 |
| Richard Carrier |
If Jesus Mythicicism is still regarded as "fringe", then a corresponding rejection of an historical Paul is on the far fringe of the fringe. It is a position advocated by Hermann Detering, a German pastor whose doctoral thesis was on Dutch Radical Criticism, and is bounced around by a very few others.
Now Richard Carrier has waded in on the Pauline question with a firm "Nein!" to Detering's "Paul Mythicism".
The best formal attempt to argue for the non-historicity of Paul is that of Hermann Detering (see The Fabricated Paul). I cannot ascertain his qualifications in the field. But his writings are well-informed. They just trip over logic a lot. His case is not sound. Nor is anyone else’s I've examined. They falter on basic methodology (like ignoring the effect prior probability must have on a conclusion, or conflating possibility with probability) and sometimes even facts (e.g., Detering seems to think self-referencing signatures commonly appear only in forgery; in fact, they are commonly found on real letters—I've seen several examples in papyrological journals).So what's the difference between doubting an Historical Jesus and an historical Paul?
Jesus belongs to several myth-heavy reference classes. He is a worshipped savior deity. He is a legendary culture hero. He is a Rank-Raglan hero. And he is a revelatory archangel (already as early as the earliest writings we have, granting the letters of Paul are such). All of those classes of person already start with a high prior probability of being mythical, because most members of them are mythical (or for culture heroes, about even). And these are beings all of whom are claimed to be historical, yet are usually in fact mythical. Just like Jesus.
Paul does not belong to any such class. Paul thus falls into the class of ordinary persons who wrote letters and had effects on history. In ratio, most of such people claimed to exist, actually existed. By far. The mistake being made then is that people assume the starting prior for anyone claimed to exist is “50/50″ (agnosticism) but we know for a fact that that is not true. Examine thousands of cases, and you will find persons claimed to exist, overwhelmingly actually existed.Along the way Carrier takes a intemperate ballistic swipe at James McGrath ("that renowned fool") before addressing in more irenic fashion a variety of issues raised by Bob Price, author of The Amazing Colossal Apostle, who regards little if any of the Pauline writings as genuine. I'd feel aggrieved on James' behalf if I didn't know he was more than capable of baring his own gnashers.
My own brief and clumsy comments on Detering's The Fabricated Paul were posted here in 2012. Not surprising then that I find Carrier's critique quite convincing.
If you're one of those sad individuals who, like myself, finds these issues utterly fascinating, you're unlikely to be disappointed.
That link again: Richard Carrier. The Historicity of Paul the Apostle.
Let me see if I have this right: As Gerd Ludemann posits, Paul is the originator of the Christian Christ myth, based on the epistles of Paul, six of which Richard Carrier believes are legitimate (the rest being forgeries), that the gospels were pretty much written long after Paul's epistles, some 30 to 60 years after Christ was supposed to have died (and that only 4 of the 40 were included in the New Testament) and they are forgeries, the book of Acts was written to counter the epistles of Paul, the rest of the epistles not written by Paul (James, Peter, John) were pretty much forgeries (particularly II Peter) and who the heck knows the provenance of the Book of Revelation? Some centuries later after the fact and with absolutely no original documents on hand, the Catholic Church assembled the New Testament (and later on declared the Bible off limits to Catholics until the 20th century). Maybe they knew something we don't or at least didn't until recently.
ReplyDeleteIs that about complete?
Except for The Journal which was started up nearly two millennia later?
And should we have some book burnings or does it make any difference? Some of us need kindling this coming winter (at least we can start with old copies of The Journal).
Some good quotes from Carrier:
ReplyDeleteIn text:
"Acts tries very hard to contradict Galatians (OHJ, Chapter 9.1), and has a clear motive to do so (to whitewash the divisions in the early Church and fabricate a tale of harmony)"
And in comments:
"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)"
Also... let's not tell Herbites & SdA's that Colossians 2, where "Paul" bashes the Sabbath, is probably fake. Let them suffer.
That last time I accepted a bunch of religious statements without really looking into them, I ended up being an Armstrongite. Maybe that happened to you to.
ReplyDeleteThose who set out to undermine the Bible, and hence Christianity, make all kinds of statements. It is not surprising when some statements that emanate from a political viewpoint turn out to be lacking in credibility. It behooves us not to just pleasantly resonate with the statements but to examine them critically. As it turns out, the evidences for establishing the provenance of these ancient documents tends to be very thin. Hence we get into the voting mode: "The majority of scholars believe..."
I took one point and examined it further. Is the book of Mark a forgery? I could not find a "majority of scholars" that believe that. I did find a lot of controversy about how the book ends. Some argue for the extant short summary ending. Others argue in favor of a longer, alternate ending that is available. Nobody has incontrovertible evidence. Apparently, some editing went on by someone. Moreover, neither ending alters the main themes of the NT. And many Protestant theologians do not apply the term inerrant to the two alternate endings of Mark.
There is a penchant for some to conclude that the Bible is like a geology text. If a single point of error can be identified in a geology text, the text collapses and we can discard the entire text and its facts and conclusions. Either it is a scientifically perfect, inerrant document or it is not. Yet I witnessed Stephen Jay Gould address an auditorium full of scientists and tell them that an extensive interpretation of the fossil record found in the popular Historical Geology text by Dunbar was essentially a fabrication. My guess is that most of them used this text for geology 102 just as I did.
Geology, like the Bible, was delivered into human hands. And human hands have wrought with it. That is our problem not God's.
-- Neotherm
I'm not sure what is meant by "forgery". Mark is considered the earliest of the gospels. It is clearly the most "bare bones" in its message. Matthew and Luke clearly plagarize whole sections of Mark, but each puts their own "spin" on the stories.
DeleteIt has been proven that the last part of Mark, about Jesus' resurrection, was not in the earliest manuscripts but was added later. The earliest manuscripts end with the women finding the tomb empty. The attribution to "Mark" came later - the original writing was not signed by anyone. So, the author is anonymous. People assume it was the "John Mark" mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, but there is no evidence for or against this. If it was John Mark, then it is at best a second- or third-hand account. John Mark was not an eyewitness.
Does any of this make this a "forgery"? I don't know what it makes it. To my way of thinking, it doesn't make it very believable.
We are operating with different standards. If I find something suspect in the text, I will research it to determine if there is a reasonable explanation. I do not flag the entire text as untrustworthy. (Just like I would not renounce geology because Carl Dunbar got overzealous about evolution and made a bunch of stuff up.) Moreover the text must be compatible with the major themes of the OT and NT. Following this model, the only book of the NT where I think the "jury is still out" is the Book of Revelation. It has some great passages in it, but overall it does not seem to be a part of the flow. I can understand why Luther placed it last. Then I think of all the strange stuff recently that has been founded on parts of Revelation, like the whole "Left Behind" movement. It might be as right as rain but the substance of Christianity is found in other books.
Delete-- Neo
I would be curious to know Gould's exact words in context. He was famous for using colorful language that at times seemed to invite being taken out of context to mean something quite different (or at least less nuanced) than his intended meaning. As for the "Historical Geology" textbook, this is an early-to-mid 20th century work. The first edition dates back decades before Carl Own Dunbar took over as principal author in 1933. Is it really remarkable that the science has advanced significantly since then? Consider that the evidence that led to the modern theory of plate tectonics wasn't known until c. 1960.
DeleteGould was making an argument for staged evolution. He felt that geologic history had been punctuated by catastrophes and that straight-line continuous evolution did not make sense. He showed us many slides of photos from Dunbar's book where Dunbar or later editors had stated things like "this is a picture of the early ancestor of jelly-fish". Gould said that was ridiculous. Nobody knew what that creature was and that it had no established connection with present day jelly-fish. In essence, Dunbar had written an evolutionary backstory for modern day creatures that was bogus. Gould presented a large volume of this material. His statements were unequivocal. And while the examples he was using were from a much revised early text, his conclusions about these creatures were current. At the time he made the statements from the podium, nobody knew what these creatures actually were. Dunbar had simply superimposed modern phyla on ancient and unidentifiable creatures in order to support non-punctuated evolution. No doubt Dunbar knew nothing of punctuated evolution during his day.
Delete-- Neo
Of course, there is a difference. Geologists don't claim their writings are inspired by God.
DeleteWhatsamatter Neo, don't like the idea that Matthew and Luke/Acts, along with being Plagiarists, are factional sectarians with agendas?
DeleteThe contradictions of Pauline-radicalism/Matthew-James would later reignite in 100 years of vicious church/state warfare across Europe.
Many scientists claim that their writings are inspired by the scientific method. But we can see many examples of science being subservient to politics. Science is not sacrosanct. It is no better than the humans that are its handlers. The same can be said religion.
DeleteI believe some collection of texts from Judaism and Christianity were inspired. Which these are for sure and how they map into what we call the OT and NT is not an easy question to answer. The Bible demands much from its readers. It is not intended to be a piece of cake.
-- Neo
Minimalist: I am not sure that the concept of plagiarism as we view it was even relevant in that context. If Matthew writes something that looks like a "cut and paste" from Mark, who cares? Plagiarism is something taught by modern English composition teachers to threaten freshman who might copy something out of a book without proper attribution. I do not think the content of what the gospels communicated pivoted on appropriate attribution.
DeleteHumans make thinly supported claims like the idea of "factional sectarians with agendas." Humans go to war over the Bible and fight 100 years. What does this kind of human activity have to do with the value and meaning of the Bible?
-- Neo
Science is practiced by humans and is subject to human error; so is the Bible. Is that your argument? Am I getting this right?
DeleteSome texts are inspired by God but many are not, and its hard to tell which are which? And God intended us to have to have a hard time figuring out which are which? That's argument in favor of the Bible #2?
Neo: "..some collection of texts from Judaism and Christianity were inspired. Which these are for sure and how they map into what we call the OT and NT is not an easy question to answer. The Bible demands much from its readers. It is not intended to be a piece of cake"
DeleteSo intellect and perception are needed to sort out the conflicting NT canons? You are advocating Salvation-by-Gnosis.
How can the average schmuck be confident of Christian salvation when even learn-ed people like Neotherm are unsure of a valid canon and scholars point out intra-canonic soteriological conflict like Galatians/Matthew?
DeleteThe major themes of the Bible are not difficult to discern even at this time. The original signatures were probably clean. Over the years men have futzed with the originals so we have Mark with two different endings. The question is why did God let this happen? Did he preserve an essential meaning? I regard the Bible as an artifact of the separation between God and man. To have to know God through something like the Bible is punitive. But the principal themes are there and it differentiates Christianity from every other religion on earth.
Delete"Intellect and perception" are needed for most everything.
-- Neo
"How can the average schmuck be confident of Christian salvation?" Not through anything that is in the observable realm. If one restricts the consideration of God to only what is seen and measurable, you may find suggestions of God but nothing that will lead to certainty. In the last analysis, I cannot tell you how belief in God develops. Wesley thought it was through prevenient grace. The Bible indicates that most people would not be believers, at least during this eon. I consider the Bible to be in the observable realm. I don't think it converts anyone. It is simply an artifact that can be made to have value in a specific spiritual process.
Delete-- Neo
" I cannot tell you how belief in God develops".
DeleteWell, I Can!
It is indoctrinated into young children by their parents and other authority figures, at an age when children are very impressionable. A young child understands very little about the world around him. To him, his parents seem to know everything. Hence he believes what they tell him. This early training is deeply ingrained and sticks with us throughout life.
That my friend is how belief in God develops.
Then why don't we all believe in Santa Claus?
Delete-- Neo
-Sigh- Do you really not know? Or are you just being a typical Apologist, where any argument will do?
DeleteOK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're asking a sincere question. I'll give you a straight answer. The reason we don't all still believe in Santa Claus is that as we got older, the authority figures in our lives - our parents, our priests, and especially the older kids as well as the kids our own age - admitted there is no Santa Claus. That's not the case with God, is it? Parents, priests and peers still insist there is a God, even into adulthood. Or at least they give lip-service to believing in God. At least in the U.S.
Not so much in Europe, where not many children are raised in Christianity anymore. Or in China. Or even among the millennials here in the U.S. You feel your apologetic arguments are very persuasive. But these arguments are not convincing at all to people raised by unbelievers. Somehow belief in god almost never "develops" in such people. Go figure.
The forces you cite that operate to preclude the belief in Santa Claus may also operate to oppose the belief in God. Apologetic arguments that espouse the belief in a Christian God may not be broadly accepted, but, contrary to what you state, a belief in a god develops in the vast majority of Mankind. I do not know of a single Native American tribe that does not have one or more gods. In fact, those people who do not believe in a god of some sort occupy an exceptional and minority position. Were such a belief simply a product of indoctrination, I do not believe it would be sustained to that degree. Moreover, many people believe in god but do not believe in the religious forces that brought them the idea of god. Surveys indicate that many North Americans are theists without being particularly religious. You have probably encountered many such people just as I have. This is what theologians refer to as general revelation.
DeleteThe other side of the coin. Do you believe this world could be as deeply troubled as it is if it were just a product of random and materialistic events? It is not just the routine predator-prey cycle but the exceptional energy applied to conceiving complex evil by Mankind. Outside of our human societies on this planet, the universe seems relatively benign, atoms and molecules doing their duty, and most unlikely to give rise to the mess in which we are presently embedded.
Looking at just the observable universe, it seems to me that the rational position is to postulate that there is a god and that he is malevolent. As C.S. Lewis stated nobody would conceive of the idea of a benign god based on observing brutal Nature even though some assert that this is the way the concept of a benevolent god developed.
-- Neotherm
"The forces you cite that operate to preclude the belief in Santa Claus may also operate to oppose the belief in God" yes, I agree, they are in operation right now and are slowly turning the tide against belief among educated populations. However they are bitterly opposed, often with force, loss of job, social stigma, etc., or the threat of same, by "loving" Christians. Hence most unbelievers feel compelled to keep very quiet about it.
DeleteThe examples you cite are primitive societies. I agree, people who are ignorant about basic facts of science tend to make up their own answers. They create gods after their own image.
I never said the world is a product of random events. This is a misconception held by many believers - that evolution implies "random chance".
Yes, I do believe the world could be this deeply troubled without a God. Are you saying only God can make this much trouble?
As opposed to your "this world is deeply troubled" outlook, I think Steven Pinker's book "The Better Nature of our Angels" presents a compelling case that the world's troubles and violence are decreasing over time, as mankind matures as a species.
The tide is turning so slowly as to be insignificant. Every philosophy has its bias and sometimes violent partisans. How do Christians fare among Muslims? How did Christians fare among the atheistic communist countries? I do not believe that history bears out that non-believers have cornered the market on suffering. (My belief is that Christians who persecute others are not Christians.) Lay the blame at the door of human partisanship.
Delete"People who are ignorant about basic facts of science tend to make up their own answers" could be an anthem for atheism.
What I am saying is that the rational position for you to hold is that there is a god and that he is malevolent. Your last statement is framed by moral values. This implies that you have some sense of right and wrong that aligns with most of the rest of society -- all those people out there that think there is some kind of god and that he has expectations about human behavior.. If there is no moral god, why would violence even be bad? Maybe it is the process by which those not fit to survive are eliminated. Who gets to say what species maturation is?
It sounds like Pinker has struck a note against the expected consequences of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. I think he would find himself in opposition to Mr. Dawkins idea - the most successful genes should survive.
-- Neotherm
With recent breakthrough Scholarly insights like Carrier's, this is the greatest Golden Age of Biblical Criticism since the Dutch Radical School.
ReplyDeleteI think that Carrier is exactly right. However, I would still say there's a good case to be made that the "Paul" as described in the NT is mythical, along with the entire apostolic church. It all comes down to what you mean by "Paul." So, for that we need to be clear exactly what "Paul" we're arguing for or against.
ReplyDeleteAre we talking about a guy who was converted and taught by a celestial Jesus, worked miracles, and roamed the ancient world preaching Christ Crucified to the "gentiles"? Or are we simply talking about the undisputed author of 7 texts in the popular classical letter-writing genre? Or is the most probable hypothesis somewhere in between? It is contrary to historical methodologies to accept miracles, and Carrier says so in Proving History. So how much, if anything, in the Pauline epistles is autobiographical? Are they simply works of fiction written a popular style of the day? What do we make of Luke-Acts (written after Mark, which could not have been written earlier than 70 based on it's reference to the destruction of the temple) being written much later? Is it a truthful account of the adventures of "Paul" the author of the undisputed Pauline Epistles? Or is Acts merely a backstory concocted for a fictional "Paul" character, written later in another popular classical genre? Miracles aside, the fact that Acts contains plagiarized bits and pieces from other classical stories erodes the probabilities of literal historicity.
Now we can get down to brass tacks. Is there a kernel of truth, one or more historical figures upon whom the biblical "Paul" character is based? The probability for this being the case is certainly higher than it is for Jesus, and for exactly the reasons the Carrier says—the prior probabilities. But how much higher? My problem is, if Jesus is mythical, then the "12 apostles" and "1st-century apolstolic church" stories are drastically downsized at best. And if the probability of the "12" suffers, then so does the probability of the biblical "Paul" character. It's a domino effect.
Here is how the Jesus→apostles→bible story reads to me:
During the 20th century, many people who should have known better thought that Sherlock Holmes was a flesh-&-blood human being, instead of a fictional character. Sherlock never wrote anything himself, leaving that to Dr. Watson who wrote in the 1st person. Oh, but Dr. Watson never actually wrote anything either, because the whole thing was fictional, entirely composed in the modern murder mystery genre by a man named Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The fact that Doyle wrote a series of Sherlock Holmes novels in no way adds to the historicity of Dr. Watson, nor does it make them any more autobiographical to Doyle.
Now, substitute Jesus for Sherlock, surrounded with numerous "Dr. Watsons" who wrote their accounts of how they spent time solving mysteries (preaching the gospel) with him, either in the flesh, or "under inspiration" in the 1st person. And "Paul" was simply the first "Dr. Watson." Other Watsons would come along later, but were inserted at an earlier point in the fictional plot timeline. And behind those Dr. Watsons, a number of Doyles who actually wrote. And if there was no Jesus, then it becomes difficult for any of these Doyles to write anything autobiographical of substance into the various "Watson" characters that appear their epistles and gospels.
So, when we're talking about the historical or mythicism of "Paul," we have to make sure we're not comparing apples & oranges, and thus misconstrue what Carrier or others are really arguing for. I wouldn't dispute the non-mythicism of the Doyle-Paul, author of 7 NT texts, though I think there's a good case to be made for the mythicism of all of the Dr. Watsons, Watson-Paul included.
No offense meant but I do not follow your line of debate. You ask a whole bunch of questions that you apparently do not have answers to, dive into probabilities and then you supply a pet hypothesis. I am having trouble finding the anchored hook you are trying to hang your hat on - other than the fact that you don't believe in the Bible.
Delete-- Neo
As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
ReplyDeleteI heartily suggest "Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit" by Jonathan C. Smith.
I would say in passing that people who believe in the Koran would make similar statements to those who support the Bible. Why would we accept them to give a free pass to the Koran while examining the Bible critically and demanding proof while requiring none for the Koran.
If there exist original documents written by the Apostle Paul and they can be verified with full provenance, then fine, we can except that they are genuine. That it is admitted that portions of Acts and the Gospels are written to contradict Paul should raise some red flags and if it is accepted, then we can only conclude, using Occam's Razor, that the epistles of Paul came first. That is not such a problem with Acts, but it sure is for the gospels -- of which -- only 4 of some 40 were written. All believers can have at this point is belief -- a faith in an opinion -- without very much support for their perspectives.
And yes, I WOULD like to believe, but there's too much evidence to ignore, particularly the spectacular lack of supportable provenance.
That's a good book recommendation, Mikey. Critical thinking is sorely needed among believers.
Delete