Brodie vs Carrier on historicity of NT Paul

[MrMacSon]

Carrier is under no obligation to do the work of "Paul Mythicists" for them. He has to bound his original research somewhere and at some point stand upon established scholarship somewhere if he was to have any chance of actually completing his work. All scholars have to do this.

"Paul Mythicism" needs to do what Doherty and Carrier have done — write some long (600+ page, massively footnoted) tomes fully developing their thesis, focusing on the strongest, most necessary arguments, foreseeing objections and preemptively countering them, and considering all the evidence, not just the few bits that look really good under your thesis.

I can see your point re Carrier focusing on his 'main game' - his main hypothesis - in cementing Doherty's thesis, but in doing so Carrier has been quite closed to scholarship on the historicity of Paul.

The points you make in your post on Bayesian Historicity - Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:00 pm - on *background information* is pertinent; as is the quote from Carrier on p128 On the Historicity of Jesus about limiting information to 120 CE or earlier; Carrier has limited his arguments on several fronts.

Like Jesus-Mythicism up 'til now, 'Paul-Mythicism' is not new; though it has obviously been a somewhat a minority position in "biblical scholarship". It doesn't need a full discussion, including arguments/cases for and against.

[robert j]

Bertie wrote,

"Paul Mythicism" needs to do what Doherty and Carrier have done — write some long (600+ page, massively footnoted) tomes fully developing their thesis, focusing on the strongest, most necessary arguments, foreseeing objections and preemptively countering them, and considering all the evidence, not just the few bits that look really good under your thesis.

Robert Price attempted to accomplish that in his 2012 book, The Amazing Colossal Apostle --- The Search for the Historical Paul --- all 561 pages.

Hermann Detering is perhaps the most well-known modern proponent of the Dutch Radical theories on Paul. In the Introduction Price wrote,

… I began to look into the neglected work of the Dutch Radical critics who denied that the historical Paul had written any of the letters ascribed to him. (p. xii).

The deeper I penetrated into the work of the Dutch Radicals and other critics, the more humbled I have become in finding the inevitable; what I thought were new insights I had found were discoveries already elaborated on by the old critics.” (p. xiii).

In terms of a connection between an “historical” Simon Magus and a nebulous Paul, as well as the authorship of the Pauline epistles, Price draws only minor difference with Detering (p. 533-534).

Even though I disagree with a great many of Price’s conclusions, I believe the book is a valuable read, and contains some useful reviews on the state of scholarship in some areas.

That said, I believe Price’s book is a flawed work. And in my opinion, Price presents an extended, tortuous, Eisenman-esque solution that amounts to a house of cards --- a solution that provides far inferior explanatory power compared to the existence of a mid-first century evangelist, an historical Paul who wrote a handful of letters to Gentile congregations that he had founded.

robert j.

[maryhelena]

.
Likewise - perhaps a non-historical Paul calls into question the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory? A non-historical Paul could well be a game changer......

I'm not sure it would be a game-changer re Carrier's current proposals re the historicity of Jesus, other than a non-historical Paul adding weight to the charge the whole bible is legend-myth-fiction. To elaborate that point: the 'Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory' is still based on the Pauline texts being about a celestial being, ...

If, as Brodie suggests, "the epistles are historicized fiction", then they cannot be used as 'evidence' against the historicists assumption of a historical Jesus i.e. what the NT Paul says is fiction. The Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory requires a historical Paul in order for his words to have any relevance, any value - as a counter argument against the Jesus historicists.

The then early-Christian community/ies (or Jewish-Christian or whatever communities), or their theological leaders primarily, espoused the narratives; so, the source of the narratives is somewhat moot. Whether it was a Paul or others probably doesn't matter ie. the Pauline narrative about Jesus is part of a wider 'gnostic' [docetic] theme, at the time, of salvation by celestial 'angelic' beings (??)

The Pauline narrative is viewed as 'truth', as real, by the Carrier-Doherty theory. If Paul is not historical that narrative loses it's value as evidence, as argument, against a historical Jesus. One can't use a story as an argument against a historical claim.

[MrMacSon]

.
If, ... "the epistles are historicized fiction", then they cannot be used as 'evidence' against the historicists assumption of a historical Jesus ie. what the NT Paul says is fiction. The Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory requires a historical Paul in order for his words to have any relevance, any value - as a counter argument against the Jesus historicists.
If Paul is not historical that narrative loses it's value as evidence, as argument, against a historical Jesus. One can't use a story as an argument against a historical claim.

I disagree. The Pauline narrative is about revelation - 'Paul' never met Jesus; it is a only narrative about an apostle, not history anyway.

It is widely agreed half the Pauline epistles are not written by 'Paul', and that hasn't negated the widespread views on a historical Jesus.

[maryhelena]

.
If, ... "the epistles are historicized fiction", then they cannot be used as 'evidence' against the historicists assumption of a historical Jesus ie. what the NT Paul says is fiction. The Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory requires a historical Paul in order for his words to have any relevance, any value - as a counter argument against the Jesus historicists.
If Paul is not historical that narrative loses it's value as evidence, as argument, against a historical Jesus. One can't use a story as an argument against a historical claim.

I disagree. The Pauline narrative is about revelation - 'Paul' never met Jesus; it is a only narrative about an apostle, not history anyway.

It is widely agreed half the Pauline epistles are not written by 'Paul', and that hasn't negated the widespread views on a historical Jesus.

Yep, but the other half are accredited to a historical Paul......and anyway, the Jesus historicists could very well get by without a historical Paul, their claim rests upon the gospels not the epistles. It's the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory that has placed all it's eggs in a Pauline basket that has more to loose.....

If Paul did not exist as a historical figure, re Brodie, and Jesus did not exist as a historical figure, re Brodie - then, re Brodie, the NT is 'historicized fiction'. Therefore, the NT cannot be used, either the gospel story or the Pauline epistles, as argument against a historical Jesus. The historicists claim of a historical Jesus - of whatever variant they dream up, cannot be countered by arguments that are only derived from the NT. History has to be put into play if the historicists assumption of a historical Jesus is going to be put to bed.....

Once the NT Paul is viewed as ahistorical - the game has changed.

[MrMacSon]

I'd say -
Once the NT Jesus and the NT Paul are more widely viewed as probably ahistorical, the game will change.

(There are plenty of on-line comments in mainstream-media-fora that indicate the ahistoricity of Jesus is an increasing view of members of the public in western British-Commonwealth countries).

.
Yep, but the other half are accredited to a historical Paul ...

So what? Most Christians & Christian-theologians still deny half are disputed.

and anyway, the Jesus historicists could very well get by without a historical Paul, their claim rests upon the gospels not the epistles.

if 'Paul' really is ahistorical, they do 'get by', anyway

It's the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory that has placed all it's eggs in a Pauline basket that has more to loose.....

I disagree. The Carrier-Doherty mythicist is based on the Pauline-narrative; not Paul per se.

If Paul did not exist as a historical figure, re Brodie, and Jesus did not exist as a historical figure, re Brodie - then, re Brodie, the NT is 'historicized fiction'.

Of course (and Brodie is not the messiah ie. you don't need to defer to him)

Therefore, the NT cannot be used, either the gospel story or the Pauline epistles, as argument against a historical Jesus.

Huh?

[maryhelena]

maryhelena: Therefore, the NT cannot be used, either the gospel story or the Pauline epistles, as argument against a historical Jesus.

Huh?

The historicists make a historical claim i.e. their Jesus figure was a historical figure. To counter that claim one cannot use an interpretation of the NT. The NT text can be interpreted in various ways. Therefore, an interpretation of the NT text is not a counter argument to the claim of the Jesus historicists. Arguments that run to 'my interpretation is better than your interpretation' are never ending. That's what doorstep preachers and street corner preachers are able to do. Look no further than the present state of the historicist vs ahistoricist/mythicist debate - it's deadlocked. And that's why Brodie is important. Brodie argues that not only Jesus but the NT figure of Paul is not historical. Thus, Paul and the Pauline epistles are taken out of the game park as argument against the Jesus historicists. Paul and the Pauline epistles have, re Brodie' position, been devalued. Paul and the Pauline epistles have gone from being *real* to being fiction. That is a devaluation in terms of their use in arguments against the Jesus historicists.

Yep, I'm repeating myself here.....we will just have to disagree on this.....

[MrMacSon]

maryhelena, you make a lot of black & white statements in that last post; & bare assertions; and 'conclusions' based on one assertion.

I think the best way to determine the veracity of the NT narratives is to examine a number of approaches

• examine to what extent the NT texts are prophetic;
• if & how they are written to fullfil OT prophecies;
• if the narratives include aspects of other history, such as other 'Kings', messiahs/christs
• if & how the narratives include contemporary or earlier theocratic dimensions; similarities to The then-Law;
• how they changed from time to time eg. from one Church Father to another, or from generation to later-generation; or
• other dimensions such as
  • the apparent lack of mention of Paul on Marcion's Apostilikon, or
  • what Huller is doing with the name Paul and its association with other words.

[maryhelena]

maryhelena, you make a lot of black & white statements in that last post; & bare assertions; and 'conclusions' based on one assertion.

I think the best way to determine the veracity of the NT narratives is to examine a number of approaches

• examine to what extent the NT texts are prophetic;
• if & how they are written to fullfil OT prophecies;
• if the narratives include aspects of other history, such as other 'Kings', messiahs/christs
• if & how the narratives include contemporary or earlier theocratic dimensions; similarities to The then-Law;
• how they changed from time to time eg. from one Church Father to another, or from generation to later-generation; or
• other dimensions such as
  • the apparent lack of mention of Paul on Marcion's Apostilikon, or
  • what Huller is doing with the name Paul and its association with other words.

Sure, attempt to use other method re the NT text. The point of the OP is Brodie vs Carrier on the historicity of the NT Paul. Brodie suggests that the NT is 'historicized fiction'. All I am attempting to do is take Brodie's conclusion and run with it to see where it goes.....What the NT story *means* is a separate issue to the fundamental issue of that NT story being 'historicized fiction'.

[Clive]

When asked how to get somewhere, someone responded I wouldn't start from here!

What is the purpose of these writings?

Stories about relationships of gods and humans, new heaven and earth, conquering death, resurrection, salvation, how to live with others, end times.

Why not look at the whole caboodle as highly edited and reworked attempts to conjoin gods and humans, overcome death and lay out ways to live whilst awaiting the bridegroom?

And therefore not historical at all, but probably "landed" to give some authenticity?

So no need for a real Jesus or a Paul or a Peter or...