Detering on Carrier's criticism

[Giuseppe]

http://hypsiphrone.blogspot.it/2016/06/ ... gen_3.html

Irony of destiny, this is not Paul.



...but the pauline Mark.

[Ulan]

For people who don't read German: Detering rips Carrier, his uncalled-for pompousness and his sloppiness a new one. He says that Carrier is methodologically unsound in everything he writes. He also calls him ignorant of any NT scholarship outside of English language sources.

The main problem Detering sees with Carrier's writings is that the latter not only foregoes proper quotes of positions he criticizes, but that this lack of quotes just hides Carrier's general misunderstandings of the positions he criticizes. He is particularly livid about Carrier's claim that Detering or the Dutch Radicals had proposed that Paul did not exist. Which is untrue. He suggests that Carrier reads up on Pauline scholarship, to get at least some clue.

The hiccup with the pic is only a side show. The point that Carrier doesn't know traditional iconography is only a minor one.

Of course, Detering also argues actual content in that post.

[Giuseppe]

Obviously I do not mean to reduce the criticisms to only 'hiccup with the pic', but only to point out the irony.

I would criticize Dr Detering because he exceeds to the extreme opposite of Carrier: while the latter is very good in the synthesis of what he thinks is correct, up to now I have not yet figured out what scenario of Christian origins Detering would have in mind, once you assume his conclusion on the pauline epistles.

The second problem, assuming ''Paul'' in II CE, is that, until now, I see no solution about the strange situation of Marcion inventing both ''Paul'' (or at least Galatians) and the first (or one of the first) Gospel Jesus, and showing in the 'epistle' no knowledge of the latter.

And when Secret Alias suggests, with Stanley Porter, that Paul appears in Mark, I receive this answer from Carrier:

...
So this is just bullshit guised as history.

[DCHindley]

http://hypsiphrone.blogspot.it/2016/06/ ... gen_3.html

It's a shame the article is only available in German (unless I missed a link, as Deterring has some of his articles translated into English). Detering's style seems to not result in smooth English using Google Translate (other German writers result in much more readable translations, including some of the Marxist writers from the early 19th century that he values and maintains copies of their major works on one of his other sites).

But it was pretty clear he was being critical of Carrier. He concludes that Carrier may be an expert on the Greek "Natural Philosophers" (a general term for the kind of philosophy that preceded Plato and Socrates), but is not a historian of the figure of Paul, so his criticisms of Detering's positions about Paul lack force, and are factually in error.

I think Carrier may be enjoying his premium brands of Scotch a bit too much before posting on some subjects.

DCH

[outhouse]

But it was pretty clear he was being critical of Carrier. He concludes that Carrier may be an expert on the Greek "Natural Philosophers" (a general term for the kind of philosophy that preceded Plato and Socrates), but is not a historian of the figure of Paul, so his criticisms of Detering's positions about Paul lack force, and are factually in error.

I think Carrier may be enjoying his premium brands of Scotch a bit too much before posting on some subjects.

DCH

Agreed.

Mirrors what I have stated all along. His education lies in Roman cultures more so then a biblical education, and for me its why his hypothesis are so weak and why they gained no momentum in any credible application.

[neilgodfrey]

I understand Rene Salm is currently translating Hermann Detering's article and will post it soon on his mythicist papers site.

[Ulan]

But it was pretty clear he was being critical of Carrier. He concludes that Carrier may be an expert on the Greek "Natural Philosophers" (a general term for the kind of philosophy that preceded Plato and Socrates), but is not a historian of the figure of Paul, so his criticisms of Detering's positions about Paul lack force, and are factually in error.

That was more or less in reaction to Carrier questioning Detering's qualifications. Detering graduated on the topic of Paul, and he made his Ph.D. under one of the more prolific German NT scholars, Walter Schmithals.

He basically caught Carrier with that strategy we know from people like Ehrman, Casey and others: Why spend effort on arguing your point if a simple ad hominem regarding the opponent's qualification does the trick? Just that, in this case, it spectacularly backfired.

Not that I'm on board with Detering's ideas. Just dismissing them as "crazy" won't suffice though.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

My impression is that Detering's reservations about Carrier still have another specific reason.

Detering presented his own opinion always as part of a long scientific tradition (radical criticism) and respected all other mythicists, although he did not fully shared their views. One of his intentions was always to support the movement.

[Ulan]

The discourse has certainly suffered. Schmithals also had lots of not exactly mainstream ideas, as he was questioning the wisdom behind "common wisdom", but he was generally respected among NT scholars, particularly for his knowledge of history of NT scholarship, where old ideas are constantly "rediscovered" time and again. Compared to that, the exchanges have become quite caustic nowadays.

[Solo]

Not that I'm on board with Detering's ideas. Just dismissing them as "crazy" won't suffice though.

Well, yes. On substance, I think Carrier is right. The Radical Dutch theorists whom Detering has tried to resurrect do give the impression of skepticism taken to the extreme. I am extremely doubtful he would have won over his mentor, Walter Schimthals who was one of the leading Pauline scholars of his time. (After all, it was Schmithals who persuaded G.A. Wells to abandon his 'mythicist' theory).

But Richard Carrier has a way to damage his own case by gratuitous personal attacks. One gets the impression he believes that because he is smart everyone else must be stupid.

Best,
Jiri