So what are most historian's verdict on Paul?
Was he really an apostle or was he actually just a guy who dreamed about Yeshua once and claimed himself a saint?
Sounds like an epileptic fit.
>>768821
History generally doesn't assume that there is a God giving visions to people.
Historically some people thought Paul received visions, that's about all you can say.
>>768876
>History generally doesn't assume that there is a God giving visions to people.
Isn't this kind of a failure on the part of historical study?
>>768940
No, it is seen as polite to gently humor the subject from a humanist perspective, but to be deliberately biased toward or against a particular religion would be unprofessional.
>>768821
I think a better question would be as to the expertise and sectarian leanings of Paul prior to his conversion to Christianity.
Are there any other sources to Paul's pre-Christian life outside of Acts and a few mentions in his epistles?
Most historians don't subscribe to miracles, but nonetheless think Paul was a sincere guy who knew the Jesus's disciples. He might have hallucinated.
>>768962
There weren't even any sources attesting to the entire sect of Pharisees prior to the NT, let alone sources for individual Pharisees.
>>769013
The thing is, and I'll admit I'm no historian nor am I reading things with a fine toothed comb, but it struck me that all of Paul's quoting of the OT in his epistles is invariably from the Septuagint, not a Hebrew tradition, and you can see divergence with a lot of "traditional" Hebrew translations, such as 1 Corinthians 15:54, which is doubly notable because he's not saying he's quoting it, he's just giving a lesson from scripture.
If his internalized version of the OT is the LXX, that's..... interesting, given what we have from the (admittedly later) statements of Pharisees and their theological descendants about it; they didn't like the notion of translating at all, and they thought the Septuagint was a pretty lousy translation into the Greek as well.
>>768821
He certainly believed he saw Jesus and therefore met the requirement to be an apostle. While he had an interesting relationship with the other apostles there is no record that I know of one them denying his claim. It seems certain he had some hugely impactful event that changed his life, whether supernatural or natural is mere speculation
>>768950
But if you assume that Paul isn't receiving visions from God, then it's impossible to take him at his word. You are naturally led to assume he has some more subversive motive, but then you're confronted with the fact that there is no real evidence for that.
>>768821
Whether he counts as an apostle is a issue for Christians. Historians cannot tell you if someones vissions were valid, though I think most would probably go with a neurological explanation.
More important is what did Christianity look like before Paul, and how fast were his teachings adopted? Unfortunately even the oldest existing sources are contemporary with Paul, and most came after him So its open to speculation
>>769050
Or, you know, that he thought he was receiving visions from God but was just hallucinating or something.
>>769050
Yes, but at the same time if you allow Paul the conceit that his vision was from God, then you have to allow all others who make that claim the same conceit. A huge amount of historic figures have made claims to their actions or writings being divinely inspired, if you recognize one of their claims as valid with out justifying evidence, then you have to accept all their claims and that's just preposterous.
>>769050
I guess I take it for granted that the human mind is utterly capable of delusions and make no moral judgement about it.
>>769056
Read Acts and Galatians. Peter James and John were judaizers.
>>769078
Paul knew Jesus and the New covenant better than all the others combined, due to spending years with Jesus in Arabia post resurrection.
>>769078
Kek, only if you're a relentless skeptic.
Embrace the fact that history is full of weird supernatural shit. It's more fun.
>>769139
Yeah but that only works if we live in some weird SMITEesque world where every deity exists. Which actually sounds pretty cool.
>>769033
>, but it struck me that all of Paul's quoting of the OT in his epistles is invariably from the Septuagint, not a Hebrew tradition,
Well no shit, he wrote in Greek, of course he's going to use the Greek translation to quote from.
>and you can see divergence with a lot of "traditional" Hebrew translations
If the Masoretic text is so faithful, why is that the Septuagint and the Vulgate agree with each other far more than they agree with the Masoretic text? Both were translated from the Hebrew, Jerome chose not to use the Septuagint for his basis.
>, given what we have from the (admittedly later) statements of Pharisees and their theological descendants about it; they didn't like the notion of translating at all, and they thought the Septuagint was a pretty lousy translation into the Greek as well.
A: When Paul is quoting from it, he is not a Pharisee anymore.
B: The Pharisees reacted against the Septuagint as a way to invalidate Christianity after most Christians couldn't speak Hebrew.
C: The Pharisees were the populists who opposed sola scriptura and fundamentalism, in contrast with the Sadducees who were sola scripturea, fundamentalist and elitist. If anyone support the Septuagint initially, it was the Pharisees. They only changed their position because of B.
>>769006
The word disciples is not used in the authentic letters of Paul.
>>769298
>Well no shit, he wrote in Greek, of course he's going to use the Greek translation to quote from.
That doesn't follow at all. Take Corinthians 15:54 as mentioned above. If he's giving advice, and he thinks it really should mean "forever", and not "in victory", then why say "in victory"? You have translations that actively influence the meaning of passages, and your choice of translation creates choice of meaning. What audience Paul is writing for doesn't change that.
>If the Masoretic text is so faithful, why is that the Septuagint and the Vulgate agree with each other far more than they agree with the Masoretic text?
No they don't. They also inherit quite a bit of obviously wrong translations that can be checked against manuscripts that predate both of them. Both LXX and Vulgate give Isiah's 7:14's הרה as a future tense term "She WILL conceive", which is clearly wrong given the complete lack of either prefix or suffix from the triconsonantal root.
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah
1/2
>>769298
>A: When Paul is quoting from it, he is not a Pharisee anymore.
But you don't throw out an entire education's worth of learning and assumptions when you undergo a religious experience. Paul gives 0 direct quotations of anything in Hebrew in any of his epistles, despite extensive quotation of the OT. Why is that?
>B: The Pharisees reacted against the Septuagint as a way to invalidate Christianity after most Christians couldn't speak Hebrew.
Yes, which is why they also reacted against the Onkelos or the Aquila, which had similar issues to the LXX. Oh wait, they didn't.
>C: The Pharisees were the populists who opposed sola scriptura and fundamentalism, in contrast with the Sadducees who were sola scripturea, fundamentalist and elitist. If anyone support the Septuagint initially, it was the Pharisees. They only changed their position because of B.
That is the stupidest argument I ever saw. They opposed "sola scriptura" because they had their own set of oral traditions that they held were necessary to understand the Tanakh. If anything, they opposed the Septuagint because it was incompatible with these, and long before the Christians came along. They were also populist and very "Jewish supremacist", if anything, they'd likely react badly to any translation of the text into any language.
>>769113
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MUUP4l6l4
>>768940
>>769050
In something as as sensitive as religion historians don't focus too much on motivation.
There was a guy called Paul who claimed to receive visions from Christ. That's the exstent of the history.
There is no way to prove or disprove he had visions. If he is lying there is any number of motivations. Historians do not sit around and try to figure why each indivual priest, prophet, or seer thought God was on their side.
A historian generally assumes miracles are not a thing. It would be very unprofessional to say that the a plague or earthquake was caused by God but totally professional to say people back than thought it was caused by God.
No is a historian going to argue about which country believed in "real Gods" and which one believed in "fake Gods". Only autestic LARPers on 4chan do this.
>>769346
>Paul gives 0 direct quotations of anything in Hebrew in any of his epistles
Why would be quoting Hebrew when his epistles are being read to mostly Greek congregations?
>Yes, which is why they also reacted against the Onkelos or the Aquila, which had similar issues to the LXX. Oh wait, they didn't.
Because those weren't used by Christians. In fact, it's interesting to note that the Septuagint dominated for hundreds of years without a competing translation until after Christianity.
>They opposed "sola scriptura" because they had their own set of oral traditions that they held were necessary to understand the Tanakh.
Yes. same reason Catholics and Orthodox do.
> If anything, they opposed the Septuagint because it was incompatible with these,
Funny it took them until after Christianity to become vocal about it.
>>769346
>They were also populist and very "Jewish supremacist", if anything, they'd likely react badly to any translation of the text into any language.
There were many Jews who could not speak Hebrew, being populist they would be much more likely to support Scripture being accessible to them.
>>769346
>But you don't throw out an entire education's worth of learning and assumptions
Not entirely, but Paul's perspective after being a Christian cannot be compared to his Pharisaic background. He said circumcision was no longer required, ffs
>>769343
Uh no, the Septuagint and the Vulgate both agree with the oldest Torah that exists and that's the Samaritan Torah.
The Masoretic text is proven without a doubt to be a later copy of the Torah.
The study of history does not need to claim that miraculous claims are either true or false. Rather, they study the implication, effect, potential cause, and other external results of miraculous claims.
How and why did Paul's miraculous claims influence the course of history? That's the question to ask.
Whether Paul actually had those visions, whether they are veridical, etc. are questions for philosophy, theology, or other religious study.
>>768821
The latter, he literally used that as a point of authority.
>You may know Jesus, or one of his apostle BUT LOOK Jesus himself came to me in my dream and commanded me personally, that makes my point valid and yours invalid.
I found it absurd how his version of Christianity became the dominant one though. I believe he was genuine in his conversion.
