Brodie vs Carrier on historicity of NT Paul

[Blood]

There is this pervasive idea that ancient theologians can invent stories about Jesus or Paul, but they cannot invent Jesus or Paul. Which is illogical. The human imagination is quite capable of inventing people, prophets and gods, and the religious imagination positively requires it.

There's nothing "sophisticated" here. It's just a bunch of monks scribbling their religious fantasies on papyri.

Why would they invent Paul, and at the same time create a writer whose 'Jesus' does not match the Gospel figure, if they had become monks on account of reading the Gospels, or hearing them preached (presumably)? What was the story that made them 'monks' in the first place?

Why expect logic from ancient theologians?

[RecoveringScot]

There is this pervasive idea that ancient theologians can invent stories about Jesus or Paul, but they cannot invent Jesus or Paul. Which is illogical. The human imagination is quite capable of inventing people, prophets and gods, and the religious imagination positively requires it.

There's nothing "sophisticated" here. It's just a bunch of monks scribbling their religious fantasies on papyri.

Why would they invent Paul, and at the same time create a writer whose 'Jesus' does not match the Gospel figure, if they had become monks on account of reading the Gospels, or hearing them preached (presumably)? What was the story that made them 'monks' in the first place?

Why expect logic from ancient theologians?

Yet you used the word 'illogical' to rule out the idea that they could not have invented Paul. Make up your mind. To say that they could have invented Paul is assertion without evidence. What logical reason would they have had to do so? You have converted an idea that not to have been able to invent Paul is 'illogical' into a claim that that's in fact what they did. Why?

[Blood]

It's in the Bible so it must be true somehow. That's what this argument boils down to.

[RecoveringScot]

It's in the Bible so it must be true somehow. That's what this argument boils down to.

Dodging the point. Merely reversing that argument is no good either.

In all cases that I know of when documents have been forged, or legendary figures created (Protocols of Zion, William Tell) the forgery or wishful thinking is always favourable to the cause espoused by the creator. Why would theologians deliberately create a figure who did not represent their own views simpliciter, like all propagandists tend to do, and then argue against him (by the way risking the consequence that their readers might actually sympathise with the creator's opponent against the creator's intentions)? It doesn't ring true to me.

[outhouse]

It's in the Bible so it must be true somehow. That's what this argument boils down to.

Who uses that sort of methodology in any credible scholarship?

No one. Poor strawman.

[outhouse]

It's in the Bible so it must be true somehow. That's what this argument boils down to.

Dodging the point. Merely reversing that argument is no good either.

In all cases that I know of when documents have been forged, or legendary figures created (Protocols of Zion, William Tell) the forgery or wishful thinking is always favourable to the cause espoused by the creator. Why would theologians deliberately create a figure who did not represent their own views simpliciter, like all propagandists tend to do, and then argue against him (by the way risking the consequence that their readers might actually sympathise with the creator's opponent against the creator's intentions)? It doesn't ring true to me.

Agreed.


Its just ignorance regarding the 7 levels of authenticity.

[outhouse]

Why expect logic from ancient theologians?

Yes, and with study we see their logic. It is not our logic, and the context is obvious.

[robert j]

There is a yawning chasm between the quotation found at the bottom of the posts, and the all too often unsubstantiated assertions posted.

[Blood]

It's in the Bible so it must be true somehow. That's what this argument boils down to.

Dodging the point. Merely reversing that argument is no good either.

In all cases that I know of when documents have been forged, or legendary figures created (Protocols of Zion, William Tell) the forgery or wishful thinking is always favourable to the cause espoused by the creator. Why would theologians deliberately create a figure who did not represent their own views simpliciter, like all propagandists tend to do, and then argue against him (by the way risking the consequence that their readers might actually sympathise with the creator's opponent against the creator's intentions)? It doesn't ring true to me.

We must assume the figure did represent the views of the author/group it was intended for. That audience was not the group that later canonized the NT.

[Blood]

People who are have absolute convictions of the correctness of their beliefs and preferences will not be dissuaded by logical argument. The arguments that I have seen for the fictitious character of Paul do not appreciate the myriad of difficulties with this position. While there is indeed a possibility that Jesus did not exist at all and a strong likelihood that the historical trace of him is mostly or completely a literary fiction, the case for Christians inventing Paul is hard to fathom.

Agreed.

With a conspiracy mentality, one can deduce all evidence to the inane.


These people were not that sophisticated, and thus we have a high degree of certainty knowing their social patterns that gives these writings a backdrop to reflect upon.

What makes looking for a mythical Paul as supreme idiocy, is the lack of a replacement hypothesis for the epistles in which we see the same writing style in rhetoric and theology, that addresses a certain period in time.


It amazes me people are that bored to try and dig through ideas that have been put to the garbage heap, for a long time, what I see is ignorance the whole study overall.


Take a class pick up a book.

Don't question Paul! Only an idiot would do so. I've heard this all before. Obviously if I found it convincing I wouldn't keep posting on it.

It amazes me that people are that willing to accept any narrative that the Bible throws out there because "why would anyone make it up."