Evidence for Paul's existence?

[clayflingythingy]

I have always accepted that some religious guru named Jesus got bumped off by the Romans and his followers founded a religion based on this guy largely becuase of Paul's references to "James, the Lord's brother". I kinda always figured if their was a James then it was a good bet the brother existed too.

But what evidence, if any, do we have that their really was a crazed religious zealot named Paul?

[Foster Zygote]

We have seven letters written by him (and several others forged in his name). That's a lot more than we have confirming the existence of Jeshua ben Joseph. I think that Jesus most likely did exist, but we have more evidence for the existence of Paul than for Jesus.

Not to mention that using Paul's reference to James as evidence of the existence of Jesus is problematic if you have doubts about the existence of Paul.

[clayflingythingy]

FWIW, I think it likely Paul did exist and was the founder of Christianity. But is Paul mentioned in any mid 1st century text outside the NT?

[Foster Zygote]

I'm not aware of any contemporary historical references to Paul. The Book of Acts speaks of Paul quite a bit, but as an historical source it is problematic given that its author (also the author of the Gospel of Luke) obviously never met Paul and writes a number of accounts that stand in direct contradiction to what Paul himself wrote. References by early Christian historians like Irenaeus don't count either.

[TimCallahan]

Maybe it's just me, but I've always found the character of Paul that comes through in the letters to be that of a prickly, rather unpleasant person. One could argue that, if Christian apologists in the first century were going to make someone up out of whole cloth, they could have come up with a far more appealing protagonist.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Maybe it's just me, but I've always found the character of Paul that comes through in the letters to be that of a prickly, rather unpleasant person. One could argue that, if Christian apologists in the first century were going to make someone up out of whole cloth, they could have come up with a far more appealing protagonist.

On the other hand, Paul was, unusually for his time, quite clear regarding his beliefs that women were equal to men regarding their role in the church. This appears to have rubbed some people the wrong way to the extent that someone forged 1 Timothy chapter 2 in his name in order to put women in their "proper" place, as it were. Even 1 Corinthians, which was almost certainly written by Paul, has had what are most likely later scribal addition in chapter 14 verses 33-36 again admonishing women to basically shut up in church.

[clayflingythingy]

Paul must have certainly written more letters than those that are believed to be genuine that made it into the NT. Do early church fathers reference any "lost letters" of Paul?

As to Paul's character not being one that someone would make up, I dunno. Perhaps that is evidence of Paul being a real person.

It's just that I thought that if Paul got bumped off for his missionary work as a troublemaking Christian that someone might have noticed and noted it.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by clayflingythingy

FWIW, I think it likely Paul did exist and was the founder of Christianity. But is Paul mentioned in any mid 1st century text outside the NT?

He's clearly an interloper who saw a good, expanding meme to glom onto when he saw one.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

We have seven letters written by him (and several others forged in his name). That's a lot more than we have confirming the existence of Jeshua ben Joseph. I think that Jesus most likely did exist, but we have more evidence for the existence of Paul than for Jesus.

I would go further than that: the Paul that probably existed was very likely to be similar to how he is portrayed in his writings, but the real Jesus that probably existed is likely to be unrecognizable as the character(s) described in the gospels.

ETA: This comes from beliefnet:

Quote:

Some of the more convincing evidence for the Apostle Paul's existence is found in the following ancient literature. Clement of Rome cites Paul in his letter to the church at Corinth (c. 95 C.E.). Irenaeus (140-202 C.E.) cites Paul in his work "Against Heresies." There is also a description of Paul's physical appearance in the apocryphal work "Acts of Paul and Thecla." Then, of course, there is Peter's reference to Paul in 2 Peter 3:15 and Luke's discussion of Paul's ministry in the book of Acts.

ETA: This site might be a more even-handed treatment of the question.

[kuroyume0161]

Paul probably existed but there are still some issues here.

It is very revealing in how Ignatius of Antioch refers to Peter and Paul as Apostles (Clement does the same for Paul!). I thought that the Apostles (reverential capitalization) were only the original '12' (which is almost assuredly a numerological thing) who actually lived with Jesus. Even Paul's conversion is supposedly after the christians are mucking about and Jesus is long dead (and impossibly resurrected). How can he be referred to as one of them?

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary online for 'Apostle':

1 : one sent on a mission: as a : one of an authoritative New Testament group sent out to preach the gospel and made up especially of Christ's 12 original disciples and Paul b : the first prominent Christian missionary to a region or group

And Paul? Really? How did Paul climb the ranks of the many already existing christian converts and Apostles so quickly? Especially since he was previously persecuting them!

If Peter is purportedly the one in the Gospel accounts, that makes Paul a contemporary. That Peter and Paul are shown together (A LOT!), discussed together, had quarrels together and performed miraculous acts together to show who was the better christian to follow (or who was correct about gentiles or jews) speaks VOLUMES of what the actual situation was. That and the rest of the Apostles just vanish for the most part.

Here's my hypothesis: Peter and Paul were the originators of christianity. Paul may have come in shortly after Peter started the religion or they may have been leaders in two related sects which were clamoring for supporters. Hard to say with so little actual evidence and writing beyond the canonical and scant apocryphal texts. Either way, the quaint story in the NT doesn't compute with any reasoning or hold under examination long.

[a3sigma]

I've often wondered whether Christians should more accurately be called Paulists. It seems to me that more doctrine and dogma is based on Paul's (purported) writings than on anything Jesus (allegedly) said.

But this is WAY far from my areas of expertise, would like to hear some more knowledgeable views. Have read "The Mythmaker -- Paul and the Invention of Christianity" by Hyam Maccoby. Reviews? Recommended further reading, anyone?

DC

[Undesired Walrus]

Christians often justify their faith by saying that Paul would have done all the preaching -preaching that led to his death- if he knew the entire Jesus thing was phony.

What say you?

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Christians often justify their faith by saying that Paul would have done all the preaching -preaching that led to his death- if he knew the entire Jesus thing was phony.

What say you?

I say that there is plenty of evidence to the contrary (people dying for stupid things, that is).

ETA: See, this is typical christian logic (usually circular in shape and a bit obtuse). Obviously, Paul fell for the entire Jesus thing. That doesn't make it any more real and justify the perseverence of his 'faith'. With that type of reasoning, Allah and Muhammad must have been real too because of 9/11 and all of those other suicide bombers. Fallacious reasoning. Just because people believe in and die for something doesn't prove that something real.

[Niggle]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

On the other hand, Paul was, unusually for his time, quite clear regarding his beliefs that women were equal to men regarding their role in the church. This appears to have rubbed some people the wrong way to the extent that someone forged 1 Timothy chapter 2 in his name in order to put women in their "proper" place, as it were. Even 1 Corinthians, which was almost certainly written by Paul, has had what are most likely later scribal addition in chapter 14 verses 33-36 again admonishing women to basically shut up in church.

This is news to me. Do you have a reference for this? Please note that I am not, in any way, questioning its veracity. I was raised Catholic and beaten up by these verses on a regular basis. If they're something added later, I'd be very interested in seeing what happened and how we know this.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by clayflingythingy

Paul must have certainly written more letters than those that are believed to be genuine that made it into the NT. Do early church fathers reference any "lost letters" of Paul?

We know of a few:

1 Corinthians 5:9 references a first Epistle to Corinth.

2 Corinthians 2:4 and 7:8-9 references a third Epistle.

While Ephesians is thought to be pseudoepigraphic, in chapter 3 verses 3 and 4 it references an earlier letter to the Ephesians that may or may not be original to Paul.

Colossians, which may or may not have been written by Paul, references as Epistle to the Laodiceans in chapter 4 verse 16.

Quote:

As to Paul's character not being one that someone would make up, I dunno. Perhaps that is evidence of Paul being a real person.

I have trouble with that argument. One of the oldest elements of fiction is the flawed character.

Quote:

It's just that I thought that if Paul got bumped off for his missionary work as a troublemaking Christian that someone might have noticed and noted it.

Very few historians seemed to notice when Jeshua ben Joseph was executed.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I would go further than that: the Paul that probably existed was very likely to be similar to how he is portrayed in his writings, but the real Jesus that probably existed is likely to be unrecognizable as the character(s) described in the gospels.

I'd go so far as to say that the real Jeshua ben Joseph would have been outraged that a blasphemous religion bearing his name would become the official faith of the Roman Empire he hated so much.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

I say that there is plenty of evidence to the contrary (people dying for stupid things, that is).

ETA: See, this is typical christian logic (usually circular in shape and a bit obtuse). Obviously, Paul fell for the entire Jesus thing. That doesn't make it any more real and justify the perseverence of his 'faith'. With that type of reasoning, Allah and Muhammad must have been real too because of 9/11 and all of those other suicide bombers. Fallacious reasoning. Just because people believe in and die for something doesn't prove that something real.

I once brought up the Jonestown Massacre, but I can't remember the response (I was fairly drunk at the time).

Was Paul supposed to have met Jesus?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Christians often justify their faith by saying that Paul would have done all the preaching -preaching that led to his death- if he knew the entire Jesus thing was phony.

What say you?

The same thing that's been said to DOC like a bazillion times: Willingness to die for a belief only indicates sincerity of belief but says nothing for its veracity. This only places Paul in the same position as suicide bombers regarding his commitment to his faith.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Niggle

This is news to me. Do you have a reference for this? Please note that I am not, in any way, questioning its veracity. I was raised Catholic and beaten up by these verses on a regular basis. If they're something added later, I'd be very interested in seeing what happened and how we know this.

I first learned of this reading Bart Ehrman. In some of our earliest and best textual witnesses the verses in question appear after verse 40. This has caused many scholars to suspect that the text in question was originally added as a marginal note, probably based on 1 Timothy 2 (a book widely thought to be a forgery) and then later incorporated into the main text in different locations by different scribes. As Ehrman points out, if you remove the dubious verses, the text flows together seamlessly in a discussion of how Christian prophets are to behave in church. The part about women seems intrusive and out of place. Also, in chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians Paul issues instructions to women to be sure to wear a veil when they speak or prophesy in church, in direct contradiction of the questionable admonition for women to remain silent in church.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

I once brought up the Jonestown Massacre, but I can't remember the response (I was fairly drunk at the time).

Yes, he was definitely cruisin' for a bruisin'. (Pink Floyd reference.)

Quote:

Was Paul supposed to have met Jesus?

Only in his mind.

[Niggle]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

I first learned of this reading Bart Ehrman. In some of our earliest and best textual witnesses the verses in question appear after verse 40. This has caused many scholars to suspect that the text in question was originally added as a marginal note, probably based on 1 Timothy 2 (a book widely thought to be a forgery) and then later incorporated into the main text in different locations by different scribes. As Ehrman points out, if you remove the dubious verses, the text flows together seamlessly in a discussion of how Christian prophets are to behave in church. The part about women seems intrusive and out of place. Also, in chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians Paul issues instructions to women to be sure to wear a veil when they speak or prophesy in church, in direct contradiction of the questionable admonition for women to remain silent in church.

Ehrman again. I'll have to see if the library has some of his stuff. It gets used a lot in these kinds of analyses, and it sounds as if he knows what he's talking about.

Thank you!

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by a3sigma

I've often wondered whether Christians should more accurately be called Paulists. It seems to me that more doctrine and dogma is based on Paul's (purported) writings than on anything Jesus (allegedly) said.

It's interesting that Paul is very specific that what he preaches comes straight from Jesus himself via Paul's vision. He seems to be defending his teachings against other early Christians, perhaps even James, by saying "don't believe them, I got it right from Jesus himself".

Quote:

Have read "The Mythmaker -- Paul and the Invention of Christianity" by Hyam Maccoby.

Thanks, I'll check that one out.

Quote:

Recommended further reading, anyone?

I recommend a few books by Bart Ehrman:

Misquoting Jesus
Lost Christianities
Jesus Interrupted

They're written specifically to introduce the layman to the world of textual criticism.

Albert Schweitzer's The Quest for the Historical Jesus is still worth reading.

I haven't read any of his works yet, but Maia has recommended John Shelby Spong.

Bruce Metzger is highly respected, but his works are intended more for specialist scholars that the layman like me.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Niggle

Ehrman again. I'll have to see if the library has some of his stuff. It gets used a lot in these kinds of analyses, and it sounds as if he knows what he's talking about.

Thank you!

You're welcome.

Ehrman is certainly an expert, but his main advantage to the likes of us is that he has written a number of books with the intent of introducing his field of study to people who don't speak ancient Greek. I think he has done for biblical textual criticism what Sagan's Cosmos did for astronomy and Asimov's Atom did for physics.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

It is very revealing in how Ignatius of Antioch refers to Peter and Paul as Apostles (Clement does the same for Paul!). I thought that the Apostles (reverential capitalization) were only the original '12' (which is almost assuredly a numerological thing) who actually lived with Jesus.

I wouldn't take this argument too far.

I'm pretty sure manuscripts from this time period didn't use capitalization at all, so distinguishing Apostle from apostle isn't an argument.

And for that matter, they didn't use English, so I'm not sure what word is in question in the writings of Clement and Ignatius anyway.

The Greek word that "apostle" comes from meant something like "one who was sent out or dispatched" and was used in various places in the New Testament to refer to the twelve, other people in the early church, and even Jesus.

The Catholic Church uses the term apostle in these different ways (and others--for example apostolic succession refers to the handing down of teaching authority from Jesus through Peter and from one to the next of all the popes), and recognizes the various meanings it can have.

Still, I'm of the opinion that Paul was a historical figure, and it's pretty likely that historical Paul was probably relatively similar (at least recognizable) to Paul of the New Testatment, whereas the same thing is probably not true of historical Jesus and Jesus of the New Testament.

[Maia]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

It's interesting that Paul is very specific that what he preaches comes straight from Jesus himself via Paul's vision. He seems to be defending his teachings against other early Christians, perhaps even James, by saying "don't believe them, I got it right from Jesus himself".


Thanks, I'll check that one out.


I recommend a few books by Bart Ehrman:

Misquoting Jesus
Lost Christianities
Jesus Interrupted

They're written specifically to introduce the layman to the world of textual criticism.

Albert Schweitzer's The Quest for the Historical Jesus is still worth reading.

I haven't read any of his works yet, but Maia has recommended John Shelby Spong.

Bruce Metzger is highly respected, but his works are intended more for specialist scholars that the layman like me.

Thanks FZ!

JSS has written a LOT of books, and they're all really pretty accessible without giving up good scholarship. He's done a lot of work on Paul's writings; while he certainly accepts Paul's existence, I don't think he'd care all that much either way if there were any kind of definitive proof that Paul didn't actually exist, either. Mostly, it's just fascinating to read what JSS has to say about Paul's stuff. Jesus for the Non-Religious has a lot of Pauline material as I recall; also This Hebrew Lord: A Bishop's Search for the Authentic Jesus, Liberating the Gospels; Reading the Bible With Jewish Eyes, and parts of The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love. And if it tells you anything about JSS, he's the one who's been referred to as "the atheist bishop", so there's never any evangelical content in his books.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally Posted by Niggle

This is news to me. Do you have a reference for this? Please note that I am not, in any way, questioning its veracity. I was raised Catholic and beaten up by these verses on a regular basis. If they're something added later, I'd be very interested in seeing what happened and how we know this.

To follow on from Foster Zygote, a study bible like The New Oxford Annotated Bible, which uses the NRSV translation chaired by Bruce Metzger, is very interesting. In its footnotes it remarks on issues such as these (and I enjoy, perhaps in an uncharitable way, pointing them out to those of a more literalist bent than myself).

[clayflingythingy]

Some interesting points have been made and I will do some further reading. But, it seems so far, that it isn't a slam dunk for an historical Paul.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

. . . Was Paul supposed to have met Jesus?

Here's what Paul himself has to say about it in his Epistle to the Galatians (Gal. 1:11, 12):

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

In 1 Corinthians, Pul lists himself as among the last of those to whom Jesus appeared after his death (1 Cor. 15:8, 9)

Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

While it's conceivable that Paul knew Jesus while he was alive, it seems unlikely, particularly since he mentions nothing of Jesus' teachings. Thus, Jesus' post-resurrection appearance to Paul would seem to be Pal's only knowledge of him, a knowledge that was visionary, his "revelation of Jesus Christ." The reality of Paul's visionary meeting with Jesus woule seem to have areality limited to the confines of Paul's mind.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I wouldn't take this argument too far.

I'm pretty sure manuscripts from this time period didn't use capitalization at all, so distinguishing Apostle from apostle isn't an argument.

And for that matter, they didn't use English, so I'm not sure what word is in question in the writings of Clement and Ignatius anyway.

The Greek word that "apostle" comes from meant something like "one who was sent out or dispatched" and was used in various places in the New Testament to refer to the twelve, other people in the early church, and even Jesus.

The Catholic Church uses the term apostle in these different ways (and others--for example apostolic succession refers to the handing down of teaching authority from Jesus through Peter and from one to the next of all the popes), and recognizes the various meanings it can have.

Still, I'm of the opinion that Paul was a historical figure, and it's pretty likely that historical Paul was probably relatively similar (at least recognizable) to Paul of the New Testatment, whereas the same thing is probably not true of historical Jesus and Jesus of the New Testament.

Definitely. But it is interesting nonetheless. Paul somehow finaggled (?) his way into the top tiers of the early church leaders and even won the arguments against Peter (the Rock on which the church will be built, the first pope). I'd say that Paul had a jackhammer and turned that rock into pebbles.

Something is amiss in this. How could Paul challenge, let alone win, against the head of the christian church in Rome who was one of the original disciples of Jesus? Peter would just say, "Jesus told me. Go away." and that would be the end. Consider the scenario that supposedly occurred and how it could possibly occur.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I wouldn't take this argument too far.

I'm pretty sure manuscripts from this time period didn't use capitalization at all, so distinguishing Apostle from apostle isn't an argument.

In ancient times niether the Greek nor roman alphabets had lower case letters. These developed in the middle ages for both alphabets, apparently from cursive versions of the letters. I remember in a class called lLettering and Layout, which I had to take in my freshman year at art School, having to write out Irish half-uncials from ca. 800 and earlier. These showed a transition from upper case to lower case.

I'm not sure when in the middle ages lower case letters appeared in the Greek alphabet. However, the original Greek texts of New Testament writings would have been written entirely in capitols. Proper names were designated in ancient Greek writings by preceding them with the definite article, equivalent to "the" in English. For example, a passage in the Septuagint referring to King David begins: KAI HO DAVID, which, if "DAVID" were other than a name, would be transalted, "And the david . . ." However, since DAVID was a name, KAI HO DAVID is translated "And David . . ."

I have no idea if this method was used to designate other capitolizations.

[Foster Zygote]

Not to mention that our early Greek witnesses were written in scriptuo continua. No spaces between words and no punctuation.

[Wolrab]

According to John, the walrus was Paul.

[Hux]

So, we have a focus for a religion and a chief apologist and promoter of said religion, neither of which might be truly confirmed as having ever lived. This is no way to run a railroad.

[Mr Clingford]

Well, until that time machine is built, the evidence is seriously sketchy. Personally, I don't think anything in the ancient world existed. Prove otherwise, Go on!

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

Well, until that time machine is built, the evidence is seriously sketchy. Personally, I don't think anything in the ancient world existed. Prove otherwise, Go on!

We do have Roman coins bearing the name of the emperor under whose reign they were issued. They also have a profile image of the emperor. From this we know that Nerva had a promenant nose that dominated his face and Nero had a double chin. Vespasian and Titus also had double chins; but, while Nero's profile shows an indolent flabby person, the profiles, along with their busts, show Vespasian and Titus looking like a pair of full-backs.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

We do have Roman coins bearing the name of the emperor under whose reign they were issued. They also have a profile image of the emperor. From this we know that Nerva had a promenant nose that dominated his face and Nero had a double chin. Vespasian and Titus also had double chins; but, while Nero's profile shows an indolent flabby person, the profiles, along with their busts, show Vespasian and Titus looking like a pair of full-backs.

Stop being so sensible!

What about people for whom we have no physical representation? We have to rely on manuscripts and that isn't good enough for some people. Even if the earliest documents are dated to within a century of them being written. Even if early Church Fathers quote their writings and later Church Fathers and so on up til today.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

Something is amiss in this. How could Paul challenge, let alone win, against the head of the christian church in Rome who was one of the original disciples of Jesus? Peter would just say, "Jesus told me. Go away." and that would be the end. Consider the scenario that supposedly occurred and how it could possibly occur.

My understanding that the biggest thing Paul brought was the idea that Christianity wasn't just for Jews. I think those who followed Peter thought of it as strictly a Jewish sect.

So in a way, his strategy was to play to a much broader market.

But I get your point. Why aren't more Christians more suspect of Paul as a sort of usurper who never actually met Jesus (except as a vision of a bright light) while still somehow accepting the primacy of Peter?

My understanding is that b'leevers think Peter's mission was to establish the church among Jews and Paul's was to extend it to the rest of the world.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Hux

So, we have a focus for a religion and a chief apologist and promoter of said religion, neither of which might be truly confirmed as having ever lived. This is no way to run a railroad.

Yeah--they've got that covered though. For some reason* it's considered admirable to believe something regardless of (or even in spite of) the evidence, and something really bad to use the ability of your brain to think rationally:

Originally Posted by John 20:24-29

4Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

*ETA: And I have a pretty good idea what that reason might be. It involves keeping the "outs" docile and content in order to protect the status quo, especially if you're one of the "ins" (a member of the priest class or even "temporal" rulers or even a petty lord of a manor trying to keep the serfs happy without actually treating them like humans).

[Mr Clingford]

Would you explain, Joe, how that quotation supports your point, as I don't see it. And how are you forming a general idea from this one extract when other extracts do not support it?

[Hux]

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

Well, until that time machine is built, the evidence is seriously sketchy. Personally, I don't think anything in the ancient world existed. Prove otherwise, Go on!

Its quite easy to establish existence of things in the ancient world. As long as you are not making any supernatural claims for such things.

You might perhaps, enjoy a visit to the British Museum to view the Elgin Marbles.