Paul Mythicism

[ignorantianescia]

Recently I've been engaged in a discussion with a Mythicist on a non-Mythicist blog. One surprising turn was that my interlocutor seemed to question the authenticity of the uncontroversial Pauline epistles and seemingly also Paul's existence. Since Paul is well-attested, it was not difficult to present a number of sound arguments that should be convincing.

However, presumably a lot less has been written on the case for Paul's existence than for Jesus'. Does anybody know a reliable treatment of the topic? I would really like to delve a little deeper into this issue as there might very well be some strong arguments that I overlooked.

Note that I'm not really interested in particular refutations of the theory that Paul was a Marcionite Gnostic invention, but rather general cases for Paul's existence. My discussion partner's views seem not that definite after all.

[sandwiches]

However, presumably a lot less has been written on the case for Paul's existence than for Jesus'

Not aware of anything but not that surprising? If there were no Paul, then whom would Muslims, Jews, atheists and Jesus-mythicists have to blame for Christianity?

If someone were trying to invent Paul, would one come up with what the New Testament presents? A chap who started off persecuting Christians, wrote relatively little about the actual life and teaching of Jesus, sent children to sleep with his preaching (causing them to fall out of windows and be presumed dead) fell out with those most closely associated with Jesus, wrongly predicted the immanent return of Jesus and caused a riot in the Temple at Jerusalem nearly resulting in him being executed on the spot, before probably being beheaded in Rome.

A bit like Jesus, if you were going to invent him, you would need a genius to come up with such a fictional product?

[ignorantianescia]

Thanks for your reply, I agree it's not surprising that Paul's historicity is no hot issue. The minimal benefits from inventing Paul you point at are a good point. My opponent hasn't taken a definite position on Paul so far, but once he has, these are useful to bring up.

[metacrock]

They just keep asserting the mythical nature of everything. We are going to have an infinite regression of mystical sources. They are just making up their own standards of history, they have just as much disdain for real historians as they do for Chrsitians.

[sandwiches]

We are going to have an infinite regression of mystical sources.

Quite so. As Paul said of the manner of the death of Jesus:

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Who would invent such figures? Who could possibly even come up with a theory that they were both invented?:

www.truthbeknown.com/apollonius.html

Apollonius, Jesus and Paul:
Men or Myths?
by Acharya S/D.M. Murdock

It appears that the stories of both Jesus and Paul were in part fabricated from that of Apollonius.

Moreover, the name "Apollonius," it has been evinced, was also abbreviated in ancient times as "Pol," but this writer has not been able to confirm that claim. It has further been asserted that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not "Paulos" but "Apollos," an interesting claim in consideration of the fact that Hebrews is written in "Hebraistic Greek" and that Apollonius was said to be a native speaker of the Hebraistic language of Aramaic.

Obviously this overlooks the my own (not yet peer-tested view) that Apollonius was a myth as is Acharya S.

[ignorantianescia]

Lol. So Jesus who, if contemporary, was Apollonius' older contemporary and has detailed sources about his life within decades is modelled on the magician with a biography dating from the early third century. You have to love the astrotheologist's skill at critical thinking.

The irony is that there is a Christian figure whose 'biography' was heavily based on Apollonius' life: Nicholas of Myra, precursor of Saint Nick.

[bjorn]

Sept 2, 2013 18:40:46 GMT sandwiches said:

We are going to have an infinite regression of mystical sources.

It appears that the stories of both Jesus and Paul were in part fabricated from that of Apollonius.

I was a bit in doubt untill the following unmistakeable parallell removed the veil from my eyes:

Apollonius of Tyana --------------- Jesus Christ --------------- Paul
Wore long hair and robes -- Wore long hair and robes -- Wore long hair and robes

Acharya stikes again, you couldn't make this thing up.

[fortigurn]

Sept 3, 2013 10:17:00 GMT bjorn said:

I was a bit in doubt untill the following unmistakeable parallell removed the veil from my eyes:

Apollonius of Tyana --------------- Jesus Christ --------------- Paul
Wore long hair and robes -- Wore long hair and robes -- Wore long hair and robes

Acharya stikes again, you couldn't make this thing up.

I thought you were making that up, until I went and looked for myself.

[fortigurn]

She quotes Thayer's lexicon!

Not only are the journeys of Paul and Apollonius very similar, their names are as well. While Paul is "Paulos" in Greek, Thayer's Lexicon states that "Apollos" is, according to some ancient authorities, contracted from "Apollonios."

The hilarity is extreme! Look at her list of 'sources'.

Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, Conybeare
The Bible, RSV and others
Bernard, Dr. Raymond, Apollonius the Nazarene, Health Research
"Apollonius of Tyana," www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius01.html
Waite, Charles, History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred
Smith, William, "Apollonius Tyanaeus," A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, www.apollonius.net/tyanaeus.html
"Is Apollonius of Tyana - Paul of Tarsus?"

This is coffee-exits-via-nasal-cavity grade humour; Waite (1881), some crank Raymond Bernard's book 'Apollonius the Nazarene: Mystery Man of the Bible' (1947), Smith (1849), Coneybeare's translation of Philostratus (1912), and the link 'www.apollonius.net/tyanaeus.html' doesn't even work anymore. At least she links to an article at livius.org, but that doesn't support her; on the contrary, the article makes the point that under historical examination we find 'a portrait of Apollonius rather different from the one offered by Philostratus'.

[ignorantianescia]

The references are a surprise, I thought Acharya S would have had the Shroud of Turin and Jesus Christ Superstar as her sources for Jesus having long hair.

Yes, according to Livius.org Apollonois was considered a miracle worker and wrote On astrology, claims Philostratus tries to avoid. The author of Livius.org, a qualified classicla historian, likely agrees with Murdock on very little - especially not with her views on Christ!

[fortigurn]

The author of livius.org also uses the criterion of embarrassment on the 'biography' of Appollonius by Philostratus, which is interesting.

[ignorantianescia]

Indeed, he also uses it here (once I pointed it out to a Mythicist claiming that the criterion of embarrassment is only ever used by biblical scholars and theologians... it had zero effect):

www.livius.org/ne-nn/nicholas/nicholas_of_myra1.html

Perhaps there is some positive evidence for Nicholas' presence in Nicaea. Although the original minutes of this council were destroyed, people have tried to reconstruct the list of bishops who agreed to the orthodox formula to describe the Trinity, a brief text that became famous as the Nicene Creed. This list is known from eleven medieval copies. Only three of them mention Nicholas, but one of these is considered to be among the best copies.

This means that at a comparatively early stage, the name of Nicholas was either added to or left out from the list.

In the first scenario, someone thought that it was better to forget that Nicholas had been among the bishops.
Alternatively, a copyist was surprised that the popular and famous bishop of Myra was not mentioned in the list, and corrected what he believed to be an error. (The popularity of the cult of Nicholas can be deduced from the rapidly increasing number of boys called Nicholas.)

There is a late source that appears to confirm the first scenario. According to this legend, Nicholas was so angry at an advocate of Arianism that, overcome by apostolic zeal, he struck his opponent. Not everyone appreciated this blow for Arianism, and the presidency of the Council decided that Nicholas was no longer allowed to wear the ornaments of a bishop. Therefore, Nicholas is shown without mitre on Greek icons. In fact, this anecdote is embarrasing, and this is a reason why it is unlikely to have been invented.

In other news, the Mythicist has declared that I am too disingenuous for any discussion and left the floor to me (but still popped to respond to my comment).

[labarum]

Sept 2, 2013 18:40:46 GMT sandwiches said:

We are going to have an infinite regression of mystical sources.

Obviously this overlooks the my own (not yet peer-tested view) that Apollonius was a myth as is Acharya S.

I think the Acharya S mythicism has some possibilities. Let's try this one:

The Acharya S myth centers upon the life of a prophet who first appears as D. M. Murdock. The use of the first and middle initials is lieu of the full name is an obvious attempt to give an air of academic seriousness to the character. Of course, those following this prophet desired to know of her past and a fuller description was needed. At this point, an oral tradition developed and the name Dorothy was derived from an earlier myth about another fictional Dorothy who also was followed by the brainless, the heartless, and the cowardly and who also claimed to free the little people while debunking their beloved miracle worker.

After Dorothy understands her call, she changes her name to Acharya S. Scholars of mythical belief are well aware that it is frequent for central characters to assume a new name after they understand their true nature. The origin of the name “Acharya S” is often disputed and the true meaning is hidden from all but the most high of the cult. In reality, it is a symbolic name that indicates the leaders’ purpose for both the masses and themselves. For the followers, the term “Acharya” is derived from the word for a teacher or guru; for the leaders of the conspiracy, the “S” has its own secret meaning: $.

Can you honestly say this makes any less sense that what she has put into print?