Paul’s letters are generally dated from the late 40s to about 62-64 CE. I don’t believe that any serious scholar thinks that Paul’s letters are, by themselves, sufficient attestation of Jesus’ existence; however most scholars agree that there was an historical Jesus. That does not mean that most scholars accept the resurrection as an historical event, although, again, most accept his crucifixion as historical. Beyond that, most scholars think you are engaging in theology, not history.
If you feel inclined to believe Paul . . . but Paul is not an eye-witness to any of the events related in the 4 gospels. Although his letters, and there are debates about which are really by Paul, are considered to have been written earlier than the gospels, he isn’t really providing independent verification of the gospel accounts. He claims to have had his own vision of Jesus, one that was a life altering event, but while it might be considered evidence, of a king, it is hardly proof. That distinction is the usual problem.
My favorite mythicist moment was Richard Carrier admonishing his followers not to claim that Paul himself never existed because his entire (re)interpretation rests on Paul being historical! But of course we have letters written by someone named Paul and for comparison we have letters by several folks claiming to be Paul. There ae seven letters that show consistent ideas and a consistent style and seem to reflect a milieu one would expect in the early churches about twenty years or so after Jesus’ death. The forged letters are themselves very revealing because they are different in style and reflect a later milieu in the development of the church. But there is another important factor that is not so obvious and that is the fact that forgeries exist at all. You don’t create forgeries of someone who wasn’t well known and considered unimportant in the early church. That coupled with Acts whose writer knew as many stories about Paul as he did about Jesus makes me think we have a pretty firm historical foundation here.
JAS said
If you feel inclined to believe Paul . . . but Paul is not an eye-witness to any of the events related in the 4 gospels. Although his letters, and there are debates about which are really by Paul, are considered to have been written earlier than the gospels, he isn’t really providing independent verification of the gospel accounts. He claims to have had his own vision of Jesus, one that was a life altering event, but while it might be considered evidence, of a king, it is hardly proof. That distinction is the usual problem.
That should be “of a kind” not “of a king.”
JAS said
JAS said
If you feel inclined to believe Paul . . . but Paul is not an eye-witness to any of the events related in the 4 gospels. Although his letters, and there are debates about which are really by Paul, are considered to have been written earlier than the gospels, he isn’t really providing independent verification of the gospel accounts. He claims to have had his own vision of Jesus, one that was a life altering event, but while it might be considered evidence, of a king, it is hardly proof. That distinction is the usual problem.
That should be “of a kind” not “of a king.”
LOL! Thanks! I was wondering who you were talking about!
Stephen said
My favorite mythicist moment was Richard Carrier admonishing his followers not to claim that Paul himself never existed because his entire (re)interpretation rests on Paul being historical! But of course we have letters written by someone named Paul and for comparison we have letters by several folks claiming to be Paul. There ae seven letters that show consistent ideas and a consistent style and seem to reflect a milieu one would expect in the early churches about twenty years or so after Jesus’ death. The forged letters are themselves very revealing because they are different in style and reflect a later milieu in the development of the church. But there is another important factor that is not so obvious and that is the fact that forgeries exist at all. You don’t create forgeries of someone who wasn’t well known and considered unimportant in the early church. That coupled with Acts whose writer knew as many stories about Paul as he did about Jesus makes me think we have a pretty firm historical foundation here.
Hi, Stephen. I wanted more info on your comment about Paul. I’m not sure I fully understood. What was your religious upbringing? I started getting into reformed theology and Calvinism, but I have doubts. Historical Jesus is confusing me and what you said about Paul confused me as well. I’m new to all of his. If there was a historical Jesus, why aren’t these teachings and Paul’s letters true? Some reformed Christians say people believe false teachings and they develop a hard heart. They might even say a person didn’t experience true faith or wasn’t regenerate. Thanks a lot!
Jtwarren said
Hi, I was listening to a debate and the Christian said that Paul’s letters prove Jesus’ existence because his letters are dated 15 years after the resurrection. I was wondering if this is true?
Steve Campbell, Author and Publisher of Historical Accuracy
Bart D. Ehrman wrote a post about Paul understanding Jesus to have been an angel.
That does not prove the existence of Jesus.
One can also not limit existence to ordinary human existence. Is that acceptable to you?
Second, Paul’s character should be taken into consideration when relying on him for proof of anything.
Third, the quality of reliability for the author/s of Gospel of Luke and Acts should be taken into consideration when relying on those two books for proof of anything.
Jtwarren said
Hi, I was listening to a debate and the Christian said that Paul’s letters prove Jesus’ existence because his letters are dated 15 years after the resurrection. I was wondering if this is true?
I believe Paul’s letters do provide strong evidence of the existence of Jesus, but not because of when they were written.
The evidence to me is that he says in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** he argued with the leaders of the Jerusalem. He says that he went to Jerusalem “to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain” but a few sentences later says “those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me”. Then he brags that “James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcised”.
I haven’t been able to come up with a plausible reason why inventing interactions with the disciples (particularly Jesus’s brother James) like that that would benefit him if they didn’t actually exist.
Jt sorry I missed your question. I was born and raised in a hardcore fundamentalist community in the rural american south. The short version is that I didn’t really escape it until I moved away to go to school. As presumptuous or arrogant as it may sound, over the span of many years I educated my way out of it. My current interest is purely historical. With a couple exceptions I am a lot more interested now in the OT and the Ancient Near East than I am in the NT.
My comments about Paul were focused purely on what about him we can glean historically. We have 13 letters (half the NT!) that claim to be written by Paul. Of these seven are universally agreed by everyone to be authentic. Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians. Three are almost universally agreed (except for hardcore fundamentalists) to be forgeries. First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus. The rest are debated. Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians. (I have to say that after reading Prof Ehrman’s book Forgery and CounterForgery I am satisfied that these last three are forgeries as well.)
Paul’s authentic letters are occasional, meant to address specific issues that arose in church communities founded by Paul. The exception is Romans which is more of a general discussion of his views written as an introduction to a community he did not establish. From these letters we can glean valuable historical data about the early church communities and the historical Jesus and his disciples. They are “true” in the sense that they do reflect the historical Paul’s attitudes and views.
The forgeries reflect later times and later controversies. They use the authority of Paul to attempt to settle these controversies. Aside from the fact they reflect different times than the one Paul lived in they demonstrate stylistic and theological differences from the historical Paul. From these letters we get a glimpse – but only a glimpse – of the development of the Christian Church in the mid to late First century.
I hope this helps.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)