Chris Weimer

Because behind every argument lies a false dichotomy. PS - Compare the bold, and then get back to me.

Ted Hoffman

On the one hand, he compares having Paul's letters with having copies of Paul's letters that have been made by biased copyists and argues that the latter is unreliable.
On the other hand, he compares oral tradition and written text and argues that the latter is more reliable. This second is broader while the first breaks down written texts into two categories. I dont see a false dichotomy. But assuming that there is a false dichotomy, my understanding is that false dichotomies are demonstrated by presenting more alternatives. I dont see that you have done that.
Carrier is categorizing sources/Traditions and I see what he is doing to be as follows:

-------------------------Traditions/Sources
----------------------/---------------------\
--------------------/-------------------------\
------------------/-----------------------------\
-----------written(reliable)----------------------oral(less reliable)------
----------------/\
--------------/----\
------------/--------\
-------original--------copies of copies
-----(more reliable)------(less reliable)

matthewthomas

Yes, I see that Carrier is talking making two separate comparisons at different times. That's fine. And think he's probably right in saying that written is often better than oral, and the copies of the copies of Paul are not as good as having an original.

However, if one is comparing the written evidence for the Rubicon crossing with the written evidence for the resurrection in Paul (whatever one thinks of its quality), then both are copies of copies (unless someone has some first editions of which I am not aware). Carrier partially dismisses the Pauline written evidence as less good because of the many interpolations and so on. However, I don't see any argument as to why Paul is not good but other written evidence that are also copies of copies are OK.

Now, it could be that the copying of Paul's letters was more susceptible to corruption than many of the texts from antiquity, either because deliberate changes in text could be used to argue for or against a particular theological idea, or (as Minimalist suggests from Erhman), the early Christian copying did not take place in the same rigorous environment as other texts. However, I haven't seen Carrier make those arguments (I could have missed them), so without a qualification as to why Paul's letters might be more suspect, I find it difficult to reconcile the two quotations given above.

Perhaps what I was looking for was some justification as to how Paul could be so riddled with problems and yet there be such a rigorous quality control system in the copying of ancient manuscripts.

Best wishes,
Matthew

Ted Hoffman

I haven't read the article but I would argue that we know that interpolators of Pauline epistles had a theological agenda whilst we do not know that copyists would have an agenda for editing the story of Caesar wrt crossing the rubicon. If one has no grounds for suspecting that a certain text was corrupted, then one cannot validly make that suspicion part of an argument now, can one?

matthewthomas

Oh, indeed, I agree. There are probably good reasons for being suspicious of the Pauline material and much less suspect any corruption of Caesar. All I'm saying is that in Carrier's article I can't see that point being made*, and that without any such point then it is hard to reconcile the two excepts highlighted by Chris. I suppose would feel more comfortable with the article if Carrier were to put some points towards why Paul is more likely to be corrupted than other written sources.
Matthew

*Again, I hold out the possibility that in my reading I may have missed it

mountainman

Caesar's historical literature did not have a Marcion equivalent.
The ecclesiastical historiographic tradition was yet to be
invented --- [See Momigliano; Grant]

As Ammianus Marcellinus remarked, Caesar was
one of your more straight up and down supreme
imperial mafia thug dictators.

Chris Weimer

I'm not even sure why Carrier would have felt the need to address the corruptability of Paul, given that Paul never saw the resurrection.