Paul Mythicism?
February 2, 2012 by James F. McGrath
There certainly are those Jesus mythicists who would also deny that there was a historical Paul. But for many mythicists, perhaps the majority, the historicity of Paul and the authenticity of Paul’s letters is in fact important to their argument, since their case for mythicism focuses much attention on what Paul allegedly did not say about Jesus.
There is an irony here. Some mythicists actually do use the same tricks to deny the historicity of Paul as are used to deny the historicity of Jesus. Yet on the other hand, many of the arguments used to deny the historicity of Jesus by mythicists who accept that there was a historical Paul could be used to argue against Paul having been a historical figure as well, if the degree of skepticism applied to Jesus were to be applied consistently across the board.
For instance, many mythicists claim that since there are (allegedly) no early non-Christian historians that mention Jesus, he probably did not exist. Yet none of these figures they typically point out (or in the case of Josephus, claim) failed to mention Jesus – from Philo and Josephus to Seneca the Younger – mentions Paul, even though Paul is supposed to have traveled more widely than Jesus, and to have spread the religion we today refer to as Christianity, even going to the very capitol, Rome itself.
In none of its forms does mythicism deal with evidence in the manner that historians do. But the fact that few mythicists deny that there was a historical Paul shows that even in their treatment of figures connected with Christianity, there is significant inconsistency in how most mythicists deal with evidence or apply their arguments.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionp ... icism.html
February 2, 2012 by James F. McGrath
There certainly are those Jesus mythicists who would also deny that there was a historical Paul. But for many mythicists, perhaps the majority, the historicity of Paul and the authenticity of Paul’s letters is in fact important to their argument, since their case for mythicism focuses much attention on what Paul allegedly did not say about Jesus.
There is an irony here. Some mythicists actually do use the same tricks to deny the historicity of Paul as are used to deny the historicity of Jesus. Yet on the other hand, many of the arguments used to deny the historicity of Jesus by mythicists who accept that there was a historical Paul could be used to argue against Paul having been a historical figure as well, if the degree of skepticism applied to Jesus were to be applied consistently across the board.
For instance, many mythicists claim that since there are (allegedly) no early non-Christian historians that mention Jesus, he probably did not exist. Yet none of these figures they typically point out (or in the case of Josephus, claim) failed to mention Jesus – from Philo and Josephus to Seneca the Younger – mentions Paul, even though Paul is supposed to have traveled more widely than Jesus, and to have spread the religion we today refer to as Christianity, even going to the very capitol, Rome itself.
In none of its forms does mythicism deal with evidence in the manner that historians do. But the fact that few mythicists deny that there was a historical Paul shows that even in their treatment of figures connected with Christianity, there is significant inconsistency in how most mythicists deal with evidence or apply their arguments.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionp ... icism.html
Indeed a failure - few mythicists take their arguments about the non-historicity of Jesus - and apply them to the NT figure of Paul. I've often said that, for the Doherty/Carrier mythicists - too many eggs are placed in that Pauline basket. The result being that their interpretation of the Pauline NT story becomes nothing more than pure imagination.
I have long thought that the figure of NT Paul was fictional - but a fictional figure based upon, or inspired from, historical figures. Yes, ideas develop over time. I now view both gospel Jesus and Paul as composite figure.
This is what I wrote in April 1985 - 40 years ago.....yep, the years run away with one.....
The individual within the New Testament who clearly reflects Josephus is the apostle Paul. The parallels between Paul and Josephus are many :-
These parallels are in a chart in an earlier post above.
The NT figure of Paul is long overdue for a critical investigation. Neil Godfrey is doing a review of Nina Livesey's new book:
Nina Livesey’s The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context raises questions that go beyond the authenticity and date of Paul’s letters. If we no longer discern a wandering charismatic preacher, one who is competing with other preachers, and planting house churches in Asia Minor and Greece as he works his way, via a thriving Jerusalem, to Rome, then what do we have in his place?
https://vridar.org/2025/01/10/nina-live ... y-context/
https://vridar.org/2025/01/10/nina-live ... y-context/
what do we have in his place?
Viewing NT Paul as a composite figure allows historical figures to be investigated - to be viewed as 'persons of interest'. Hence, the focus of this thread.
(I have downloaded a sample of the book. I prefer ebooks with their ease of researching the contents. Unfortunately, this ebook costs just under £70 on amazon - so I'll wait a bit to see if the price comes down...)
Statistics: Posted by maryhelena — Sat Jan 18, 2025 3:26 am