Historicity of Paul, apostle and letter-writer

[Aleph One]

I have a lot of respect for Carrier and his recent impact on the discussions around biblical studies, but I agree with MrMacSon, PK, Blood, etc. here: The reasoning he puts forth here seems particularly faulty. As Blood and others pointed out, the fact that people forged letters in Paul's name in NO way automatically means there was an original, historical Paul that wrote first. As Peter illustrated with his 4+ alternative possibilities, the conclusion's just absurd.

FWIW, I think the most significant implication of all this discussion (re: carrier) is not whether there was some man named 'Paul,' who was a gentile-focused apostle in the mid 50's CE, who wrote these letters, but rather whether or not the corpus really dates to that early period, before any of the gospels were in existence. It's this early dating of the letters, and their indication of a HIGH christology at Christianity's beginnings that is so important to his historicity-of-Christ arguments generally.

And to that point (the letters' dating, regardless of authorship/authenticity), I found his comments on which issues the letters address to be the most important. Basically, he says, the topics and contentions focused on in the letters are clearly those of the 50's, not the 150's. And if the letters WERE forged, they were definitely not forged in the second century because none of that era's concerns are addressed by them. THAT I consider to be a compelling argument (IF you could 'prove' that the topics and modes-of-thought belong strictly to the first century, in the first place), but it's not exactly what's being debated here.

As a side note, in connection with PK's stylometric analysis of Paul's epistles: Did you try putting known Pauline forgeries like 3Cor (or the letter to Seneca) into the mix to see how they get assessed? Are there any other famous Pauline forgeries which are extant?

[MrMacSon]

And to that point (the letters' dating, regardless of authorship/authenticity), I found his comments on which issues the letters address to be the most important. Basically, he says, the topics and contentions focused on in the letters are clearly those of the 50's, not the 150's. And if the letters WERE forged, they were definitely not forged in the second century because none of that era's concerns are addressed by them.

" .. that era's concerns .." - you mean none of the 2nd century's 'concerns' are addressed by those letters?

re

THAT I consider to be a compelling argument (IF you could 'prove' that the topics and modes-of-thought belong strictly to the first century, in the first place), but it's not exactly what's being debated here.

I don't follow what you mean "IF you could 'prove' that the topics and modes-of-thought belong strictly to the first century"

[MrMacSon]

Vincent Guilbaud says
June 10, 2015 at 8:39 pm
Hi Richard,
This message is not about the historicity of Paul, but an anachronism I thought you were talking about in: “Is Paul the Persecutor an Anachronism?”
Paul’s Timeline:

• * Paul persecute “Christians”
  * 33-36 Damascus (conversion)
  * 3 years in Arabia & Damascus (before 40, Aretas death)
  * 36-39 Jerusalem (Peter/James)
  * 14 years in Syria, Cilicia…
  * 50-53 Jerusalem (James/Cephas/John)
  * Antioch (confronts Peter)
  * 55 Write Galatians

How can Paul or anyone else could have persecuted “Christians” so early and far away?

How can he have even heard about it (let alone convert) around Damascus at that time?

Moreover, the amazing speed of Christianity’s spread all over the eastern part of the roman empire by a handful of poor ignorant & illiterate fishermen is just too dubious. Paul writes to communities that already exist! This is an important argument in Doherty’s book that I have not found in yours, although OTHOJ is an outstanding achievement.

June 10, 2015 at 11:57 pm
I don’t understand the question. Damascus isn’t far. It’s adjacent to Galilee. And on the main land trade route north from Judea. Missionaries could have been working that region within months of their inspiration (e.g. within a year of “first revelation” as described in 1 Cor. 15).

Study how religions spread (e.g. Mormonism). It doesn’t work as slowly as you think. Unless you are measuring by growth in adherents rather than growth in communities (not the same thing).

And remember the Gospels are theological bullshit. So they cannot be used to date the origin of Christianity. (As we know from the Babylonian Christians writing gospels placing Jesus a hundred years earlier: OHJ, ch. 8.1.)

I think Vincent's point about Paul persecuting communities in various locations, so early, is relevant and raises questions, as does the point that

• "Paul writes to communities that already exist!"

Also Carrier's points that

• "the Gospels are theological bullshit. So they cannot be used to date the origin of Christianity"; and
  
  "Babylonian Christians writing gospels [placed] Jesus a hundred years earlier" OHJ, ch. 8.1.

are interesting. If there was a *Christian tradition BC/BCE* the likelihood that a Paul was writing to and activating against a widespread 'Christian' tradition in the early-mid 1st century increases.

But it raises questions eg.

• What was that Christian tradition?
• How does such a tradition compare to the one that that eventuated later?
• How did such a tradition contribute to the writings of early Church Fathers? and
• Where did some of these early traditions develop?

[Peter Kirby]

As a side note, in connection with PK's stylometric analysis of Paul's epistles: Did you try putting known Pauline forgeries like 3Cor (or the letter to Seneca) into the mix to see how they get assessed? Are there any other famous Pauline forgeries which are extant?

I did assess Hebrews; it doesn't have the same style as the NT letters attributed to Paul.

I didn't do anything with 3 Corinthians.

Doing something with the correspondence with Seneca may be difficult, if (as I am led to understand) they are extant only in Latin.

[maryhelena]

<snip>

FWIW, I think the most significant implication of all this discussion (re: carrier) is not whether there was some man named 'Paul,' who was a gentile-focused apostle in the mid 50's CE, who wrote these letters, but rather whether or not the corpus really dates to that early period, before any of the gospels were in existence. It's this early dating of the letters, and their indication of a HIGH christology at Christianity's beginnings that is so important to his historicity-of-Christ arguments generally.

<snip>

The early or late dating debate of the Pauline epistles can be addressed by the argument that Paul was a literary not a historical figure. Simply put - viewing Paul as a composite literary figure (as can be discerned with the gospel Jesus figure) there are early Pauline writings and later Pauline writings. In other words, an early and a late Paul figure. Two historical figures relevant to early christianity that have been fused together to create the NT literary figure of Paul.

I'll post here from the FRDB forum archive:

Post #64 from The case for interpolation in 1 Cor 15 from PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley,

This is a brilliant analysis. It is easy to see when we separate the two streams that we are getting two completely different ideas or voices. We either have to believe that the writer was schizophrenic or a later writer did the interpolation you found.

My major disagreement is with 14B, it has to go with the second voice because its "in vain" matches 10A's in vain" Also 9 and 10B belong with the whiny interpolator

Here is voice one quite logical:

RSV 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved [in the day the promises are at last delivered to Abraham's children by God], if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. 3a For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12b [H]ow can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13a But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15a We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we (so) testified of God
15c if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16a For if the dead are not raised,
17b your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
18a Then those also who have fallen asleep
18c have perished.
19a If for this life only we have hoped
19c we are of all men most to be pitied.

Here is Voice Two almost screaming:

3b that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God
10b On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me
10a But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.
12a Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead,
13b then Christ has not been raised; 14a if Christ has not been raised,
14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15b that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise
16b then Christ has not been raised,
17a If Christ has not been raised.
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Voice Two additions,

18b in Christ
19b in Christ,

Basically, when you take out all the sentences talking about Christ, you get a much more coherent and clearly Jewish dialogue. This simply would not happen if the material was organic to the first voice. It would become incoherent gibberish. Try reading an article about President Obama's policies and take out every sentence with Obama in it. The article becomes incoherent. The same thing should happen in this case. It doesn't. Thus proving that the Christ interpolation theory is most probably correct.

Two voices can be discerned from the l Cor.15 passage. One voice talks of resurrection without any mention of the Christ figure. The second voice is basing a resurrection philosophy/theology on a Christ figure. ie that is one big shift of focus. From resurrection as a general theology/philosophy to one centered on the Christ figure. That suggests that there are two traditions, two voices, in this passage. An earlier and a later voice.

What this would suggest is that the early Paul writer wrote prior to the canonical gospels. The canonical gospels followed (with the caveat that the Jesus story is older than the canonical gospels) followed by the later Pauline writer.

For mythicists like Carrier the issue would then become whether it is from the early or the late Pauline writings that a celestial christ figure can be discerned. If the celestial christ figure is primarily a concept of the later Pauline writings then the Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory is in trouble.

It's always good, when considering the NT figure of Paul, to keep in mind this chart from Richard Pervo.

Paul as a reboot of the Passion Narrative of the gospel Jesus.


Table 6.1: Jesus and Paul: Some Examples (Page 107) The Mystery of Acts: Richard Pervo

[/tr] [td]A. Sanhedrin: Luke 22:66-71[/td] [td]A. Sanhedrin: Acts 22:30-23:10[/td] [/tr] [td]Centurian: Luke 23:47[/td] [td]Agrippa: Acts 26:31[/td] [/tr]

Jesus	Paul
1. "Passion Predictions"	1."Passion Predictions"
Luke 9:22	Acts 20:23-25
Luke 9:34	Acts 21:4
Luke 18:31	Acts 21:11-13
2. Farewell Address	2. Farewell Address
Luke 22:14-38	Acts 20:17-35
3. Resurrection: Sadducees Oppose	3. Resurrection: Sadducees Oppose
Luke 20:27-39	Acts 23:6-10
4. Staff of High Priest Slap Jesus	4. Staff of High Priest Slap Paul
Luke 22:63-64	Acts 23:1-2
5. Four "Trials" of Jesus	5. Four "Trials" of Paul
B. Roman Governor (Pilate) Luke 23:1-5	B. Roman Governor (Felix) 24:1-22
C. Herodian King (Antipas) Luke 23:6-12	C. Herodian King (Agrippa) 26
D. Roman Governor (Pilate) Luke 23:13-25	D. Roman Governor (Festus) 25:6-12
6. Declarations of Innocence	6. Declarations of Innocence
Pilate: Luke 23:14 (cf.23:4,22)	Lysias (Tribune) Acts 23:29
Herod: Luke 23:14	Festus: Acts 25:25
7. Mob Demands Execution	7. Mob Demands Execution
Luke 23:18	Acts 22:22

[MrMacSon]

What this would suggest is that the early Paul writer wrote prior to the canonical gospels. The canonical gospels followed (with the caveat that the Jesus story is older than the canonical gospels) followed by the later Pauline writer.

For mythicists like Carrier the issue would then become whether it is from the early or the late Pauline writings that a celestial Christ figure can be discerned.

Carrier made an interesting point in a relpy to a comment to the blog-post of hist that this thread is about -

Matthew is an anti-Pauline text. It is specifically written (redacting the pro-Paul Mark) to attack and denounce him and his views, by putting those denunciations retroactively into the mouth of Jesus. Mt. 5:19 is a perfect example of that (a clear and direct attack on Paul’s gospel).

[Aleph One]

" .. that era's concerns .." - you mean none of the 2nd century's 'concerns' are addressed by those letters?

I don't follow what you mean "IF you could 'prove' that the topics and modes-of-thought belong strictly to the first century"

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was alluding the possibility that the Pauline letters are forgeries from the time of Marcion ~130CE, because he was known to be one of their first proponents, and that's the first time they, and the Paul acts would suppose, really show up in the historical record. (Maybe earlier, but much later than mid-first century.)

Carrier was saying in his post on Paul that there's no way the letters (short interpolations NOTwithstanding) originate from that second century, because they address precisely the hotly-debated christian issues of the infant church in the 50s, and not-at-all the topics that were up for grabs, and most important, many decades later in the second century. He's saying that those kinds of forgeries, that purport to be written long ago by someone great, always betray themselves, and reveal their true intention, by 'magically' addressing the current issues of the readers own time, not the REAL issues that were in contention in their 'own' time. For example Mark addressing the destruction of the temple, or Daniel addressing not the Babylonian, but the Maccabean period.

I'm probably exaggerating to make the point here, but Carrier says the letters speak to mid-first century issues, and, since they wouldn't be of any help for the christian debates of later eras, there's no incentive for later christians to forge them, so the probability of them being genuine goes up accordingly.

The first thing you quoted was just me trying to make it clear that I'm_not_defending Carrier's dating of the letters to the 50's CE, just saying that IF YOU COULD, then I agree that the chances they are genuine would be higher.

[MrMacSon]

Cheers, Aleph One. That's interesting, for your explanation *and* for the elaboration. Thank you.

[Blood]

" .. that era's concerns .." - you mean none of the 2nd century's 'concerns' are addressed by those letters?

I don't follow what you mean "IF you could 'prove' that the topics and modes-of-thought belong strictly to the first century"

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was alluding the possibility that the Pauline letters are forgeries from the time of Marcion ~130CE, because he was known to be one of their first proponents, and that's the first time they, and the Paul acts would suppose, really show up in the historical record. (Maybe earlier, but much later than mid-first century.)

Carrier was saying in his post on Paul that there's no way the letters (short interpolations NOTwithstanding) originate from that second century, because they address precisely the hotly-debated christian issues of the infant church in the 50s, and not-at-all the topics that were up for grabs, and most important, many decades later in the second century. He's saying that those kinds of forgeries, that purport to be written long ago by someone great, always betray themselves, and reveal their true intention, by 'magically' addressing the current issues of the readers own time, not the REAL issues that were in contention in their 'own' time. For example Mark addressing the destruction of the temple, or Daniel addressing not the Babylonian, but the Maccabean period.

I'm probably exaggerating to make the point here, but Carrier says the letters speak to mid-first century issues, and, since they wouldn't be of any help for the christian debates of later eras, there's no incentive for later christians to forge them, so the probability of them being genuine goes up accordingly.

"Acts of the Apostles" also speaks to mid-first century issues, and since it doesn't mention the fall of the temple, using Carrier's own logic, it also must date no later than the 60s (as E. Earle Ellis and other scholars have argued). Why would anybody writing after 70 not mention that pivotal event?

See how easy apologetics is?

[MrMacSon]

See how easy apologetics is?

I was just re-reading [urlhttp://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7643]Carrier's blog-post[/url] - "The Historicity of Paul the Apostle" -

Argument from Silence
... Doesn’t the fact that no one seems to mention him for almost a century seem odd? No. To be valid an AfS requires the actual expectation of mentions (Proving History, index, “Argument from Silence”). But between 30 A.D. and 150 A.D. there are no documents (none whatsoever) that would likely have mentioned Paul, except those that would—and they do!

In fact, there are almost zero documents, period. The history of the Christian Church before 150 A.D. has been scrubbed almost entirely clean. Tons of documentation and books that would have existed, were destroyed (OHJ, Chapter 8.4). All we have left is what’s in the canon, and a few stragglers beyond. Among those stragglers, several do in fact mention Paul. The letter of 1 Clement attests to Paul’s existence (and his body of letters)—and is ignorant of later legends placing Paul’s death in Rome; Clement places it in Spain. That letter is traditionally dated to the 90s A.D. Although I and some other scholars concur the evidence actually places it before the year 66 (OHJ, Chapters 7.6 and 8.5). And the Ignatian epistles attest to Paul’s existence (and his body of letters). Those are traditionally dated to the 110s A.D. Although I and several other scholars concur the evidence actually places them decades later (OHJ, Chapter 8.6).
. . . < snip > . . .
So there is no sound argument from silence against the historicity of Paul. Any document we would expect to mention him either does mention him, or no longer exists (and therefore can’t be checked).

Interesting he thinks the Ignatian epistles were written decades after when Ignatius is supposed to have died.

He goes on to talk about the Gospel of Mark re Paul

there is no point in it [Mark] where a mention of Paul would be expected. But it does defend the version of Christianity that in his letters Paul says he invented. Yet Paul’s letters show no awareness of any of the stories told in Mark (apart from too vaguely to match the specifics introduced by Mark, e.g. OHJ, Chapter 11.7). The best explanation of that fact is that Paul’s letters precede Mark.