How confident are people here that Paul was sincere in his claim to have received revelations?
An alternative is that, when he found the Christians not being sufficiently intimidated by his persecution, he decided to create divisions from within the movement by pretending to convert due to a vision; religious believers often can’t resist the “infidel-turns-good-by-miracle” story.
How confident are people here that Paul was sincere in his claim to have received revelations?
An alternative is that, when he found the Christians not being sufficiently intimidated by his persecution, he decided to create divisions from within the movement by pretending to convert due to a vision; religious believers often can’t resist the “infidel-turns-good-by-miracle” story.
Thanks! I agree they were intimidated by him, as he comes across as frighteningly passionate (especially in Galatians!) He might have felt he could get further in derailing the movement by undermining it from within, though. One parallel to this is the India-Pakistan conflict: I recently heard a former Pakistani spy chief say they had discovered imams of mosques in Pakistan who were in fact not Muslims, but were working undercover for Indian intelligence.
The explanation is speculative, for sure, though there may be hints in the letters that could establish his insincerity.
If this is what Paul was doing, why be so clearly different. A strategy like that works best on the sly.
Consider your example, It took spies to uncover non Muslim Imams. This is to say they were, for all intents and purposes those men were Imam’s. I doubt they were out there having confrontations with the leadership (as Paul did with Peter). If you’re trying to sow dissension, you want to make yourself acceptable and trustworthy to everyone( be mad about the same stuff, glad about the same stuff etc) and then slowly raise doubts etc, but Paul comes, as far as we know, as a Persecutor, he makes no bones about having it out with Peter in public. Not much of a strategy for an agent provocateur.
creating “divisions from within the movement” is not generally done as open and sharp disagreement. A provocateur works best by creating suspicion about the motives of others not in sharp, heated, public debates over doctrine. Emphasizing doctrinal differences runs the risk of revealing you are not really part of the group. As for the “the “infidel-turns-good-by-miracle” story.” , it is effective with distance. A person known for attacking, arresting and persecuting the group draws suspicion of precisely the sort you are asking about. Why would you want to cast yourself as a direct threat to the groups existence if what you set out to do requires them to trust you. Such theories come from people who think the height of wisdom is to reveal something as a conspiracy.
The bigger question is why is the spy chief credible? Suppose he is out to discredit Imams he doesn’t like. What better way than to generate suspicion about who they really are. Even if people don’t believe a “spy chief”, it leaves a question in the back of your mind. Who else is pretending to be part of the group? Then someone inside the group can raise more suspicions, agitate. Hey it wasn’t me who said he wasn’t a muslim, it was the spy chief!
Those are good points, thanks! I do have to say, though, that my hypothesis is more that Paul came to the idea of trying to sabotage the movement late. He took advantage of the believers’ love of the “infidel-turned good-by-miracle” idea, I would think, after realizing that the movement wouldn’t be stopped by persecution (they expect persecution, after all, their Messiah got crucified, and see it as a way to win eternal reward!)
As regards the open nature of Paul’s disagreements, we only have questionable (for me) sources to go on, Paul himself and whoever write “Luke-Acts”. Paul was caught after James sent spies to check on him.
Jewish Christian sources paint Paul as a well known conman, bully, liar, and so on. I’ just wondering what people see in the letters that makes them think he’s sincere.
Thanks, again!
You brought up the question, so it should be up to you to point out what he says/does that’s insincere 
I’ll admit that Paul’s Christianity is different from the teachings of Jesus, but that’s a far cry from saying Paul is faking it. What are the Jewish Christian sources you’re referring to? Not everyone in the early church was a fan of Paul so it would come as no surprise that there were those who opposed him. He preached to the Gentiles and whether that means literally non-Jews or just Hellenistic Jews who had all but for forgotten what it meant to be Jewish, that was bound to anger some. The NT itself is clear on that. All this does, though, is make him a trouble maker in the eyes of the early Jewish church. That doesn’t mean he’s insincere.
gmatthews said
You brought up the question, so it should be up to you to point out what he says/does that’s insincere
That is an interesting take on the burden of proof issue here! 🙂
I only brought up the question because Paul repeatedly made strong claims about getting divine revelations, and actively recruited people to his message. I definitely didn’t ask him to do that; nor did I ask him to give birth to teachings that shape my world in very far-reaching ways. Why can’t I wonder whether he was sincere or not?
Surely, the person who claims to have divine revelations needs to prove their claim, not the guy 2,000 years later who has to figure out the resulting situation. Or, alternatively, the people who support Paul’s claims can tell me why he was sincere. How can I evaluate his claims to revelation intelligently if I can’t ask about his sincerity?
There are multiple conflicting claims to revelation out there, and part of evaluating any claim is to wonder about the sincerity of the person making it. Nobody has any issues with raising the same question about Jesus; apologists say he was either mad, bad or God, where “bad” means being a liar at least, which shows that this is a natural question to ask. Given the prevalence of conmen out there, we can’t just assume people who say they have revelations are sincere. I am just treating Paul the way people treat any founder of a world religion.
I don’t have a problem with the sincerity of James’ religious beliefs, since Dr. Ehrman assures me he was known as “the Just”. But James lost out, and doesn’t have a single uncontested letter to his name, unlike Paul, who has 6-7 (and in any case he knew Jesus personally rather than making unverifiable claims about visionary experiences outside Damascus.) But if James didn’t have the reputation he had, and also made claims about getting revelations, it would be right to wonder about his sincerity.
So…why do people think Paul was sincere? Is it just an assumption people make unreflectively?
Essentially, whether or not Paul was sincere I his belief or was a “conman” as you might label him, the answer is unknowable. It is hard enough to evaluate the degree of sincerity of friends and family on some issues when we interact with them daily. People also change their minds over time, hence The Clergy Project. If Paul was a con artist, what was his gain? Did he gain wealth or just status, or was he a slightly off-kilter narcissist with an obcession of forcing others to do as he wanted them to? Look at the more recent religion founders. Joseph Smith was documented in currently available letters and newspaper articles from the early 1800’s to have been a skillful conman, yet Mormonism has flourished. L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology in the twentieth century, was he sincere in his belief or was he a conman, or insane, or a combination of both? Weath and/or power over others is the common denominator with a side of possible insanity thrown in.
if Paul was a conman or just sincere but wrong in his interpretation of the religion based on Jesus, why did not God swoop down and find a way to correct him? I think that although speculation about Paul’s mindset in an interesting intellectual exercise, what matters to history is the outcome of his efforts, not whether or not he was sincere.
magpie said
Essentially, whether or not Paul was sincere I his belief or was a “conman” as you might label him, the answer is unknowable. It is hard enough to evaluate the degree of sincerity of friends and family on some issues when we interact with them daily. People also change their minds over time, hence The Clergy Project. If Paul was a con artist, what was his gain? Did he gain wealth or just status, or was he a slightly off-kilter narcissist with an obcession of forcing others to do as he wanted them to? Look at the more recent religion founders. Joseph Smith was documented in currently available letters and newspaper articles from the early 1800’s to have been a skillful conman, yet Mormonism has flourished. L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology in the twentieth century, was he sincere in his belief or was he a conman, or insane, or a combination of both? Weath and/or power over others is the common denominator with a side of possible insanity thrown in.if Paul was a conman or just sincere but wrong in his interpretation of the religion based on Jesus, why did not God swoop down and find a way to correct him? I think that although speculation about Paul’s mindset in an interesting intellectual exercise, what matters to history is the outcome of his efforts, not whether or not he was sincere.
Thanks for this thoughtful response!
It is really interesting to me how people seem never to ave even considered the possibility that Paul might have been playing a game, putting up an act, or creating divisions in the community of Christians in order to weaken the movement in its appeal to the Jews. (If that is what he was doing, it seems to have worked, since from then on Christianity would be exposed to the charge, levelled at it by faithful Jews, that it had violated God’s Law.)
I say this is interesting, because if you bring up any other founder of a religion, such as Joseph Smith, people of a Christian background will not hesitate to declare them liars or conmen. It shows the power of social training that even people who try to be critical never consider the “conman” explanation when it comes to Paul.
I could understand historians assuming Paul to be sincere, since he comes across that way, as a working hypothesis; yet whenever someone wants to follow a religion and finds themselves trusting in another’s claim to have received revelation, the trustworthiness of that person (their honesty and their competence) must be assessed.
Omar6741 said
magpie said
Essentially, whether or not Paul was sincere I his belief or was a “conman” as you might label him, the answer is unknowable. It is hard enough to evaluate the degree of sincerity of friends and family on some issues when we interact with them daily. People also change their minds over time, hence The Clergy Project. If Paul was a con artist, what was his gain? Did he gain wealth or just status, or was he a slightly off-kilter narcissist with an obcession of forcing others to do as he wanted them to? Look at the more recent religion founders. Joseph Smith was documented in currently available letters and newspaper articles from the early 1800’s to have been a skillful conman, yet Mormonism has flourished. L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology in the twentieth century, was he sincere in his belief or was he a conman, or insane, or a combination of both? Weath and/or power over others is the common denominator with a side of possible insanity thrown in.if Paul was a conman or just sincere but wrong in his interpretation of the religion based on Jesus, why did not God swoop down and find a way to correct him? I think that although speculation about Paul’s mindset in an interesting intellectual exercise, what matters to history is the outcome of his efforts, not whether or not he was sincere.
Thanks for this thoughtful response!
It is really interesting to me how people seem never to ave even considered the possibility that Paul might have been playing a game, putting up an act, or creating divisions in the community of Christians in order to weaken the movement in its appeal to the Jews. (If that is what he was doing, it seems to have worked, since from then on Christianity would be exposed to the charge, levelled at it by faithful Jews, that it had violated God’s Law.)
I say this is interesting, because if you bring up any other founder of a religion, such as Joseph Smith, people of a Christian background will not hesitate to declare them liars or conmen. It shows the power of social training that even people who try to be critical never consider the “conman” explanation when it comes to Paul.
I could understand historians assuming Paul to be sincere, since he comes across that way, as a working hypothesis; yet whenever someone wants to follow a religion and finds themselves trusting in another’s claim to have received revelation, the trustworthiness of that person (their honesty and their competence) must be assessed.
I have heard this before, but I just don’t find it plausible. See Occam’s Razor. Simcha Jacobovici had some lady on one of his Naked Archaeologist programs a few years ago positing that Paul was in reality an undercover agent for Rome with the sole intent of subverting the new religion. To me this sounds very mythicist in the sense that mythicists see the religion as important enough at such an infantile stage of its development to be enough of a problem that Rome tried to do something about it. For one thing, unless we’re talking political subterfuge Rome never did anything delicately. Why use a dagger when a siege weapon worked just as well? In case my analogy is misunderstood I’m asking why would Rome be so subtle when they could have wiped out the religion with an iron fist.
In any event, I see the accusations against Paul’s sincerity as being much too complicated when there’s nothing in his letters that remotely bear out the idea.
Omar6741 said
Those are good points, thanks! I do have to say, though, that my hypothesis is more that Paul came to the idea of trying to sabotage the movement late. He took advantage of the believers’ love of the “infidel-turned good-by-miracle” idea, I would think, after realizing that the movement wouldn’t be stopped by persecution (they expect persecution, after all, their Messiah got crucified, and see it as a way to win eternal reward!)
Ok let’s re-examine these one by one: Paul, for whatever reason decides persecution wont stop the movement and decides instead to divide the movement. It seems to me you are taking sharp differences as the basis for your argument. This seems unworkable because he is well known as a persecutor. As I indicated, “infidel-turned good-by-miracle” is more compelling when there’s no immediate threat to the person accepting it. I doubt Christians would uncritically accept Paul even though the “infidel-turned good-by-miracle” might be compelling. My suspicion is they kept him at arms length for some time; Still how compelling is “infidel-turned good-by-miracle” if he is saying the leaders of the movement are wrong? I’m sorry the whole thing is way too strained. If you’re right, why doesn’t Paul simply have a some of his men (who would draw less suspicion) infiltrate the movement and do that work for him. Why not employ both strategies?
“Jewish Christian sources paint Paul as a well known conman, bully, liar, and so on” And you think others were unaware of it? Well known conman seems a bit much. Can you cite those sources and why are they more compelling? Again having a reputation as a conman does not work well with subversion. Considering that there was often heated debates, it is not surprising that Paul might have a bad reputation with some believers. I must be missing something here because subversion becomes problematic if people have reasons to doubt your sincerity. You don’t want anyone to have any reason to doubt your bonifides; a former enemy with sharp differences of opinion doesn’t accomplish that. Subversion doesn’t really work by being controversial. If Paul really wanted to successfully employ such a strategy, it’s more likely he would try to convince everyone in the movement that he was just like them and once gaining their trust he might do something like start a rumor that Peter was seen at Pilate’s Palace. subversion is rarely about ideological differences and more about credibility. You simply undermine the credibility of your enemies and get the others too doubt and abandon them. And if you’re really good you make them look suspicious without letting on you are the source of it and give people the impression you trust the source you are trying to undermine. Consider the expression keep your friends close but your enemies closer
Omar, I am curious why one would want to find a religion to follow, particularly based upon some one else’s “revelation”. Why pick one supernatural ideation over another? Why not make one up for yourself in which you can be certain of your own sincerity? Actually, I have found there is enough explained within the realm of science that I no longer search for supernatural explanations. To say that “I don’t know” about something is not an admission of defeat, it is merely a statement that at this time I do not have enough information available to me to make a decision one way or another.
magpie speaketh verily. “I don’t know” is the mantra of the wise since it is the truest statement we will ever make. To know the Great Doubt is to be free.
“I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.”
-Aleister Crowley
Omar6741 said
gmatthews said
You brought up the question, so it should be up to you to point out what he says/does that’s insincere
That is an interesting take on the burden of proof issue here! 🙂
I only brought up the question because Paul repeatedly made strong claims about getting divine revelations, and actively recruited people to his message. I definitely didn’t ask him to do that; nor did I ask him to give birth to teachings that shape my world in very far-reaching ways. Why can’t I wonder whether he was sincere or not?
Well O you might start with a bit more care. Greg was not asking you to prove that Paul had revelations nor is he suggesting you can’t “wonder whether he was sincere or not”. He was asking you to point out what he said or did that is insincere. speculation is not evidence. Personally, I think you are trying to hard to force the argument. Passion and sharp differences do not prove insincerity. If you have evidence of insincerity, lets see it 😉
What do we really know about any non-Pauline Gentile church in the first century? Most historians I read consider Paul to have originated Gentile Christianity. For example, Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version 120-121 (Alfred A. Knopf 1992) says:
“Not until after Paul’s first missionary journey, and its aftermath, did the Christians break with the Jewish identity and accept Gentiles as equals. It was then clear that a Christian was not a Jew who happen to be a Christian, much as some Jews were Sadducees, Pharisees or Essenes. They were Christians, either Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians according to their birth.”
Is it not true that, if not for Paul, Christianity would have been a mere Jewish sect and would’ve gone the way of the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes? Is there some other view of Paul’s importance (or lack thereof) with which I am not familiar?
As for Paul being a con man, it is possible, but I know no evidence for it. On the other hand, I remain puzzled as to why biblical scholars and members of this group seem indifferent to evidence that the apostles might have been making a profit.
The apostles didn’t have to do any work. Acts 6:2-4. Great fear seized the Jerusalem church after Ananias and Sapphira are struck dead because they failed to give all their money to the apostles. Acts 5:11. What do we call a small religious group where the leaders do not work and the followers give up their possessions and live in fear?
Why are we having a completely speculative conversation about Paul being a con man when there is solid evidence against the apostles ? T
Lawyerskeptic said “…On the other hand, I remain puzzled as to why biblical scholars and members of this group seem indifferent to evidence that the apostles might have been making a profit.
The apostles didn’t have to do any work. Acts 6:2-4. Great fear seized the Jerusalem church after Ananias and Sapphira are struck dead because they failed to give all their money to the apostles. Acts 5:11. What do we call a small religious group where the leaders do not work and the followers give up their possessions and live in fear?
Why are we having a completely speculative conversation about Paul being a con man when there is solid evidence against the apostles ?
An interesting thought. I think you MIGHT be reading too much into this.
First, If memory servers the problem was not whether they gave “all their money” but whether they lied about it. Second, Acts was written 50 or more years after the events it depicts and is believed to contain factual errors (e.g., Paul’s conversion)if not out right manufactured stories. However, and I think Prof Ehrman has mentioned that Jesus ministry was or may have been supported by benefactors ” Mark and L also indicate that women provided Jesus with financial support during his ministry, evidently serving as his patrons (Mark 15:40-41; Luke 8:1-3)…” ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Focusing solely on “the ministry of the word of God” is a custom continuing right up to the present day. Is Acts simply apologetic; explaining away complaints or was it written to address concerns and needs of a later Lukean community?
Certainly there’s potential for abuse, but there’s got to be a bit more evidence than what you are offering. Suppose for the sake of argument, Acts 6: 2-4 was written to make the point that lying about what you’re giving is lying to god. clearly that is pure speculation, but no worse than assuming abuse
I’ve responded to this bit about the Ananias question before and I don’t think there’s anything to it. I can’t find any commentary that makes anything of it. I think it might be important to remember that the characters here were living in what they thought were the end of days. Jesus wanted his followers focused on preparing for the imminent coming of the Son of Man and not worrying about making a living. For the first couple or three decades after Pentacost I’m sure the apostles that drank the koolaid did as well.
spiker said .
First, If memory servers the problem was not whether they gave “all their money” but whether they lied about it.
That is the standard apologetic explanation, but it reminds me of people who claim the Civil War was fought over states’ rights, not slavery. States’ rights may have been important, but most important states’ right was the right to own slaves. Likewise, Ananias and Sapphira may have been struck down for lying, but what were they lying about? Money. Peter denied Christ’s three times and never heard a cross word from anyone. Ananias and Sapphira lie about money, and God strikes them dead.
Some courts use the “duck test”: What looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck is probably a duck. You can read an interesting example of this at: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
A small religious group where (1) the leaders do not work, (2) the followers give up their possessions, and (3) followers live in fear. It looks like a cult, walks like a cult, and quacks like a cult, so it is probably a cult. Read Acts 5:1-10 and picture the same thing happening at a church of Scientology. I may be reading too much into this, but how would you feel about people mysteriously dropping dead because they lie to the head Scientologist about money? That is not a rhetorical question – I would very much appreciate an answer.
Lawyerskeptic said
spiker said .
First, If memory servers the problem was not whether they gave “all their money” but whether they lied about it.
That is the standard apologetic explanation, but it reminds me of people who claim the Civil War was fought over states’ rights, not slavery. States’ rights may have been important, but most important states’ right was the right to own slaves. Likewise, Ananias and Sapphira may have been struck down for lying, but what were they lying about? Money. Peter denied Christ’s three times and never heard a cross word from anyone. Ananias and Sapphira lie about money, and God strikes them dead.
Some courts use the “duck test”: What looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck is probably a duck. You can read an interesting example of this at: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Wow, that’s a rather peculiar take. Apologetic tactic? That’s utterly laughable! You’re a practicing lawyer and this is the sort of case you would make? Shoddy evidence and forced conclusions? Your civil war analogy is just terrible! Is there a single account of Ananias and Sapphira where money is demanded of them, where they are told they must give everything? .There was no requirement to hand over all their money as far as I can tell. You’re trying to force an interpretation that is rather thin primarily because you assume an unwarranted amount of historical accuracy in Acts. Not sure how the duck test applies with a story told 50 to 60 years after the fact. Is there even any corroboration of the details you cite? any earlier sources telling them same story. There are, on the other hand-as I pointed out yesterday, known inaccuracies in the book of acts. Known inaccuracies that might even have been deliberate. Does the duck test only apply to the defendant or does it also apply to witnesses for the defense. You can only make your case by ignoring your witnesses credibility problems
“I may be reading too much into this” Yea you are; way too much as I originally argued. But you’re also forcing way too much into it. You have absolutely no evidence that point 3 is true. Point 1 is generally true of many religions without there being any shenanigans. In sum a witness who is inaccurate about key details he should get right (Paul) who veracity has been called into question and goes uncorroborated and an attorney who’s only defense of a fault ridden case is a terrible civil war analogy and an insinuation that I’m an apologist cuz I don’t agree with him.
Now let me get to your question about what I feel about “…people mysteriously dropping dead because they lie to the head Scientologist about money?” That’s a good question. I would think there is something rather fishy about it, but I wouldn’t rely on such shoddy evidence as an unreliable uncorroborated witness telling his story more than half a century later; nor would I pass myself off as a “skeptic” when skepticism is the furthest thing from my mind.
Spiker,
You make some valid points, but I suggest that you need not be so adversarial and insulting while doing so. I certainly never intended to insinuate that you are an apologist. Anyone who says Acts might contain “outright manufactured stories” is certainly not trying to make an apologetic point, and I thought we were on the same sheet of music so far as neither of us being apologists. I also don’t intend to offend any apologist. I am not one, but they are not a lower form of life. I never intend to make any sort of ad hominem attack against someone who, like you, is courteous enough to comment on one of my questions. I very much appreciate your taking the time and trouble to respond to my imperfect inquiries. Was there something else I said that offended you?
You’re right that I’ve overstated my position. I do not believe Jesus rose through a cloud as in Acts Chapter 1, and I can claim no greater certainty for my theories about Acts Chapter 5. It may be that Act’s author concocted the Ananias and Sapphira story out of whole cloth. I found one article that suggests the story is a mere literary invention. J. Albert Harrill, Divine Judgment against Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11): A Stock Scene of Perjury and Death, Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 2, 351-52 (2011). However, I cannot claim to understand such erudite literary theories.
I’m more interested in whether there is any factual basis for the story, and I have what apologists might call a naturalistic bias or presupposition. Assume with me that (1) the story has some foundation in fact and (2) God did not miraculously strike Ananias and Sapphira dead. Either these assumptions could be wrong, but what would be your best guess as to how Ananias and Sapphira really died?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert