I've been reading a bit on this issue of late.
My overall view of this is that almost nothing is knowable about early Christianity and whether or not Paul existed can't be known. I think most secular authors agree with this but some argue that he probably did.
Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier argue that it is very likely that he did. Ken Humprhreys of JesusNeverExisted.com says even just considering the six generally considered genuine epistles of Paul that the story is too screwy and Paul probably didn't exist.
Both Doherty and Carrier seem to have similar ideas about Paul. He was promoting a religion based on a mystical Jesus that didn't exist as a flesh and blood human. Eventually the religion that Paul was pushing morphed into the Christianity we know today with a flesh and blood Jesus as its core. So Paul is an integral part of their story.
Ken Humphrey's on the six authentic epistles
http://ift.tt/2Aw1c62
Most of his other stuff on Paul relates to how unreliable Acts is. I think most if not all secular Christianity history writes agree with that.
Richard Carrier argument that Paul existed
http://ift.tt/2xihQnz
Earl Doherty
Among Doherty's arguments is that if Paul's writing were a second century forgery they would be focused more on what Christianity had changed to by then. I thought it was a good argument but I don't have a link right now for it.
My overall view of this is that almost nothing is knowable about early Christianity and whether or not Paul existed can't be known. I think most secular authors agree with this but some argue that he probably did.
Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier argue that it is very likely that he did. Ken Humprhreys of JesusNeverExisted.com says even just considering the six generally considered genuine epistles of Paul that the story is too screwy and Paul probably didn't exist.
Both Doherty and Carrier seem to have similar ideas about Paul. He was promoting a religion based on a mystical Jesus that didn't exist as a flesh and blood human. Eventually the religion that Paul was pushing morphed into the Christianity we know today with a flesh and blood Jesus as its core. So Paul is an integral part of their story.
Ken Humphrey's on the six authentic epistles
http://ift.tt/2Aw1c62
Most of his other stuff on Paul relates to how unreliable Acts is. I think most if not all secular Christianity history writes agree with that.
Richard Carrier argument that Paul existed
http://ift.tt/2xihQnz
Earl Doherty
Among Doherty's arguments is that if Paul's writing were a second century forgery they would be focused more on what Christianity had changed to by then. I thought it was a good argument but I don't have a link right now for it.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2AxxE82
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire