Non-biblical sources for Paul of Tarsus

[Pauliesonne]

Since I'm not a good judge on honest websites, could someone give me a link to them ( if they exist ) ?

[Kopji]

You might try a search on Saul of Tarsus instead of Paul, but as far as I know Paul is strictly a biblical figure.

(In my opinion), Fordham University maintains one of the best websites on this kind of information, including the texts of many primary sources.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook11.html

[sophia8]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus) has an interesting and detailed article on him, with lots of references and some intriguing alternative views.
If you're asking if there are any non-Biblical contemporary references to him, it seems not.

[stamenflicker]

Well, there is all the early church fathers writing within the century of his death, and more writing over the next two centuries. But something tells me these just won't count.

It's like trying to find sources for Josephus and saying you can't use his own writings, or writings of his contemporaries. Kind of silly.

[ceo_esq]

Well, there is all the early church fathers writing within the century of his death, and more writing over the next two centuries. But something tells me these just won't count.

It's like trying to find sources for Josephus and saying you can't use his own writings, or writings of his contemporaries. Kind of silly.

Agreed. As the primary evidence for his existence - the letters he wrote - were gathered together (along with some others of dubious authenticity) into the Bible; in his case I'm not sure I understand the point of distinguishing between biblical and extrabiblical sources. This is quite different from the case of Jesus; the Gospels are about Jesus from a third-party perspective. But take away the Book of Acts and "Paul" really just means "the person who wrote the letters attributed to Paul", so in that sense Paul's historicity goes without saying, unless experts are wrong about common authorship of much of the Pauline corpus.

Scripsit ergo erat (pardon any error; my Latin is atrocious). Many ancient and even not-so-ancient historical persons are known to us only from things they wrote.

[drkitten]

But take away the Book of Acts and "Paul" really just means "the person who wrote the letters attributed to Paul", so in that sense Paul's historicity goes without saying, unless experts are wrong about common authorship of much of the Pauline corpus.

Well, let's rephrase the question, then.

What evidence do we have for the common authorship of the Pauline corpus?
What evidence do we have the the assumed common author of the Pauline corpus is the same person mentioned in Acts?

... and is any of that evidence from extra-Biblical sources?

[ceo_esq]

Well, let's rephrase the question, then.

What evidence do we have for the common authorship of the Pauline corpus?
What evidence do we have the the assumed common author of the Pauline corpus is the same person mentioned in Acts?

... and is any of that evidence from extra-Biblical sources?

Is that what you had in mind, Paulisonne?

At any rate, www.earlychristianwritings.com usually has a decent overview of scholarship, so if you're looking for websites I can recommend that one.

[Pauliesonne]

Is that what you had in mind, Paulisonne?



Yes it is.

Thanks.

[Pauliesonne]

Is this a stupid argument for who Paul was;

That Paul was an agent of Imperial Rome in general and of the Roman Emperors in specific.

I'll gladly accept any criticisim.

So go head and bust my balls!

[Cleon]

Is this a stupid argument for who Paul was;

That Paul was an agent of Imperial Rome in general and of the Roman Emperors in specific.

I'll gladly accept any criticisim.

So go head and bust my balls!

Er...Evidence?

[Pauliesonne]

Er...Evidence?

My reasoning may be screwed up but since we don't know if Paul is trustworthy and since the romans could benefit, wouldn't that make sense.

Again, I may be talking out my *** and not knowing it but I'll leave you to figure that out.

[drkitten]

My reasoning may be screwed up

It is. There is something of a difference -- minor, but substantial -- between "argument" and "wildly and unresponsibly unrealistic speculation without a shred of support."

[Bikewer]

Somewhat related: I'm about halfway through Bart Ehrman's (Lost Christianities and others) book, "Misquoting Jesus".

It's primarily concerned with the content and cause of errors in the Bible, and how they got there. Ehrman points out that there are essentially no original texts whatever, only copies of copies of copies, and many of these copies made by individuals of dubious skill or with agendas of their own.

In more than one case, researchers in the field have found writings by individuals who were functionally illiterate; they merely had the skill to copy letters. One scribe, obviously practicing his "official" signature, makes an error and then repeats it for the rest of the practice page.

[Cleon]

My reasoning may be screwed up but since we don't know if Paul is trustworthy and since the romans could benefit, wouldn't that make sense.

What reasoning?

Even assuming Paul existed and the whole nine yards, basing "he could be a Roman agent" on "we don't know if he's trustworthy" is a leap of logic so gargantuan that Eval Keneval would think twice about trying to jump it.

ETA: You should contact Dan Brown. He'd probably love this idea.

[Pauliesonne]

Well, what can I say?

I was ready to be critized and that's excactly what happened.

Ah....

Now, that's what I wake up for.