Two Pauls?

[Josh]

elsewhere yeshuafreak wrote:

also, i find there to be increasing evidence that there were two Sha'uls

I have never heard claim along these lines. What sources are you referring to?

[yeshuafreak]

i cant remember. i need to find the person.

the theory is that there is a historical Jewish Shaul who remained Jewish. He wrote Romans, Galatians, and... what was it? Oh, ! Corinthians and parts of 2 Corinthians.

however, he did not write Collossians, Ephesians, or much of the other epistles attributed to him. This is agreed upon by most in the textual critical community, but the new thing about this theory is WHO wrote it.

this theory believes that instead of many different people writing the different letters, there was actually one greek "paul". This person was either truly named Paul or posed as Shaul.

This theory arose from the fact that Paul was Jewish and claimed to be jewish in many letters, and yet his style of hinking in many of the letters was heavily greek.

more in depth theorizing will be given in the sources i hope i can find again

-john

[Josh]

I am familiar with those books in which Pauline authorship is questioned. It's the idea that there might have been another guy with the same name that would be new to me.

In studying Pauline authorship, I don't think there is any good reason to reject Pauline authorship for any of the books traditionally ascribed to him.

That Paul could be both thoroughly Jewish and conversant in Greco-Roman philosophy and rhetoric is totally believable.

If you do think "Luke's Paul" was the Jewish one, then you can see this Paul who able to walk in two worlds all over the book of Acts (especially see Acts 17).

[yeshuafreak]

If you do think "Luke's Paul" was the Jewish one, then you can see this Paul who able to walk in two worlds all over the book of Acts (especially see Acts 17).

that was traditional to jewish rabbis at the time. they had to know about pagan cultures as well.

That Paul could be both thoroughly Jewish and conversant in Greco-Roman philosophy and rhetoric is totally believable.

the fact that he was conversant is not the problem. the doctrines are different btwn the two. one is heavily influenced by the greek notions of spirituality.

In studying Pauline authorship, I don't think there is any good reason to reject Pauline authorship for any of the books traditionally ascribed to him.

modern scholarship has PROVEN hebrews to have not been written by paul. He most likely did not write ephesians, collosians, etc.

From Jesus to Christianity gives a great overview of current Pauline scholarship although his dates are liberally later.

-john