Brodie vs Carrier on historicity of NT Paul

[MrMacSon]

.
... 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'.

Sure. My point is those two points are inter-related. There is work to do to make that conclusion cogent or sound.

[MattMorales]

Hey folks! First time post here. I just want to thanks Peter Kirby first of all for hosting this site - Early Christian Writings has been an amazing resource in my personal studies on early Christianity. Let me just get this out of the way also: while I was introduced to mythicism and the world of higher criticism via Robert M. Price's "Bible Geek" podcast (and still enjoy listening), I am currently a historical Jesus agnostic leaning towards historicity. I'm sure my reasoning will become clear in future posts. For now, let me address the topic at hand.

While certainly Acts can be mostly discounted as an accurate historical document, I see little reason to dismiss a person dubbed "Paul" lying at the root of some of the NT Epistles. From what I've read of Deterring, some good questions are raised, but there is little in the way of solid evidence, and many of his points I have seen elsewhere addressed in a satisfactory fashion. 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.

I really don't see what we stand to gain from eliminating Paul either. As Carrier noted, it just makes everything even more unlikely. If we are already to assume a mythical Jesus (and I don't), then Paul stands as the most prominent "founder" of the religion via default, if he isn't already with a HJ. And how does a religion start without a founder - conspiracies notwithstanding?

Furthermore, the focus on Simon Magus as Paul's "true identity" is a bit mystifying. What we have in Simon is a figure with even less attestation than Paul or Jesus. He doesn't even show up in Christian texts until the second century, so assuming we can know anything about the man seems to me a double standard. For all we know, Simon Magus is the literary creation which the early church utilized in order to trace all heresy back to one person (rather than admit to the heterodoxy of early Christianity). Gnostics who had a distaste for the proto-orthodox church likely would have embraced him as a figurehead. I think the same thing may be going on today by those who are soured by the numerous fabrications and forgeries we know to be true in Christian history and literature.

[MrMacSon]

.
From what I've read of Deterring, some good questions are raised, but there is little in the way of solid evidence, and many of his points I have seen elsewhere addressed in a satisfactory fashion.

What points and how were they addressed in a "satisfactory fashion"?

And how does a religion start without a founder - conspiracies notwithstanding?

Have you read what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about the development of the NT canon?

Have you read other threads on Paul here, yet?

[MattMorales]

[quote="MrMacSon"]What points and how were they addressed in a "satisfactory fashion"? [/quote]

I really don't have the time or energy to address Deterring's entire paper at the moment. Perhaps another day. Needless to say, he has failed to convince even other mythicists, who are by nature open-minded to such ideas. Why don't you tell me what you find compelling and I will share with you my thoughts?

[quote]You mean if the Paul-character in the Pauline texts was mostly or all legend the NT is 'unlikely'?[/quote]
I mean the development of Christianity in the first century and beyond. This includes the extant NT documents, writings of the church fathers, apocryphal writings, and so on. A non-historical Paul presents a complex scenario to alternately explain all the references and writings.

[quote]This is a non-sequitur and a confirming-the-consequent fallacy. It probably begs-the-question, too[/quote]
I did not sign up to this forum for line-by-line debates. Please explain your position and use a more respectful tone if you would like to engage my arguments in the future. I do not think it is unreasonable to wonder, if not "Paul," then who we can credit with the theology found in the epistles. We have many examples of cults in the current day and all share in common a charismatic founder. Please share with me your alternative to this scenario, or point to me where you have detailed it.

[quote]Have you read what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about the development of the NT canon?

Have you read other threads on Paul here, yet?[/quote]

Which threads do you refer to? I've browsed a few.

Btw, would someone mind letting me know where I'm going wrong with my tags. It's late here and probably something glaringly obvious.

[Peter Kirby]

And how does a religion start without a founder - conspiracies notwithstanding?

Movements that start with a founder have been started by someone who wanted to be founder. Movements that start with a fictional founder were started by someone who didn't want to be founder. This person becomes lost to history (in most cases), but the movement often invents a founder for at least 2 reasons: an authoritative source (even if invented) for settling disputes and a unifying background story that can even appeal to outsiders.

Mormonism with Joseph Smith is a modern day example of a movement with a founder.

Luddites with Ned Ludd is a modern day example of a movement without a founder.

Switzerland with William Tell is similar example of the late medieval period.

[Leucius Charinus]

Furthermore, the focus on Simon Magus as Paul's "true identity" is a bit mystifying. What we have in Simon is a figure with even less attestation than Paul or Jesus. He doesn't even show up in Christian texts until the second century, so assuming we can know anything about the man seems to me a double standard. For all we know, Simon Magus is the literary creation which the early church utilized in order to trace all heresy back to one person (rather than admit to the heterodoxy of early Christianity). Gnostics who had a distaste for the proto-orthodox church likely would have embraced him as a figurehead. I think the same thing may be going on today by those who are soured by the numerous fabrications and forgeries we know to be true in Christian history and literature.

What does Carrier say about Simon Magus?

Btw, would someone mind letting me know where I'm going wrong with my tags. It's late here and probably something glaringly obvious. :confusedsmiley:

It could be a new user thing: posted in "Forum Business"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=740&p=19509#p19509

[maryhelena]

Earl Doherty: We have writings purporting to be by Paul, but none by Jesus. Much of the ‘genuine’ Pauline letters have the sound of a real person with all its human emotions and weaknesses, its personal experiences and reactions to real-life situations.

http://vridar.org/2011/04/05/a-james-mc ... -exchange/

The NT Paul wrote letters - the gospel Jesus did not write letters - therefore - Paul is historical........

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Search for the Historical Jesus.

Page 147/8

(3) Autobiographical passages. The epistles' autobiographical passages
appear quite spontaneous and realistic, perfect material for a historian.
However, comparison with other ancient authors shows that Pauline autobiography
is part of a larger literary practice and that the epistles deliberately use
material that appears autobiographical for pedagogical purposes. George
Lyons concludes ( 1 985: 1 7 1 , 224-26):

"Various strands of evidence come together to support the conclusion that
Paul presents his 'autobiography' as a paradigm of the gospel of Christian
freedom . . .

The function one assigns to Paul's autobiographical remarks affects not only
the interpretation of these sections of the letters but profoundly influences the
generic conception of, and thus the interpretation of the letters as a whole . . .

The consensus approach to Paul's autobiographical remarks, the hypotheses
which sponsor it, and the generally accepted interpretive technique, 'mirror
reading', as applied to Galatians and 1 Thessalonians is clearly a failure . . .

Since we have only Paul's autobiographical remarks and not his opponents'
accusations, which the consensus assumes provoked them, it is necessary to
exercise restraint in asserting too confidently that specific charges actually
existed, much less what they may have been. Even the existence of 'opponents'
in the usual sense of the word is far from certain . . . What he says is
determined by his rhetorical approach and not by his opponents' reproaches . . .

Proper recognition of the rhetorical elements in Paul's autobiographical
remarks provides a further challenge to existing approaches, which characteristically
reach historical conclusions before the question of literary function
has been adequately addressed."

my formatting

Earl Doherty Believes Paul Existed…For Much the Same Reasons Historians Believe Jesus Existed

James McGrath: If mythicism emerges out of a principled stance that literary documents alone, or in particular literary documents all from a particular religious tradition, cannot serve as historical evidence for the existence of persons, then there ought to be no difference in how the two are viewed. The difference of genre between letters claiming to be written by Paul and Gospels claiming to be about Jesus is for all intents and purposes irrelevant when it comes to this question, since there is no more difficulty forging letters from a fictional person than in “forging characters” in a fictional narrative.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... isted.html

[Leucius Charinus]

Earl Doherty: We have writings purporting to be by Paul, but none by Jesus. Much of the ‘genuine’ Pauline letters have the sound of a real person with all its human emotions and weaknesses, its personal experiences and reactions to real-life situations.

http://vridar.org/2011/04/05/a-james-mc ... -exchange/

The purported written correspondence between Jesus and Abgar is often dismissed as being "purported" in any historical sense. 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?

The NT Paul wrote letters - the gospel Jesus did not write letters - therefore - Paul is historical........ :banghead:

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Search for the Historical Jesus.

...[trimmed]...

Since we have only Paul's autobiographical remarks and not his opponents'
accusations, which the consensus assumes provoked them, it is necessary to
exercise restraint in asserting too confidently that specific charges actually
existed, much less what they may have been. Even the existence of 'opponents'
in the usual sense of the word is far from certain . . . What he says is
determined by his rhetorical approach and not by his opponents' reproaches . . .

Proper recognition of the rhetorical elements in Paul's autobiographical
remarks provides a further challenge to existing approaches, which characteristically
reach historical conclusions before the question of literary function
has been adequately addressed."

my formatting

Thanks mh.

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

From WIKI:

Following this meeting the committee formally advised the Master that the publication was ‘imprudent and dangerous’, the standard set out in the legislation of the Order, and recommended that the sanctions imposed on Thomas Brodie by the Province of Ireland were appropriate. In a letter dated 3 March 2014, Fr Bruno Cadoré concurred with the judgement of the committee and instructed that the sanctions already in place be maintained. Despite the restrictions placed on him, Tom Brodie remains a brother of the Irish Province, and the Province continues to care for him and provide for him. From the point of view of the Order, the matter is closed.

[Leucius Charinus]

Earl Doherty Believes Paul Existed…For Much the Same Reasons Historians Believe Jesus Existed

James McGrath: If mythicism emerges out of a principled stance that literary documents alone, or in particular literary documents all from a particular religious tradition, cannot serve as historical evidence for the existence of persons, then there ought to be no difference in how the two are viewed. The difference of genre between letters claiming to be written by Paul and Gospels claiming to be about Jesus is for all intents and purposes irrelevant when it comes to this question, since there is no more difficulty forging letters from a fictional person than in “forging characters” in a fictional narrative.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... isted.html

Well James has more or less said it. Even though I guess James (unlike Brodie and Deterring) thinks the Pauline letters are legit.

To say the least I am surprised that Carrier decided to leave the historical "Dear Paul" as an unexamined hypothesis with the default value of TRUE.
It may be that Carrier simply recognised the consistency of Earl Doherty's approach to the history of the canonical literature from its origins. IDK.

Paraphrasing McGrath: Carrier Believes Paul Existed…For Much the Same Reasons Historians Believe Jesus Existed

[perseusomega9]

Furthermore, the focus on Simon Magus as Paul's "true identity" is a bit mystifying. What we have in Simon is a figure with even less attestation than Paul or Jesus. He doesn't even show up in Christian texts until the second century...

As in the same time as Paul?