The Quest for the Historical Paul
James Tabor considers Biblical and external accounts of the apostle
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As it happens, the quest for the historical Paul began almost simultaneously, inaugurated by the German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur.[ii] Baur put his finger squarely on the problem:
There are four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others.
New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point.
Here are the four Pauls:
1) Authentic or Early Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (50s-60s A.D.)
2) Disputed Paul or Deutero-Pauline: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians (80-100 A.D.)
3) Pseudo–Paul or the Pastorals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (80-100 A.D.)
4) Tendentious or Legendary Paul: Acts of the Apostles (90-130 A.D.)
James Tabor
The Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are not included in our earliest extant collection of Paul’s letters, the so-called Chester Beatty papyrus, that dates to the third century A.D.[vi] Paul’s apocalyptic urgency, so dominant in the earlier letters, is almost wholly absent in these later writings. Among the Deutero-Pauline tier, 2 Thessalonians was specifically written to calm those who were claiming that the day of judgment was imminent—the very thing Paul constantly proclaimed (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3).
Steefen
The apocalyptic urgency should be based on the end of Temple Judaism, the apocalypse of the Temple and the city.
There seems to be a concerted effort to ignore the apocalypse.
But one may say, Paul was not an advocate for Jesus’ Father’s House of Prayer. Paul’s letters were not about the apocalypse coming upon the Jerusalem Church that had met at the Temple in Jerusalem.
James Tabor
The book of Acts, tier 4, presents a special problem in that it offers fascinating biographical background on Paul not found in his genuine letters as well as complete itineraries of his travels.
The problem is with its harmonizing theological agenda that stresses the cozy relationship Paul had with the Jerusalem leaders of the church and its over-idealized heroic portrait of Paul. Many historians are agreed that it merits the label “Use Sparingly with Extreme Caution.” As a general working method I have adopted the following three principles:
- Never accept anything in Acts over Paul’s own account in his seven genuine letters.
- Cautiously consider Acts if it agrees with Paul and one can detect no obvious biases.
Steefen
I am not finding Damascus mentioned in the authentic Pauline Letters that cover his conversion.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians[9:1][15:3–8]
Galatians 1:11–16
Damascus is an Acts detail. However, Damascus is implied at Galatians 1: 17 because he returned to Damascus.
Steefen said
The Quest for the Historical Paul
James Tabor considers Biblical and external accounts of the apostle
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As it happens, the quest for the historical Paul began almost simultaneously, inaugurated by the German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur.[ii] Baur put his finger squarely on the problem:
There are four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others.
New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point.
As I said to Ehrman, I have four mothers – one kind, one mean, one smart and one kinda dumb. Does this mean I don’t have a mother? Been reading Pliny’s account of Hannibal – this “historian” claim he invaded Rome itself, riding on elephants across the mountains. And he said Africans rode giant scorpions and Hannibal’s nemesis was born of the gods. Frankly all history is bunk and I doubt there was even a Pliny.
Luke SAYS that Paul CLAIMED that he heard a voice speaking to him “in the Hebrew Dialect.” This Hebrew dialect may have been Aramaic, as the NIV would have it, or even a strangely nuanced Koinee that a Galilean fisherman or farmer would have used in business dealings. Luke has Paul trying to lend veracity to his claim that the person speaking to him was, in fact, Jesus. No reason to think it wasn’t — after all, he was using the Hebrew dialect. So, why did Jesus speak to Paul in Hebrew? I don’t think he did.
Fredbauck said
Luke has Paul trying to lend veracity to his claim that the person speaking to him was, in fact, Jesus. No reason to think it wasn’t.
There is no reason to think it was not Jesus speaking to Paul.
First, how often do dead people come back as disincarnate spirits and speak sentences to living people?
How often do dead people come back as disincarnate spirits and speak sentences not to loved ones but to strangers?
I myself do not think that “there is no reason to believe it was not Jesus.” I should have stated this more clearly, so I will start over.
I read Luke to be reporting that Paul cited Jesus’ dialect as at least part of the reason he “knew” that it was in fact Jesus speaking to him. That’s all. I am inclined to think also that Luke did not mean to say that Paul said that the person he experienced was speaking Hebrew.
Fredbauck
Paul cited Jesus’ dialect as at least part of the reason he “knew” that it was in fact Jesus speaking to him.
Steefen
Jesus spoke Aramaic with a Hebrew dialect? Is there anywhere else in the New Testament that shows that was an identifying characteristic of Jesus?
Fredbauck
Luke did not mean to say that Paul said that the person he experienced was speaking Hebrew.
Steefen
You would come to that conclusion using a different translation.
I am using the Catholic Study Bible with this translation:
“We all fell to the ground and I heard a voice saying to me in Hebrew.” Acts 26: 14
The New American Bible (NAB) is an English translation of the Bible first published in 1970. The 1986 Revised NAB is the basis of the revised Lectionary, and it is the only translation approved for use at Mass in the Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States and the Philippines,[1][2] and the 1970 first edition is also an approved Bible translation by the Episcopal Church in the United States.[3][4]
Stemming originally from the Confraternity Bible, a translation of the Vulgate by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, the project transitioned to translating the original biblical languages in response to Pope Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu. The translation was carried out in stages by members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America (CBA) “from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources” (as the title pages state). These efforts eventually became the New American Bible under the liturgical principles and reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).
This question has gotten beyond my area of expertise. That doesn’t take much. For example, I never heard of the NAB, although I have heard of the Vulgate. These days, I read almost exclusively the NIV, admittedly because I like its English diction. Not a good theological or historical excuse, but it is what it is. My impression is that Luke wrote acts in Koine Greek. Can it be established what words he used such that the NIV translators would come up with “Aramaic” for “the Hebrew dialect?” Another impression I have is that the oldest actual copy of Acts is probably in Latin. Do you know what the Latin for the expression in question is?
Harris Hirschberg / Allusions to the Apostle Paul in the Talmud / JSTOR
** you do not have permission to see this link **
One of the epoch-making hypotheses of the “Tubingen School” in the last century was the theory that Simon Magus … was but a nickname given to Paul by his Jewish Christian antagonists. … A strong proof of the extent to which the confusion Paul / Simon Magus had penetrated even Jewish circles is presented in a Talmudic passage…
Steefen
Not a high priority for me, at the moment.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)