Stephen said
Porphyry, wow. I wasn’t accusing you of anything. Unfortunately English is one of those languages that does not distinguish between singular or plural second person. “You” was intended for anyone reading and my comments were just general principles. See, you can’t even detect my motives. How are you, me, anyone going to detect the motives of someone living two thousand years ago?
I didn’t say anything–explicit or implicit–about your motives.
I responded to what you wrote, and pointed out, rather emphatically, that it was not relevant to the question I was asking.
I see no point arguing with you about what you wrote. You wrote it; I’ve read it and replied. No one else cares, and if they do they can read it themselves and see.
Still interested in someone answering or pointing me in the direction of an answer to the methodology to determine if a religious figure is “legit” or not….
I know this post is about “con men” but still funny how if we abstract out one level and ask why Paul’s theology or religious experience is relevant it’s just crickets. And yes I do clearly understand we are on a forum that presumably does take Paul for granted as a historical starting point.
brenmcg said
Porphyry said
Again, my question isn’t why people don’t think he was in fact a con man, it’s why they seem not to leave that possibility open, and instead implicitly trust what he says about himself.
Paul writes to the Galatians 1:22-23 “And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea they only heard it said he who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.“
This would be public information the Galatians could check, they have access to other Christians besides Paul. Same for the Corinthians whom he tells that he is unfit to be called apostle because he persecuted the church of God.
Right, Robert made a similar argument earlier, and I accept it as pretty close to conclusive.
But–as Robert also said in an even earlier post–establishing that he had in some manner notoriously persecuted the earliest Christians doesn’t exclude the possibility that he was insincere as a missionary. This is one point where we can be reasonably confident that he was truthful, but a con doesn’t have to lie in every statement, and it doesn’t seem to me at all difficult to image a situation in which a person was somehow involved in persecuting the early Christians around Jerusalem and subsequently became a Christian preacher. It doesn’t even take a whole lot of imagination to find a scenario where it is precisely his work persecuting them (in some sense) that led him to think being an apostle might not be a bad gig.
He is joining a faith who’s founder has been executed and who’s brother later will be too. He himself having persecuted and attempted to destroy this faith. Makes it unlikely that he’s joining purely for personal gain.
Yeah, but I’m not sure that one can extrapolate from those two cases. Jesus was executed for claiming kingship in rivalry to the emperor–I don’t think Paul or the early Christians were in danger of that charge. James’s execution was legally irregular, instigated by one individual operating in a very specific set of circumstances, and generally regarded as a miscarriage of justice–again not necessary a portent of what Christians throughout the empire should expect in general.
As to Paul’s persecution (objective genitive), as far as I know we have only Paul’s word for that (and his audience too, so far as I am aware, would have no more). And *if* it remains a real possibility that he was willing to make things up to bolster his standing before his converts, then one can’t take his representations about such events uncritically. That seems like it would be a prime example of something that one would need to hold in some doubt until it was established with more than just Paul’s word.
His letters aren’t simply reporting supposed revelation in the hopes that his audience will accept his claims on faith. He presents reasoned arguments and considered opinions on the controversies of his day – while what he is claiming might not be true its unlikely that he himself does not believe it.
But he absolutely did claim authority and he absolutely did appeal to his own authority in his teaching. He didn’t just present rational arguments meant to stand on their own feet for anyone to verify from publicly available information. The authority he claimed was derived from his being made an apostle through one or more private revelations. See for example, Gal. 1:11.
JAS said
Porphyry said
I have asked, presuming my impression is accurate, why what seems to me one obvious possibility seems not to be entertained.
I think you have already answered your own question. Paul’s writing could be an elaborate subterfuge to make money (why this would not be a con seems mysterious to me, but if you prefer to avoid the word . . . ) or it could be completely or mostly sincere. In either case, it would look exactly the same unless it was a subterfuge done badly in some way that left traces of the manipulation. Since they appear to be sincere, and I have yet to see you or anyone else propose anything more than that all too easy phantom of doubt, there seems little reason to adopt the subterfuge interpretation. And accepting his writings as sincere does not mean that one has to believe that he is correct in what he is saying.
I appreciate your point about the all too easy phantom of doubt.
I suppose my response, though, is in line with a point you made earlier, namely that we are necessarily dealing in uncertainties.
Forget about trying to *prove* that Paul was a charlatan, or trying to establish it as a fact. Let’s just stipulate arguendo that, all things considered, there is an appreciable chance that he was a con: for the sake of illustration, let’s say, all things considered, it is a 10% chance he was a con and 90% chance he was a true believer, substantially honest and straightforward in his letters (forget about how precisely we would go about trying to quantify that uncertainty). The scenario in which he was a con is (in that case) certainly not the most likely possibility, but still very much a live possibility.
Fine, but it seems like we should be accounting for that possibility as we work. It doesn’t seem methodologically sound to say, well, it’s only a 10% probability that he was just flat out lying, so we can just safely ignore that possibility and presume that he is being straight with us and take the basic facts he reports about himself as fixed and move on.
When it all shakes out, we might be hopelessly uncertain of anything (who knows, it might very well be the case that in some instances Acts actually reports particular details of Paul’s life more accurately than Paul himself–it certainly isn’t the single most likely scenario, but there is a more than purely theoretical chance, given how little we have to work with.)
Adnantell said
Still interested in someone answering or pointing me in the direction of an answer to the methodology to determine if a religious figure is “legit” or not….I know this post is about “con men” but still funny how if we abstract out one level and ask why Paul’s theology or religious experience is relevant it’s just crickets. And yes I do clearly understand we are on a forum that presumably does take Paul for granted as a historical starting point.
I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think this is exactly what Bart it getting at whenever he stresses the variety of early Christianities. There were lots of competing early Christianities. All of them had sincere adherents who really thought their version was right. We have no particular objective reason to accept one and reject the others.
If you discount Paul’s claim to have gotten his Gospel from the risen Christ, then it is simply an historical accident that he ended up in the canon and his opponents were lost to history.
Porphyry said
Adnantell said
Still interested in someone answering or pointing me in the direction of an answer to the methodology to determine if a religious figure is “legit” or not….
I know this post is about “con men” but still funny how if we abstract out one level and ask why Paul’s theology or religious experience is relevant it’s just crickets. And yes I do clearly understand we are on a forum that presumably does take Paul for granted as a historical starting point.
I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think this is exactly what Bart it getting at whenever he stresses the variety of early Christianities. There were lots of competing early Christianities. All of them had sincere adherents who really thought their version was right. We have no particular objective reason to accept one and reject the others.
If you discount Paul’s claim to have gotten his Gospel from the risen Christ, then it is simply an historical accident that he ended up in the canon and his opponents were lost to history.
By consensus, the NT had “letters” of five authors named Paul. Authenticity is not a requirement for success if we look at all the books of the NT. The ghost writers themselves and the “original Paul”. Not only did he write 7 letters, but he invented handwriting and finally, after 30 years, it was promoted in the early Christian movement. Apparently they read these letters but nobody wanted to write it except Paul. Does it matter what was on Paul’s mind? Well done indeed.
I do not know how else to say that I do not think there is any answer to your question that you will find satisfactory, Porphyry. Methodologies can also be simultaneously systematic and yet completely assembled from essentially arbitrary choices. I have no doubt that every scholar working in the field of NT studies is aware of the possibility that anything in the Bible may be from an unreliable source. Even those who discount such an idea because they adhere to the idea of divine inspiration are no doubt aware of the suggestion. There isn’t a great deal of focus on it because, as has already been pointed out, there isn’t much to be said beyond what has already been said. Robert has already offered what few morsels might be offered, and both Stephen and I have pointed out the impracticality of asserting motives without also making a very good case for it. Paul’s letters, with all of their merits and flaws, roughly fit in the general context of the NT and the history of Christianity as they have been seen over the last nearly 2,000 years. Those who wish to dismiss the Bible in general, or the NT in specific, can dismiss the whole thing, or nearly the whole thing, but where does that really lead in terms of study? Mostly, it would lead to studying something else.
JAS said
I do not know how else to say that I do not think there is any answer to your question that you will find satisfactory, Porphyry. Methodologies can also be simultaneously systematic and yet completely assembled from essentially arbitrary choices. I have no doubt that every scholar working in the field of NT studies is aware of the possibility that anything in the Bible may be from an unreliable source. Even those who discount such an idea because they adhere to the idea of divine inspiration are no doubt aware of the suggestion. There isn’t a great deal of focus on it because, as has already been pointed out, there isn’t much to be said beyond what has already been said. Robert has already offered what few morsels might be offered, and both Stephen and I have pointed out the impracticality of asserting motives without also making a very good case for it. Paul’s letters, with all of their merits and flaws, roughly fit in the general context of the NT and the history of Christianity as they have been seen over the last nearly 2,000 years. Those who wish to dismiss the Bible in general, or the NT in specific, can dismiss the whole thing, or nearly the whole thing, but where does that really lead in terms of study? Mostly, it would lead to studying something else.
Good point, I think your last sentence kind of sums up the issue.
But mostly, Robert, it is being discussed precisely because it cannot be reasonably established that either contention is true. Of course, one need not accept Paul’s theological claims, or even the broader claims of the Bible to study Christianity as a movement. But that was not the original question as posed.
Stephen said
“Perhaps we are using the expression “to take something at face value” differently. When I speak of taking something at face value, I mean, accepting what is says as true without question.”Ok but I don’t know anyone who would do that except for fundamentalists. (Of course that’s what makes them a fundamentalist.)
. . .
“…why do major scholars seem to ignore that possibility, and assume that he was being honest…why do major scholars seem to assume he is reliable and accept his assertions uncritically?”
What major scholars are you talking about? Who is doing this?
I never answered this, but as one representative example, James Tabor in the appendix to Paul and Jesus, “The Quest for the Historical Paul” gives 12 autobiographical details that Paul relates in his undisputed letters. He describes them as “what we most surely know.” In contrast to the details drawn from other sources (e.g., Acts), he doesn’t raise any question about them or explicitly assess their plausibility; he simply lists them.
Of these basic autobiographical claims he expresses uncertainty only about Paul’s claim to have received numerous revelations and his claim to have worked miracles. Those two–alone on the list–he presents as no more than claims Paul makes rather than as facts.
All the other autobiographical claims–including Paul’s surpassing many of his contemporaries in the study of the Law, his having some sort of visionary experience, his shipwrecks, beatings, being left for dead, his interactions with the leaders of the Jerusalem church, and so on, he simply relates as though they are settled facts.
(Perhaps he examines these claims critically elsewhere, and here he is simply summarizing for a lay audience what he has elsewhere established–I don’t know.)
Here is the thing–forget about the controversial, and let’s grant for the moment “remote,” possibility that Paul was simply a charlatan who didn’t believe any of it and was just in it for money. Let’s assume he really was a true believer. He still might not be reliable in relating such details. Sometimes true believers lie to establish their credentials in order to spread a message that they are sincerely convinced is true. In fact, that kind of lying about credentials in order to advance the “truth” looks to have been pretty common in early Christianity; just look at pseudepigraphal authors.
Porphyry said
But–as Robert also said in an even earlier post–establishing that he had in some manner notoriously persecuted the earliest Christians doesn’t exclude the possibility that he was insincere as a missionary. This is one point where we can be reasonably confident that he was truthful, but a con doesn’t have to lie in every statement, and it doesn’t seem to me at all difficult to image a situation in which a person was somehow involved in persecuting the early Christians around Jerusalem and subsequently became a Christian preacher. It doesn’t even take a whole lot of imagination to find a scenario where it is precisely his work persecuting them (in some sense) that led him to think being an apostle might not be a bad gig.
It establishes that christians were a persecuted minority and that Paul joined this minority. It reduces the chances of him doing this purely for personal gain.
Yeah, but I’m not sure that one can extrapolate from those two cases. Jesus was executed for claiming kingship in rivalry to the emperor–I don’t think Paul or the early Christians were in danger of that charge. James’s execution was legally irregular, instigated by one individual operating in a very specific set of circumstances, and generally regarded as a miscarriage of justice–again not necessary a portent of what Christians throughout the empire should expect in general.
Paul and the early christians were supporters of this claim to kingship. The founder of the religion and the brother of this founder, and subsequent leader, were executed by the authorities of Paul’s day. Paul claims to have persecuted members of this religion. A biography of Paul claims he watched over the stoning of one of them. There is no reason to doubt Paul put his life in danger by joining this religion.
As to Paul’s persecution (objective genitive), as far as I know we have only Paul’s word for that (and his audience too, so far as I am aware, would have no more). And *if* it remains a real possibility that he was willing to make things up to bolster his standing before his converts, then one can’t take his representations about such events uncritically. That seems like it would be a prime example of something that one would need to hold in some doubt until it was established with more than just Paul’s word.
We don’t have to believe Paul’s claims that he was persecuted. What we can take from his claims of being persecuted and put in prison is that these claims would have been believable to his audience. That is, his audience would find it believable that a christian preacher could be persecuted and put in prison. Again helping to establish that Paul is joining and preaching a persecuted religious movement.
But he absolutely did claim authority and he absolutely did appeal to his own authority in his teaching. He didn’t just present rational arguments meant to stand on their own feet for anyone to verify from publicly available information. The authority he claimed was derived from his being made an apostle through one or more private revelations. See for example, Gal. 1:11.
Yes but he doesn’t solely appeal to authority through revelation. He presents his own internal rational for why he believes what he believes.
Romans 2:25-29 is not revelation. Its Paul’s own thoughts. Whether its right or wrong its his own opinion and by preaching it he can get into trouble. (James was stoned to death as a breaker of the law).
When he does speak directly of his revelations the impression given is that it is not usual for him to do it –
2 Cor 12:1-4 “I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know God knows. And I know that this man whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.“
Porphyry wrote
Here is the thing–forget about the controversial, and let’s grant for the moment “remote,” possibility that Paul was simply a charlatan who didn’t believe any of it and was just in it for money. Let’s assume he really was a true believer. He still might not be reliable in relating such details. Sometimes true believers lie to establish their credentials in order to spread a message that they are sincerely convinced is true. In fact, that kind of lying about credentials in order to advance the “truth” looks to have been pretty common in early Christianity; just look at pseudepigraphal authors.
I’m sincerely not trying to be an asshole. Everyone who reads the New Testament has to wrestle with Paul because he’s such an important figure. Everyone has to arrive at their own conclusion. There is no substitute for diving in yourself. Why be satisfied with someone else’s opinion? There are some questions that can only be answered by you. And you will never be absolutely sure about anything.
brenmcg, have I got a ** you do not have permission to see this link ** for you!
CEJ expostulated
This place is dead.
Places don’t die. But people do. Life is too short to spend it living under a bridge.
Stephen said
I’m sincerely not trying to be an asshole. Everyone who reads the New Testament has to wrestle with Paul because he’s such an important figure. Everyone has to arrive at their own conclusion. There is no substitute for diving in yourself. Why be satisfied with someone else’s opinion? There are some questions that can only be answered by you. And you will never be absolutely sure about anything.
I don’t plan simply to be content with other people’s conclusions. But I am interested in understanding the arguments and evidence that drove other people–people who have thought about this a lot longer than I have–to the conclusions they reached.
When I’m researching a new question, I generally start by trying to figure out what other people have already established (or attempted to establish)–not because I will blindly take their word for it but so I can examine the arguments they have made and save myself time badly reinventing the wheel. Usually in the embryonic stage of the research this means looking at introductory summaries and chatting with people who are up to speed on the field and who know the status quaestionis. If it proceeds further, it turns into something like a full lit review.
I don’t just take people’s conclusions as settled. Sometime experts in a field reach some really really tenuous and poorly-founded conclusions, and those conclusions get parroted as established though they aren’t. Experts can sometimes get out in front of their skis. I’m aware of this.
But still, the experts are experts for a reason. There are times that they come to a problem that seems–on first glance–utterly intractable, and yet find a very nearly conclusive argument for one solution. E.g., I think some of the arguments for Markan priority (particularly with respect to Matthew) are really extremely compelling.
Given that there are people who have dedicated their lives to the professional study of Paul, it seems insanely delusional to ignore what they have accomplished and just read the epistles for myself without consideration of their positions and arguments. I honestly don’t understand why that would draw criticism–unless you have the impression that I haven’t already read Paul myself?
We are talking about history, not a choose your own adventure book.
And certainly there are unanswerable questions–lots of things I’d like to know have been irrecoverably lost to history. There may also be questions where all we will ever have is a best guess, which despite being best still isn’t very good. But I like to know what I don’t know. Did Matthew use Mark? Almost certainly. Did Luke use Matthew? Maybe. Did Luke use Josephus? Unlikely, and if he did we might never know for sure. Etc.
Porphyry said
Is this some inside joke that only the regulars get?
I can only guess that Steefen (not to be confused with Stephen) has not been posting with his usual frequency, and CEJ is easily bored.
It is August, CEJ — vacation time! Most of the really smart people are at the beach somewhere.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)