Brodie vs Carrier on historicity of NT Paul

[Ulan]

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.

Sure. However, it doesn't touch the actual "Jesus Myth" part.

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.

While I agree on the part that early christian origins would have to be redefined, I don't see the JM theory touched in its core. Theories can survive the death of some of their elements. They just become more limited in what they explain. It doesn't really matter much if Paul was really Simon Magus or Marcion.

[maryhelena]

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.

Sure. However, it doesn't touch the actual "Jesus Myth" part.

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.

While I agree on the part that early christian origins would have to be redefined, I don't see the JM theory touched in its core. Theories can survive the death of some of their elements. They just become more limited in what they explain.

Indeed. That's what I already posted - without a historical Paul the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory is devalued, it is limited. Thus, re Carrier, it's probability would need to be lowered. A historical Paul adds value to the C/D theory. Once the added value is removed the C/D mythicist theory is diminished. What probability would one give to a theory about early christian origins that one has created from 'historical fiction'?

Without a historical NT Paul, Carrier cannot assign a high probability to the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory. Carrier's final score would need adjusting.

Richard Carrier: There is only about a 0% to 33% chance Jesus existed. Furthermore, given my analysis in Chapter 3, this means the probability that minimal mythicism is true is about 67% to 100% (and most likely nearer the high end of that range). Page 606

Carrier, in his book, says:

Unlike the minimal theory of historicity, however, what I have just said is not strictly entailed. If 'Jesus Christ' began as a celestial deity' is false, it could still be that he began as a political fiction, for example (as some scholars have indeed argued - the best examples being R.G. Price and Gary Courtney). But as will become clear in following chapters....such a premise has a much lower prior probability (and this is already at a huge disadvantage over Premise 1 even before we start examining the evidence) and a very low consequent probability (though it suits the Gospels well, it just isn't possible to explain the evidence of the Epistles this way, and the origin of Christianity itself becomes very hard to explain. Although I leave open the possibility it may yet be vindicated, I'm sure it very unlikely to be, and accordingly I will assume it's prior probability is too small even to show up in our maths. This decision can be reversed only by a sound and valid demonstration that we must assign it a higher prior or consequent, but I leave to anyone who thinks it's possible. Page 53/54

With the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory diminished without a historical NT Paul, other ahistoricist theories, such as political fiction, could well, Carrier notwithstanding, have their probability level raised...

[Bertie]

One difference between Doherty and Carrier is that Doherty constructs something of a theory of early Christianity, while Carrier really only cares whether Jesus exists. Because of this, Doherty's theory can be brought down by any number of things that only weakly affect Carrier. Paul isn't the only one of those things. If Farrer/Goulder/Goodacre are right about the Q document — and they have proved their case to my satisfaction — then that is enough to bring down Doherty's theory, since that theory relies on the Q document. Now, as Carrier observed in his reviews of Doherty, you can sort of mentally reconstruct Doherty's theory to be just a theory about whether Jesus existed.

A mild form of "Paul Mythicism" — in which the 6 or 7 "genuine" epistles are really just the same genre as what the mainstream considers the deutero-Paulines and Pastorals to be — is probably not hugely important to Carrier, because they all still reflect someone's earlyish opinion about Jesus, and Carrier can walk through the text and gauge its likelyhood on both minimal mythicism and minimal historicity the way he does every other text. He'd have less of a reason to consider only the 6 or 7 instead of all of them, but that's a mixed bag — Colossians and Ephesians contain some mythicist-friendly materials that Carrier only uses lightly in his current thesis (on the other hand, there's a historicist-friendly reference to Pilate somewhere in the Pastorals, I think). Likewise with theories about large numbers of interpolations — those interpolations are still someone's opinions about Jesus and still can be judged on minimal mythicism and historicity (I think the one Carrier argues out of the text fully is the bit about the Jews in 1 Thessalonians, although he footnotes one or two other possibilities that might help his case).

It would take a more radical form of "Paul Mythicism" to change the way Carrier uses the Paulines, one in which, say, they aren't in the genre that most people think they are in and that the writer's text cannot be taken more or less as his own opinions (except in those places where he's ascribing opinions to someone else, in which case it is a description of someone's opinions) but instead as, say, an allegory or myth, albeit one weirdly couched in epistolary form. There are "Paul Mythicists" who think that. It is a radical thesis, and not the only radical thesis Carrier doesn't attempt to work into his calculations (he explicitly rules out the Caesar theory and a few others I forgot, too). He is justified in doing this — his book is 600-700 pages and took him years to write as is and he has to bound his research somewhere.

[Charles Wilson]

Carrier disqualifies himself quite completely.

http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/2013/12/ ... at-gadara/

[Ulan]

Indeed. That's what I already posted - without a historical Paul the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory is devalued, it is limited. Thus, re Carrier, it's probability would need to be lowered.

Even if Carrier might have said that, this is not how things like this work. It didn't hurt the bulk of the SRT, when parts of it were falsified. You just have to look whether the rest stands on its own, which, in this case, would depend on the specifics of what exactly falsified the historical Paul.

What probability would one give to a theory about early christian origins that one has created from 'historical fiction'?

I know that this is your personal stumbling block, of which I have already said that it's mere assertion and has absolutely no merit, no matter how often you repeat it. Does it matter whether Herakles existed? Not at all.

With the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory diminished without a historical NT Paul, other ahistoricist theories, such as political fiction, could well, Carrier notwithstanding, have their probability level raised...

This, as I said, depends on the specifics. It then depends on what would replace the historical Paul. The theory might even end up stronger, who knows.

Just the usual disclaimer, in case you forgot: I find it easier to work from a minimal historicist position, but are not married to it.

[maryhelena]

Indeed. That's what I already posted - without a historical Paul the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory is devalued, it is limited. Thus, re Carrier, it's probability would need to be lowered.

Even if Carrier might have said that, this is not how things like this work. It didn't hurt the bulk of the SRT, when parts of it were falsified. You just have to look whether the rest stands on its own, which, in this case, would depend on the specifics of what exactly falsified the historical Paul.

Sure, while I reject the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory about the gospel Jesus figure being a historicizing of a Pauline celestial christ figure - I don't reject the 'heavenly' scenario itself. i.e. the Jerusalem above reflects the Jerusalem below. That part of the C/D theory I support - though with different interpretations of it.

What probability would one give to a theory about early christian origins that one has created from 'historical fiction'?

I know that this is your personal stumbling block, of which I have already said that it's mere assertion and has absolutely no merit, no matter how often you repeat it. Does it matter whether Herakles existed? Not at all.

"historical fiction' an assertion? Well, that's Brodie's thesis. A thesis that I'm running with to see where it goes...

With the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory diminished without a historical NT Paul, other ahistoricist theories, such as political fiction, could well, Carrier notwithstanding, have their probability level raised...

This, as I said, depends on the specifics. It then depends on what would replace the historical Paul. The theory might even end up stronger, who knows.

Just the usual disclaimer, in case you forgot: I find it easier to work from a minimal historicist position, but are not married to it.

Good - not married to a minimal historicist position....

As for myself - I've been married to the ahistoricist position for over 30 years....

[maryhelena]

One difference between Doherty and Carrier is that Doherty constructs something of a theory of early Christianity, while Carrier really only cares whether Jesus exists. Because of this, Doherty's theory can be brought down by any number of things that only weakly affect Carrier. Paul isn't the only one of those things. If Farrer/Goulder/Goodacre are right about the Q document — and they have proved their case to my satisfaction — then that is enough to bring down Doherty's theory, since that theory relies on the Q document. Now, as Carrier observed in his reviews of Doherty, you can sort of mentally reconstruct Doherty's theory to be just a theory about whether Jesus existed.

Agreed - re Q and Doherty's mythicist theory.

A mild form of "Paul Mythicism" — in which the 6 or 7 "genuine" epistles are really just the same genre as what the mainstream considers the deutero-Paulines and Pastorals to be — is probably not hugely important to Carrier, because they all still reflect someone's earlyish opinion about Jesus, and Carrier can walk through the text and gauge its likelyhood on both minimal mythicism and minimal historicity the way he does every other text. He'd have less of a reason to consider only the 6 or 7 instead of all of them, but that's a mixed bag — Colossians and Ephesians contain some mythicist-friendly materials that Carrier only uses lightly in his current thesis (on the other hand, there's a historicist-friendly reference to Pilate somewhere in the Pastorals, I think). Likewise with theories about large numbers of interpolations — those interpolations are still someone's opinions about Jesus and still can be judged on minimal mythicism and historicity (I think the one Carrier argues out of the text fully is the bit about the Jews in 1 Thessalonians, although he footnotes one or two other possibilities that might help his case).

It would take a more radical form of "Paul Mythicism" to change the way Carrier uses the Paulines, one in which, say, they aren't in the genre that most people think they are in and that the writer's text cannot be taken more or less as his own opinions (except in those places where he's ascribing opinions to someone else, in which case it is a description of someone's opinions) but instead as, say, an allegory or myth, albeit one weirdly couched in epistolary form. There are "Paul Mythicists" who think that. It is a radical thesis, and not the only radical thesis Carrier doesn't attempt to work into his calculations (he explicitly rules out the Caesar theory and a few others I forgot, too). He is justified in doing this — his book is 600-700 pages and took him years to write as is and he has to bound his research somewhere.

Sure, Carrier had to limit his book and can, of course, decide what he wants to debate. That does not stop the rest of us forging ahead....

[Ulan]

What probability would one give to a theory about early christian origins that one has created from 'historical fiction'?

I know that this is your personal stumbling block, of which I have already said that it's mere assertion and has absolutely no merit, no matter how often you repeat it. Does it matter whether Herakles existed? Not at all.

"historical fiction' an assertion? Well, that's Brodie's thesis. A thesis that I'm running with to see where it goes...

No, I meant the assertion that "historical fiction" would somehow have a lower probability attached to it than real history. It doesn't matter one iota if it's history, historical fiction or myth, if the addressee has no means to distinguish between these cases and has to swallow what the missionary tells him. After Jerusalem's destruction, it was basically free reign for storytellers of every color.

[maryhelena]

What probability would one give to a theory about early christian origins that one has created from 'historical fiction'?

I know that this is your personal stumbling block, of which I have already said that it's mere assertion and has absolutely no merit, no matter how often you repeat it. Does it matter whether Herakles existed? Not at all.

"historical fiction' an assertion? Well, that's Brodie's thesis. A thesis that I'm running with to see where it goes...

No, I meant the assertion that "historical fiction" would somehow have a lower probability attached to it than real history. It doesn't matter one iota if it's history, historical fiction or myth, if the addressee has no means to distinguish between these cases and has to swallow what the missionary tells him. After Jerusalem's destruction, it was basically free reign for storytellers of every color.

If one is searching for early christian origins, then it matters whether the Pauline epistles are 'historicized fiction' or history. If the epistles are history then the search is over. Christian origins are what the epistles say they are. If the epistles are 'historicized fiction' then there is a search for early christian origins. As both Doherty and Brodie admit.

That the epistles, and the gospels, have come to be read as history is irrelevant to the search for early christian origins.

[Ulan]

If one is searching for early christian origins, then it matters whether the Pauline epistles are 'historicized fiction' or history. If the epistles are history then the search is over. Christian origins are what the epistles say they are. If the epistles are 'historicized fiction' then there is a search for early christian origins. As both Doherty and Brodie admit.

Given the nature of the task, I would not worry too much about this point, as a firm establishment of an ahistorical Paul would most certainly only be possible by the answer to the "Whodunit?"

That the epistles, and the gospels, have come to be read as history is irrelevant to the search for early christian origins.

Agreed, and not really related to the question.