Carrier and the silence in Paul and early epistles

[GakuseiDon]

In his OHJ, Richard Carrier has a largish chapter discussing the silence about a historical Jesus in Paul and other epistles. He starts that chapter with the following (my bolding, Carrier's italics):

• Page 515
  
  In fact, as we'll see in this chapter, the only Jesus Paul shows any knowl­edge of is a celestial being, not an earthly man. Paul's Jesus is only ever in the heavens. Never once is his baptism mentioned, or his ministry, or his trial, or any of his miracles, or any historical details about what he was like, what he did, or suffered, or where he was from, or where he had been, or what people he knew. No memories from those who knew him are ever reported. Paul never mentions Galilee or Nazareth, or Pilate or Mary or Joseph, or any miracles Jesus did or any miraculous powers he is supposed to have displayed... or anything about the life of Jesus not in the Gos­pels. Paul never references any event in Jesus' life as an example to follow (beyond the abstractions of love, endurance and submissiveness), and never places anything Jesus said in any earthly historical context whatever. So far as these letters tell us, no Christian ever asked Paul about these things, either. Nor did any of these things ever become relevant in any dispute Paul had with anyone. Not one of his opponents, so far as Paul mentions, ever referenced a fact about Jesus' life in support of their arguments. And no one ever doubted anything claimed about Jesus and asked for witnesses to confirm it or explain it or give more details. The interest Tacitus showed in Pliny 's father is never exhibited by any of them, nor is Pliny's eagerness to talk about his father ever exhibited by Paul in his eagerness to talk about Jesus-and yet Paul talks obsessively and repeatedly about Jesus.
  
  That's all simply bizarre. And bizarre means unexpected, which about means infrequent, which means improbable.

So Carrier finds the lack of interest in a historical Jesus -- Paul doesn't mention Galilee or Nazareth, Pilate, Mary, Joseph, nothing about the miracles Jesus did nor details about Jesus' life -- as unexpected, infrequent and improbable.

Using that information plus other details either in or unexpectedly not in the epistles, Carrier comes up with the following probability:

• Page 595
  
  Given my own estimates (which are closer to what I think the odds actually are), the evidence of the Epistles is exactly 100% expected on minimal mythicism, and has a probability of only 6% on minimal historicity. Or again, whatever the percentages, I think the evidence of the Epistles is at least sixteen times less likely on historicity. Because they are simply so very strange on minimal historicity but not at all strange on minimal mythicism. In fact, these are pretty much exactly the kind of letters we should expect to now have from Paul (and the other authors as well) if minimal mythicism is true. Not so on historicity.

In summary: This is "exactly 100% expected on minimal mythicism" while "only 6% on minimal historicity.

My criticism: Carrier has done the same thing as Earl Doherty did when Doherty was trying to promote most of the Second Century CE apologists to the pagans as Christians who didn't believe in a historical Jesus: he didn't examine the other literature to see how they matched with Paul's. That's what this thread will do.

Interestingly, Carrier wrote a while ago that Doherty's view that most of those Second Century Christian apologists didn't believe in a historical Jesus was one of Doherty's "wilder flights of fancy" (this was on IIDB though I've lost that link unfortunately.)

I'll start with a quote from Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", since it aptly describes the situation. References can be found in my review of that book on my website: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseid ... view2.html

Doherty writes (my own bolding below):

• Another aspect is the fact that in almost all the [Second Century CE] apologists we find a total lack of a sense of history. They do not talk of their religion as an ongoing movement with a specific century of development behind it, through a beginning in time, place and circumstances, and a spread in similar specifics. Some of them pronounce it to be very "old" and they look back to roots in the Jewish prophets rather than to the life of a recent historical Jesus. In this, of course, they are much like the 1st century epistle writers. (Page 477)

And this is so. For Doherty, the reason for the similarity is simple: both First Century and Second Century writers didn't have a historical Jesus at their core.

As Doherty notes, the similarities go further than just a lack of a historical Jesus. They include a dependence on the writings of the prophets in the Old Testament rather than the life of a historical Jesus. In my Tertullian example on my website, we see that he quotes Solomon rather than Jesus. He prefers attributing sayings to the 'prime wisdom' rather than to Christ. And he would rather talk about 'the name being taught' rather than Christ being incarnated and having a human ministry. Such use of allusions have their parallels in the writings of the First Century.

Again, note that all these writings – First Century and Second Century – give few historical details about anything. This is not something unique to Christian writings. In a response to GA Wells, Stanton noted that precise historical and chronological references are few and far between in the numerous Jewish writings discovered in the caves around the Dead Sea near Qumran.

What we have are a large number of precedents (at least 6) where -- unexpectedly -- details about a historical Jesus are lacking. Carrier actually refers in passing to a number of these writings (Shepherd of Hermas and Octavius' Minucius Felix) as Christian writings, without noting that they don't seem to have any knowledge of a historical Jesus at their core. For those interested, Doherty and I exchanged webpages on the topic of the Second Century apologists back in 2006. The first page can be found on my website here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseid ... Review.htm

Carrier either needs to add those Second Century apologists into his list of mythicist writings, remove them from consideration somehow (perhaps too late? Perhaps later writings and apologetics should be expected to NOT discuss a historical Jesus? But if so, why?) or he needs to reconsider our expectations on how unusual such writings lacking historicist details should be. The last option to me is the one that needs to be done. I believe his analysis is incomplete until he has examined those.

For those interested, the writings that seem to show no awareness of a historical Jesus are:

1. Tertullian's "Ad nationes" (200 CE)
2. Tatian's "Address to the Greeks" (written around 160-170 CE)
3-5. Theophilus of Antioch -- three books (180-185 CE)
6. Athenagoras of Athens (175-180 CE)
7. Epistle of Diognetus (130-200 CE)
8. Minucius Felix's Octavius (160-250 CE)
9. Shepherd of Hermas (100-160 CE)
10. Ascension of Isaiah -- Slavonic/Latin (150-200 CE)

Also some letters by Ignatius of Antioch -- shorter recensions (110 to 140 CE)

I've said before that once you have read through all the Christian literature on Peter Kirby's excellent "Early Christian Writings" website a few times (though I see he has added a few new ones!), the lack of interest in any historical details in Paul suddenly seems much less unusual.

I'll pause here for a break and continue with analysing other early epistles not mentioned above in the next post.

[Clive]

Isn't the term "unusual" about why aren't there any references to a living Jesus? Isn't it a synonym for puzzling? So similar patterns in other writings - I thought there were more than your list - actually support Paul, not that Paul is unusual in comparison with those other writings - they are all members of a puzzling set.

Except it is only puzzling if you assume a historical kernel. If you start from the perspective of people writing about an angel and then inventing historical detail doesn't this all become predictable?

[GakuseiDon]

I'll start off with 1 Timothy (100-150 CE). Like Doherty in J:NGNM, Carrier wavers on whether this is a historicist text or not. The reason is one passage: 1 Tim. 6.13:

• I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession

Here are Carrier's comments on 1 Tim in OHJ:

• Page 538 (note 43)
  
  Even the gospel declared in 1 Timothy is odd: though the author of 1 Timothy may have been a historicist (as suggested, e.g., by 1 Tim. 6.13; although see note below), the gospel he summarizes (in 1 Tim. 3.16) looks pre-historicist in origin (see discussion in Chapter 8, §6).

1 Tim 3.16 -- Carrier's 'pre-historicist' gospel -- is:

• [16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

To continue:

• Page 566 (note 71)
  
  The opposite is said in 1 Tim. 6.13, which declares that Jesus 'testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate', thus claiming (supposedly) that the Romans killed him (and that, contrary to the Gospels, Jesus preached the gospel to Pilate). Although the Greek here could be read as saying only that Jesus 'testified to the good news in the time of Pontius Pilate'. However, 1 Timothy is a late forgery, and therefore useless as evidence-so what it may have meant here doesn't matter.

Note that there is also the following that Carrier doesn't address (unless I missed it somehow), which may or may not be pertinent: 1 Tim 1:15

• [15] This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

If you read through the epistle, "Jesus Christ" is mentioned 14 times. But there is nothing else about Jesus, nothing about the apostles. Nothing, as Carrier put it above, "about Galilee or Nazareth, Pilate (other than 6.13), Mary, Joseph, nothing about the miracles Jesus did nor details about Jesus' life".

The question is: Is this a historicist text? In that case, there would appear to be little difference between 'mythicist' ones and 'historicist' ones, in terms of lack of historical details. If the contents are so similar that we cannot decide without having just one clear reference, then it suggests our expectations about what the lack of historical details means in context of Paul need to be re-examined.

Next: The Epistle of Barnabas.

[GakuseiDon]

Carrier writes the following on the Epistle of Barnabas (my bolding below):

• Page 315, note 44
  
  44. The Epistle of Barnabas (which assumes the historicity of Jesus) could conceivably date around this same time, but it has not been any more precisely dated than 70-130 CE, and in my opinion it surely dates to the period 130-132 CE. Barnabas 1 6.4 says the Jewish temple was pulled down by their enemies and now the very servants of their enemies shall build it up' again, which can only refer to Hadrian's construction of a pagan temple over its ruins (dedicated to Jupiter, Father of the Gods, a frequently assumed parallel to Yahweh), since otherwise at no time were pagans ever rebuilding the Jewish temple'. Hadrian actually started planning this shortly before the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 (and in fact this plan was said to have caused that revolt: Cassius Dio, Roman History 69. 12), and then he built it as planned after the revolt was put down in 135 CE. Barnabas seems to know of the plan but not its completion or the rebellion in between, so he was most likely writing between 130 and 132. What few things Barnabas says about Jesus are rarely specific and never sourced anyway-its content thus can't be ascertained as having any source independent of the Gospels or Christian tradition influenced by the Gospels. It could reflect an early example of historicist theology, but as such it is no less expected on myth as on historicity and thus makes no difference to their consequents.

Like 1 Timothy, the Epistle is almost bare of historical details. There is just the one passage with details that shows it "assumes the historicity of Jesus": in Chapter 5. I've given the passage in its context:

• The prophets, having obtained grace from Him, prophesied concerning Him. And He (since it behoved Him to appear in flesh), that He might abolish death, and reveal the resurrection from the dead, endured [what and as He did], in order that He might fulfill the promise made unto the fathers, and by preparing a new people for Himself, might show, while He dwelt on earth, that He, when He has raised mankind, will also judge them. Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached [the truth] to him, and greatly loved him. But when He chose His own apostles who where to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding Him? Since looking upon the sun which is to cease to exist, and is the work of His hands, their eyes are not able to bear his rays. The Son of God therefore came in the flesh with this view, that He might bring to a head the sum of their sins who had persecuted His prophets to the death. For this purpose, then, He endured. For God saith, "The stroke of his flesh is from them;" and "when I shall smite the Shepherd, then the sheep of the flock shall be scattered." He himself willed thus to suffer, for it was necessary that He should suffer on the tree. For says he Who prophesies regarding Him, "Spare my soul from the sword, fasten my flesh with nails; for the assemblies of the wicked have risen up against me." And again he says, "Behold, I have given my back to scourges, and my cheeks to strokes, and I have set my countenance as a firm rock."

Again we see no mention of "Galilee or Nazareth, Pilate, Mary, Joseph", no mention even of Jerusalem. There is a vague description of "teachings" and "doing great miracles", but no specific details about Jesus' life. And when we do see details, they are quotes from the Old Testament.

I recommend reading through the Epistle and asking whether this matches the expectations about what we should see in early literature, such that the similar lack of details (other than one or two specific references) and focus on OT references to provide 'details' about Jesus in Paul is unexpected.

Next: The Epistle to Diognetus (but this will need to wait until tomorrow. Sleep time in the land of Oz!)

[Bertie]

Carrier either needs to add those Second Century apologists into his list of mythicist writings, remove them from consideration somehow (perhaps too late? Perhaps later writings and apologetics should be expected to NOT discuss a historical Jesus? But if so, why?) or he needs to reconsider our expectations on how unusual such writings lacking historicist details should be. The last option to me is the one that needs to be done. I believe his analysis is incomplete until he has examined those.

I don't have the page number at the moment, but he says that he uses a ~120 CE cutoff for texts that count as "evidence", justifying this (if I remember right) on decreasing likelyhood that there are still any independent authentic Jesus traditions past that point as well as the explosion in the number of texts as the second century progresses. That criteria is not unreasonable. (It might be a little convenient that this particular date lets him get in Luke-Acts even under Pervo's dating for that latter of those as well as the three Roman witnesses — people would cry foul if these were not analyzed — while barely excluding a few historicity-favoring texts like Barnabas, Quadratus, and Aristides; there's also the odd fact that he brings in the Talmud and Hegesippus as evidence without really justifying that).

Note, however, that this evidence cutoff does not just wipe away the excluded texts. They are background knowledge that can be used to interpret the evidence; for example, it would be a valid move to use supposed "silences" in the 2nd-Century texts (or the DSS or whatever) to interpret the silences in Paul.

(Of course, none of us are under any obligation to accept Carrier's ~120 CE cutoff for what gets analyzed as evidence. We can move the the bar all the way to, say, Justin Martyr if we want to, as long as we compute odds for everything older than that. And of course none of us are obligated to organize our reasoning quite like Carrier does at all).

[Clive]

Christ Jesus,

Why the reversal?

[Bernard Muller]

Given my own estimates (which are closer to what I think the odds actually are), the evidence of the Epistles is exactly 100% expected on minimal mythicism, and has a probability of only 6% on minimal historicity.

However, a few sentences before that, Carrier wrote:
"So on this account the evidence of the Epistles, as strange as it is, is still more likely on h than on 'h, by just over 3 to 1 (and thus about three times more likely if Jesus existed, than if he didn't)." (bolding mine)
Simply mind boggling

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

That's all simply bizarre. And bizarre means unexpected, which about means infrequent, which means improbable.

So Carrier finds the lack of interest in a historical Jesus ... as unexpected, infrequent and improbable.

Carrier is extrapolating there; pontificating.

He is saying that "Paul never [referencing] any event in Jesus' life as an example to follow (beyond the abstractions of love, endurance and submissiveness), and never places anything Jesus said in any earthly historical context whatever" is bizzare ie. unexpected.

Carrier is saying that implies a human Jesus was improbable; not 'the lack of interest' was infrequent or improbable, as your sentence implies.

"Never once is his baptism mentioned, or his ministry, or his trial, or any of his miracles, or any historical details about what he was like, what he did, or suffered, or where he was from, or where he had been, or what people he knew ... Paul never mentions Galilee or Nazareth, or Pilate or Mary or Joseph, or any miracles Jesus did or any miraculous powers he is supposed to have displayed... or anything about the life of Jesus not in the Gos­pels.

[Bernard Muller]

to Gakuseidon,
I think they are more allusions to the gospels (therefore to an earthly/human Jesus) in the epistle of Barnabas:
" ...It is likely "Barnabas" knew about bits & pieces of GMatthew, probably by mouth to ears or recollection from past readings. Let's review the evidence:
- Barnabas 7:3 "But moreover when crucified He had vinegar and gall given Him to drink ..."
Only in GMatthew, Jesus is given a mixture of vinegar and gall at his crucifixion:
Mt 27:34 "they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink."
Note: the gall is not necessary for the argument developed by "Barnabas" in 7:3-5.
- Barnabas 4:14 "as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen."
It appears "Barnabas" was confused about the origin of this citation, not appearing in the O.T. But in the N.T., it shows in GMatthew and only here:
Mt 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
Furthermore, the saying is typically Matthean, and about the treatment of undesirables:
Mt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven"
Also, the saying fits very well into the heavily "colored" all-Matthean ending (22:11-14) of the parable of the wedding banquet...

Other dependencies:
a) 'Barnabas' and GMatthew or GMark
- Barnabas 7:9 "... Is not this He, Whom once we crucified and set at nought and spat upon;"
Jesus is spat upon only in Mk 15:19 & Mt 27:30
- Barnabas 5:9 "He came not to call the righteous but sinners"
Mk 2:17 & Mt 9:13 "... I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners ..."
b) 'Barnabas' and the gospels (generally):
- Barnabas 5:8 "... He preached teaching Israel and performing so many wonders and miracles ... He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel"
- Barnabas 12:10-11 "... David himself prophesies ..."The Lord said to my Lord sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool." ... See how "David calls him Lord" and does not say Son."
This is very similar to:
Lk 20:41-44 "... How can they say that the Christ is the Son of David? Now David himself said ...: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."' Therefore David calls Him 'Lord'; how is He then his Son?" (see also Mk 12:35-37 and Mt 22:42-45)
- Barnabas 6:6 "What then saith the prophet again [about Jesus]? ... For My garment they cast a lot."
c) 'Barnabas' and GLuke?
Barnabas 15:8 "... the eighth day [Sunday] for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens."
This is according to GLuke (24).
d) 'Barnabas' and 'Acts':
Barnabas 7:2 "... the Son of God, who is Lord all things, and who will judge the living and the dead ..."
Ac 10:42 "He [Jesus] who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.""

I also think the dating is earlier than the one you proposed:
"Let's consider:
Barnabas 4:3-4 "The last offence is at hand, ... For to this end the Master has cut the seasons and the days short, that His beloved might hasten and come to His inheritance.
[the end" was expected soon, as also in 4:9 "... let us take heed in these last days ..." and 21:3 "The day is at hand ...". This is typical of 1st century Christian writings]
` ... Ten reigns shall reign upon the earth, and after them shall arise another king, who shall bring low three of the kings under one."
Do these ten and three kings make sense in a 1st century context?

The three kings might be the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian and sons Titus & Domitian). It was ended by the accession to the Roman throne by Nerva (96-98), the same day of Domitian's murder. Nerva may have been thought to be the king who brought low the previous threesome.
Also, in chapter 16, "Barnabas" attacked the inadequacy of any man-made God's temple, past or future: did some Jewish Christians (or/and Jews) think Nerva, not from the same family of the ones who destroyed it (Vespasian & Titus), would allow its rebuilding? It is probable:
Barnabas 16:1 "Moreover I will tell you likewise concerning the temple, how these wretched men being led astray set their hope on the building, and not on their God that made them, as being a house of God."
What about the other seven kings?
This series of kings, obviously Roman emperors (as the following four ones, Vespasian to Nerva), had just to make some sense in order to be believed as part of a fulfilled prophecy. Who are the candidates?
1) Julius Caesar (49-44)
2) Augustus (44-14)
3) Tiberius (14-37)
4) Caligula (37-41)
5) Claudius (41-54)
6) Nero (54-68)
7) Galba (Jun 68-Jan 69)
8) Otho (Jan 69-Apr 69)
9) Vitellius (Apr 69-Dec 69)
Out of these nine "kings", two of them never got to be emperor ("princeps"): Julius was dictator for life and Vitellius took only the title of consul for life.
Or one might keep Julius Caesar, the true founder of the imperial system, and remove Otho & Vitellius, the short-lived inept usurpers."

Cordially, Bernard

[GakuseiDon]

to Gakuseidon,
I think they are more allusions to the gospels (therefore to an earthly/human Jesus) in the epistle of Barnabas:
" ...It is likely "Barnabas" knew about bits & pieces of GMatthew, probably by mouth to ears or recollection from past readings. Let's review the evidence:
- Barnabas 7:3 "But moreover when crucified He had vinegar and gall given Him to drink ..."
<snipped>

Thanks Bernard. Yes, it seems definite that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas knew of Gospel-like material. This is why it is such a good example, as there is no mention of Galilee, Nazareth, Jerusalem, Golgotha, Pilate, Mary, Joseph, etc. I'll be analysing a few more epistles, and then I will wrap it up with my conclusion.

The one thing to point out is Carrier's comment that I highlighted above:

• What few things Barnabas says about Jesus are rarely specific and never sourced anyway-its content thus can't be ascertained as having any source independent of the Gospels or Christian tradition influenced by the Gospels. It could reflect an early example of historicist theology, but as such it is no less expected on myth as on historicity and thus makes no difference to their consequents.

So, having an epistle which says 'few things' and is 'rarely specific' about Jesus is 'no less expected on myth as on historicity'. Hmmm... I have these epistles by Paul...