? You're getting your apologetic arguments confused. The "number of copies" argument is about how reliably we can reconstruct an original form of the document, not whether the contents are pseudepigraphical or fictional.

[1213]

If so, I would like to know, who wrote them and why he gave credit to Paul. If you can't give any reasonable answer to that, i have no good reason to believe it was not Paul.

Oh, there are many good reasons to believe it wasn't Paul.

I wanted an answer to, who wrote them and why he gave the credit to Paul.

The vocabulary of the pastoral epistles is radically different than ....

Also my vocabulary is different than 20 years ago. Doesn't mean I am not the same person anymore.

[Difflugia]

If Jesus never existed, Christianity is pointless.

It's a pretty minor point, but I disagree with this. Modern Christianity would require few changes to accommodate a mythic Jesus. Christians would have to reevaluate the meaning of the gospels and Acts in a historical sense, but the whole impetus behind mythicism in the first place is that Pauline theology works just as well with a mythic Jesus and perhaps even better. If Christians can say things like, "he is risen," and, "the Lord lives today," and believe that it's literally true, it doesn't matter whether Christ was born, crucified, and raised from the dead in first century Palestine or a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

If Paul never existed, then... well not much changes. Someone had visions/thoughts about Jesus and wrote them down. Whether this someone is named Paul doesn't really matter.

Maybe not in Christian practice, but that would change a lot for me. The foundation of my synthesis of the New Testament and Christianity is that the genuine Pauline epistles are the earliest Christian writings that we have and influenced the gospels. If the earliest Pauline epistles are second century documents (as would be the case if Marcion is "Paul"), then the gospels and Acts might conceivably predate Pauline theology. Part of the reason that Acts is suspicious as a historical document is that it conflicts with the Pauline epistles. If the epistles are based on Acts or both are based on prior tradition, then the epistles are no longer a primary source with which to compare Acts. Furthermore, if Marcion is "Paul," then it's conceivable that he had Acts in front of him when he wrote the epistles. The "Gospel of Marcion" is already accepted to have been a version of Luke, but Marcion's canon didn't include Acts itself. If he had Acts, then the epistles could conceivably be an attempt to rehabilitate the tradition behind Acts, making the Paul character of Acts less Jewish.

Of course, a Paul that's both early and fictional would solve some of this, but we're back to finding a reason for both the forgeries themselves and their acceptance.

[Difflugia]

I wanted an answer to, who wrote them and why he gave the credit to Paul.

Framed as an ultimatum rather than a legitimate question. In that light, it sounded more like you wanted an excuse. If you really want to discuss alternate authors, though, one of the suggestions is Marcion.

Also my vocabulary is different than 20 years ago. Doesn't mean I am not the same person anymore.

Since there's far more to the academic conclusion than your reductionist response could possibly address, here are links to two comments where I discussed it more fully: Comment #1 and Comment #2.

I'm happy to discuss what's going one here, but I'd like some assurance that you're actually willing to engage with the topic first.

[1213]

I wanted an answer to, who wrote them and why he gave the credit to Paul.

Framed as an ultimatum rather than a legitimate question. In that light, it sounded more like you wanted an excuse. If you really want to discuss alternate authors, though, one of the suggestions is Marcion.

Thanks! Interesting, but I don't see any intelligent reason to think he wrote Paul's letters.

[TRANSPONDER]

I wanted an answer to, who wrote them and why he gave the credit to Paul.

Framed as an ultimatum rather than a legitimate question. In that light, it sounded more like you wanted an excuse. If you really want to discuss alternate authors, though, one of the suggestions is Marcion.

Thanks! Interesting, but I don't see any intelligent reason to think he wrote Paul's letters.

You often act like your denial settles the matter. It does not. It only underlines the false apologetic of denial, made worse by your insinuation that your position is more 'intelligent'. Obviously if Marcion wrote Paul (and added Acts to the gospels) then he would ascribe it to someone else, not say it was himself.

However, However I also don't buy Marcion as writing Paul's letters. This seems to be based on a vague idea that Marcion wanted to remove Judaism from Christianity, which Paul wanted to do, or at least the Jewish Rules, which Gentiles would never accept. I'm convinced that Paul was a real person arguing his views and finding excuses and justifying himself in a way that would only happen if the letters were written by a person who was having to deal with these issues.