One of those interesting ironies of which history is brimful. Yes indeed.
Robert M Price noted this earlier in his book The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems.
All mythicists, starting with William B. Smith, looked for the sources of Christianity in earlier cults, in Jewish gnosis, in Buddhism, in religious and cultural syncretism, in dying and rising gods.
And it turned out that the only source were Josephus’ historical stories. People wanted the messiah, so Josephus served Jesus to them on a platter at the right time, telling an unknown story from 65 years ago. All early Christian literature and its heroes turned out to be an invented tradition attached to a historical figure about whom too little was known. Simple, brilliant and effective – a recipe for biggest success so far.
About the method.
Let’s start with the fact that content is divided into works and products.
A work is an effect of the imagination, creativity, talent and skills of a specific author, attributed to a specific person. Original poems, novel, dissertation, speech, memoir and more. Works promote their authors and are the source of their fame, income and popularity.
A content product is a purposeful creation serving its publisher. He decides what is created, in what shape and finances the creation process. Defines requirements and creates product specifications. Products may be anonymous or falsely attributed to specific people.
Pauline Corpus is a product, as biblical scholars have proven. The collection contains epistles written by several authors. The intensive editing of the epistles themselves indicates that the editors are more important in the decision-making process than the authors themselves.
The Corpus shows that one author wrote significantly more than the others. He was assigned a few letters, a theology, a distinct style, specific views and was declared the historical Paul. This position is a consensus because it is shared by 99.9999% of biblical scholars.
The remaining part of biblical scholars, constituting 0.0001% of the total, claims that the letters are unoriginal and uses counter-arguments related to the same text research tools.
There is one basic problem.
Both sides failed to prove that Paul existed and that he was the author of the letters because they have no evidence to do so.
The conclusions of both sides are hypothetical and based on premises.
I do not accept the conclusions of either supporters of historical Paul and authentic letters, or supporters of historical Paul and inauthentic letters, or supporters of created Paul and inauthentic letters.
Why ? Because their research methods are insufficient to confirm this based on the available historical material.
The first, second and third biblical scholars draw conclusions based solely on better or worse arguments, but they do not prove anything.
It’s just the way it is.
The reason for my skepticism is primarily the fact that the letters are elevated to the level of Scripture and the author is elevated to the level of the holy father founding Christianity.
If Pauline Corpus was only an ancient artifact, a personal testimony about a person from the past, without any significance for the religion itself, there would simply be no topic.
[…]
– Style appalling. Patently a fabrication from beginning to end. Just could be a real thing.
– Well, if it’s genuine, it’s gold dust.
– But its topicality makes it suspect.
– If it is genuine…
– Nothing is genuine any more.
What do you think is the appeal of making clearly historical figures mythical? I’ve never understood it.
Well I’m reluctant to ascribe motives I cannot know. It does function as a polemical point. it certainly knocks the slats out from under Christianity to have its founder not even exist. The problem is you still have to explain the origin of Christianity which certainly exists. To Carrier’s credit he understands that. But his explanation requires ad hoc assumptions and idiosyncratic interpretations of texts. The simplest explanation is always going to be that there was this guy…
But his explanation requires ad hoc assumptions and idiosyncratic interpretations of texts. The simplest explanation is always going to be that there was this guy…
I couldn’t agree more. It seems they unnecessarily go out of their way of making things more difficult for themselves than they have to be.
There is a Jain sect who believe that their perfect divine scripture was received on earth but subsequently lost. What they retain is stuff written down from memory by the gurus and sages. This explains all discrepancies and confusions in the text. I’ve always found this to be an utterly charming approach and offer it to any Christian apologists out there to apply as needed.
The art of interpreting other people’s words has always served to justify one’s own theses. You know, it’s good that I can start quoting others about gluing letters from pieces of different texts and assembling them in 1Tess, 1Cor, 2 Cor, Phil, Rom, … you named.
I don’t deal with such things myself because I don’t know anything about them. But when it comes to conclusions, I am irreplaceable.
Historical criticism is not a field of Mathematics capable of proofs. It is a communal disciplined scholarly debate that sometimes achieves consensus relating to probable conclusions and open questions.
It is very convenient to say that only a select group is able to speak on topics beyond their expertise. The authenticity of documents that are entities without any confirmation is impossible to determine. Unless you are a biblical scholar
Glad you agree. So because historical criticism is not a field of Mathematics, you presume that your premises, presuppositions, and hypotheses have a baseline 50% probability of being true, and then assert that you have subsequently proven your thesis. You haven’t. Or I must have missed your proof.
My proof consists in ruling out all possible scenarios that could lead from the assumed distribution of the original letters to the creation of the collection we have. The only possible scenario is a team of ghostwriters and editors creating a narrative about the Apostle and his teaching in the form of an epistolary collection of texts
The theoretical probability is the number of expected instances of one event, divided by all possible equally likely events. If you have only two choices and both have the same likelihood then the probability is 50%. There are generally many more possible scenarios than probable ones. Expertise consists in having some idea not merely of what’s possible but of what is probable. This is mostly what separates actual scholars from producers of YouTube videos.
It’s an issue in all fields. With the rise of the Internet, eveyone thinks they’re an expert, oftentimes the least qualified speak with the greatest authority, while the ones with the greatest expertise are most aware of the open questions and speak with characteristic reserve even ‘though their judgment deserves the most respect.
Fortune is a fickle creature. She will always choose some uneducated guy who will only read through the executive summary, ignoring the rest, and will allow him to reach conclusions that are unattainable for these educated and hard-working specialists. It amazes me myself.
But there are also positives. Finally, after 12 years, Bart and I are on the side of the historical Jesus.
The theoretical probability is the number of expected instances of one event, divided by all possible equally likely events. If you have only two choices and both have the same likelihood then the probability is 50%. There are generally many more possible scenarios than probable ones. Expertise consists in having some idea not merely of what’s possible but of what is probable. This is mostly what separates actual scholars from producers of YouTube videos.
I have the impression that the separating boundaries have disappeared.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)