Brodie vs Carrier on historicity of NT Paul

[Blood]

Now, if we could analyze the language of the so-called "authentic" epistles and conclude that certain letters or portions are out of character, we might be getting somewhere. Without that type of study or some alternate literary analysis, we have largely guesswork and hypothesizing. As it stands, we do have a body of work from someone seemingly writing before the fall of the second temple whose style and personality have been closely scrutinized by many trained scholars of all dispositions.

The crux of the issue is that fact that we have canonical letters that are not "authentic." That is a very big problem, one that the theologians are not prepared to come to terms with. So, the early church were quite happy to forge letters in the name of "Paul," and include incidental details and personal notes just like the supposedly real "Paul" does in the other letters. The question immediately arises, "How can we tell the real ones from the fake ones?" The fact is, we cannot. We can simply compare the vocabulary and say, seven appear to be written by the same person, two by another person, etc. "Authenticity" is therefore the wrong construction.

[steve43]

You assert that some canonical letters are not authentic, but then go on to say that we can't tell the difference between the real ones and the fake ones.

See a problem here?

[perseusomega9]

Not if you read the rest of his paragraph

[Bertie]

More links from Doherty on the 2nd Century Paul theory:
http://vridar.org/2011/04/06/reasons-to ... more-18765
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset25.htm#Dmitry
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset27.htm#Philip
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset24.htm#Raymond

For those reasons and more I think a 2nd Century authorship for the Paul epistles is highly, highly unlikely. It also has the wiff of unfalsifiable conspiracy theory about it.

I think 1st Century "Paul Mythicism" theories like the one Mr. Parvus is developing on the Vridar site as well as Mr. Huller's developing theory have more to recommend them — you get to bring in your Simon Magus explanations or your Marcion explanations for this or that Pauline passage without leaving behind the vast swaths of Pauline material that fits poorly in the 2nd Century as well as the other problems with 2nd Century dating them.

[maryhelena]

Is Paul a Fictitious Person?

Earl Doherty: If strong doubts could be cast on the existence of Paul, we would have to completely recast our picture of earliest Christianity, perhaps even more so than in the context of a non-historical Jesus.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset23.htm#Brian

And that includes the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory......supporters of which don't seem to want to be on the front line of the 'assault' upon the NT Paul....Strange, if Paul, re the Carrier-Doherty mythicst theory, is the source from which the gospel Jesus figure sprung (ie. that theory holds to the gospel Jesus figure being a historicizing of a Pauline celestial christ figure) - then, surely, they would want to get their theory on as firm a historical footing as possible? If that theory cannot establish the historicity of the NT Paul - then, is that theory just as much assumption and speculation as is the historicists Jesus theory?

Richard Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus. Page 53

1. At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
2. Like other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).
3. Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
4. As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
5.Subsequent communities of worshippers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

[steve43]

Not if you read the rest of his paragraph

Why bother if he admits that you can't tell the difference between fake and real?

[Ulan]

If that theory cannot establish the historicity of the NT Paul - then, is that theory just as much assumption and speculation as is the historicists Jesus theory?

I think your two half-sentences are not logically connected. Is the theory assumption and speculation? Sure, as it's built mostly on judgment calls. They are relatively good judgment calls though, as they identify differences in our canonical texts and explain them quite well. This branch of the JM theory isn't really in danger of dying any time soon, as I don't see any historicist having an easy time at falsifying it. We already look at a couple of quite miserable failures to do so.

Whether Paul was historical or not doesn't matter much. The text exists, and even though having been altered, there's still those elements that fit the theory nicely. It doesn't really matter who wrote that. For the theory at least.

[maryhelena]

If that theory cannot establish the historicity of the NT Paul - then, is that theory just as much assumption and speculation as is the historicists Jesus theory?

I think your two half-sentences are not logically connected. Is the theory assumption and speculation? Sure, as it's built mostly on judgment calls. They are relatively good judgment calls though, as they identify differences in our canonical texts and explain them quite well. This branch of the JM theory isn't really in danger of dying any time soon, as I don't see any historicist having an easy time at falsifying it. We already look at a couple of quite miserable failures to do so.

Whether Paul was historical or not doesn't matter much. The text exists, and even though having been altered, there's still those elements that fit the theory nicely. It doesn't really matter who wrote that. For the theory at least.

Indeed the texts exist. The question is whether the NT figure of Paul is historical. Does it matter for the Carrier-Doherty theory whether the NT Paul existed or not? I just quoted Doherty....

Earl Doherty: If strong doubts could be cast on the existence of Paul, we would have to completely recast our picture of earliest Christianity, perhaps even more so than in the context of a non-historical Jesus.

Thomas Brodie:
3. Christianity 's Immediate Background:
Judaism-Diverse and Dispersed

Page 177

Christianity emerged from Judaism, but if Jesus and Paul are essentially
literary or symbolic rather than historical, it is not clear how that emergence
happened. One thing is certain: all had not been well within Judaism. In particular,
the centre was in trouble. The organizational core of the priesthood,
namely the high priesthood, had become meshed in the worldly Hasmonean
dynasty-often one of the roughest games in town.

Once the NT Paul is deemed to be ahistorical and the NT viewed as 'historicized fiction', the conventional scenario of early christian origins, either the Carrier-Doherty version or the Jesus historicists version, is off the table. As long as the NT figure of Paul is viewed as historical, research into early christian origins is roadblocked.

[maryhelena]

Do Brodie or Carrier say anything about Eusebius' claim that Jesus actually wrote in Syriac and that the letter was produced from an inspection of the archives in the 4th century?

Brodie only mentions Eusebius in a footnote dealing with Papias - and within a chapter dealing with Ehrman' s Did Jesus Exist book. Don't know about Carrier.

What sanctions has Brodie copped as a result of his questioning the "literary function" of the canonical literature?

Don't know except what you posted from Wikipedia.

[perseusomega9]

Not if you read the rest of his paragraph

Why bother if he admits that you can't tell the difference between fake and real?