Kept to be Questioned

I ended my last post with the following:

“And so, the question of Jesus’ ‘existence’ is inseparable from the conventions—prevailing in our time and prevailing perhaps differently in other times—about the understood boundaries of the question.  I submit that this connection with ‘understood boundaries’ is far more crucial to our thought processes than is generally recognized, and I contend that defying those ‘understood boundaries’ is crucial in itself to far more fundamental questions (yes, they exist) about religion than whether or not by any particular criteria Jesus might be held to have existed.”

We might ask ourselves whether or not Paul existed.  Of course, the historians’ certitude that there was such a person as Paul is virtually unquestioned, but I contend that the application of such a notion as “person” in this matter ought to be questioned.  The main reason anyone believes that Paul existed is because his letters exist.  Enough of the collection of his letters exist—exhibiting common themes and style, as I understand—for them to be believable as the output of a single person—“Paul.”  Fair enough, but is it any more of substance to say that the letters exist because of Paul, or that “Paul” exists because of the letters?

(I am proceeding on the notion that the Paul of the Book of Acts is reckoned by his appearance there to be no more "historical” than the appearance of the Jesus of Luke/Acts.)

If all of the letters of Paul were outright frauds, written by a person of some other name and with some nefarious intent, would “Paul” exist?  If all of the letters of Paul were the ravings of a madman who invented the character out of his imaginings, would “Paul” exist?  If a real Paul of mundane habits had concocted an epistolary alter ego credited with the activities of the letters, would “Paul” exist?  If a real missionary teacher named Paul had embellished his accounts with the heroics which characterize the lionized apostle of Sunday School lessons, would “Paul” exist?  If a person named Paul had done all the letters claim, and yet had falsely claimed the specifics of his potent biography (Roman citizen, Jewish functionary, “Pharisee”) would “Paul” exist?

More importantly, if Paul was everything the New Testament claims (or at least it was not provable otherwise), would the contention that Paul “existed” differ in any substantial way from the contention that “Paul” might well have existed—leaving it to the listener to consider whether any germ of doubt is worth considering?  In sum, if the matter of Paul’s existence is contested, it will never be resolved, and if it is not contested, then it will be no matter at all.

I think it is crucial to view such matters in the active sense of “contested.”  Anyone, from the harshest skeptic to virtually the most ardent believer, can say that we will never really “know” (this side of the grave) whether or not Paul existed.  Certainly, in the generalized activities of religious scholars the existence of Paul is accepted.  Simultaneously, in the idealized activities of any scholarship, no matter is to held without question—“acceptance” of this or that is revealed to be flaccid (when placed under consideration) in any realm of strenuous and concerted inquiry.

How then can we keep ourselves always questioning?