stephan huller

I don't remember where it was. He mentions me now and then in writing and on his radio show.

stephan huller

Here's something which is otherwise embarrassing owing to its innocence (I wrote this when I was like five years old and before I lived with the Samaritans working as a short order cook):

As for Paul being Simon Magus, many will choke on this, but not me. I see the cogency of Baur’s identification of the two figures, something made even more likely once one understands Rene Girard’s theory of mimetic doubling. It also helps us understand the Ebionite slur that Paul had not been a Jew! It seems hard to believe that he had no connection with what we think of as Judaism, but if he were attached to Judaism obliquely as a matter of Samaritan allegiance, it all seems more natural. I had, however, assumed that the Samaritan business was synonymous with Paul being considered a heretical double/rival of Peter, but your reading makes sense. To be honest, I don’t see it as compellingly better, but when I ask myself, “Is this viable?” the answer is yes. http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c..._samaritan.htm

I think there are better references in print. I don't know them off by heart. It was very kind and charitable for him to mention me. But, owing to my inherent modesty, I undergo hypnotic treatments whenever my name is mentioned in print, to prevent it from clouding my carefully cultivated impassible nature.

mountainman

Codex Bezae provides the full name of "Apollonius" rather than Apollos.

Many have been the comparisons between the man of letters Paul and the man of letters Apollonius (of Tyana).


It's a pity the Christians destroyed the books authored by Apollonius.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

Now there is a convincing argument. As you said, little by little the puzzle is being pieced together, and the picture is becoming clearer ...

jakejonesiv

:constern02::constern01:

maryhelena

Sure, but is that ‘a lot more’ purely a long string of argument; argument that is no better than those of the JC historicists for their assumed figure? i.e. the arguments have no factual basis whatsoever. All interpretation of problematic sources.
Jake, Jake - what on earth does ‘depart just a bit’ mean when one is discussing historicity verse ahistoricity?? Either a figure in a written source is reflecting, dealing with, a historical figure or it is not. Nothing depends on whether the figure one is discussing is historical or ahistorical??

Interesting suggestion - but of no relevance for the question of a Paul-Simon equation. Jake, you have not even started - let alone gone far enough! Evidence? You have not produced any...
Justin mentioned Simon 13 times (Marcion 6 times) and Jesus 146 times. Interesting but of no relevance to the question of a Simon-Paul equation. Getting sidelined here...
Sidelined again....
Wow - that is one very big step into the dark...

“It seems likely”? Is that not the clarion call of the JC historicists?

I’ve read it. Lots of conjecture.

Yes, stories can do that.
See the table from Richard Pervo’s book in post #11. Paul as Jesus reboot.

Yes, Paul as a reboot of the gospel JC. i.e. another salvation type figure.
The Josephan writer has dated Simon to the time of the procurator Felix (52 – 60 c.e.). A time frame that harmonizes with Acts. Are you dating the Pauline epistles late - early second century? If so - then, by this scenario, Simon had his doctrine of justification by grace, without works, years before Paul put pen to paper....Or are you moving Simon to early second century?

The Gnostics did not have to wait for Paul! Once the gospel JC story was up and running - many interpretations of that story would be possible. Once JC was presumed, interpreted, to have done away with the Law by inaugurating a new covenant through his own blood on the cross - then justification by works automatically falls away - and faith and grace become the avenues to salvation.

Actually, one could argue that a late Paul was hell bent upon driving out the Gnostics - not in any shape or form desiring to give them a helping hand...The Pauline writer might well have had some Gnostic leanings - but the pull back was clearly evidenced by that writer’s insistence upon placing JC not only within a spiritual/intellectual context - but also securely placing JC within a context of physical, Jewish, reality. (i.e. two JC figures for Paul - the heavenly and the earthly man. The Jerusalem above and the Jerusalem below).

The focus of the Pauline writer was a spiritual/intellectual, or philosophical context. Within that context, Law is not a primary concern. However, we don’t just live in our minds. We also have to function in the physical world - a world were Law, the Law of reality, has to be upheld. The Gnostics could dance their merry dance all day long but when night falls, as it always does, their faith will betray them. Jake, the orthodox won the ‘battle’ with the Gnostics because, like the Pauline writer, they would not give up on the primacy of physical reality - in their case their assumed historical JC.
Getting side tracked again...
And where, Jake, does all this Paul-Simon equation take one? Does it offer any possible insight into the origins of early Christianity? An origin, I’m sure you will agree, that has it’s roots long before the appearance of the Pauline epistles.

Jake, if the JC historicist/ahistoricist debate is to move forward, it is going to have to get real. That means it has to start dealing with what is known to be historical. That means it has to consider Hasmonean and Jewish history. Any attempt to link NT figures with historical figures has to be just that; figures whose historicity is established. (as best as that can be done). Perhaps Simon Magus was historical - it can’t be established. Hence, it’s a waste of time attempting any sort of Paul-Simon equation. It’s not going further than the page it is written upon. It offers no insight into the origins of early Christianity.

In my posts above I have created charts demonstrating similarities between the NT Paul and the Josephan writer. I happen to think that the Josephan writer is using a pseudonym i.e. the real name of the writer of this material is not ‘Josephus’. Obviously, from the charts themselves, the corresponding similarities are too close to be just coincidence. They look more like a blueprint for the two figures, Paul and Josephus. We have the writing attributed to a ‘Paul’ and we have the writing attributed to a ‘Josephus’. That is a linkage that is, as the saying goes, in your face. It does not require long and elaborated argumentation. What does require long and involved debate is the many questions such a linkage presents.

stephan huller

FWIW. The material in 1 Corinthians 1:12 is odd. Let's look at the passage:

Looking at the section I can't help but wonder if the references to Apollos and Cephas et al were added later:

I don't know if this is the correct 'original version.' But something is unusual about the language in this section. It just doesn't feel real for me.

stephan huller

The actual references to 1 Corinthians 1:12 - 13 are surprisingly sparse before the third century (= none). Something in this sparring match in the Dialogues of Adamantius lead me to conclude that the Marcionites might not have had the passage:

stephan huller

Clement's citation of the material is interesting:

ὁ Χριστὸς οὐ μερίζεται (Prot. 112.3)

as compared with the received text:

μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός

jakejonesiv

Dear Stephan Hermann Huller,
You are also mentioned in Robert Price's new book, ACA.

"Huller says that Philemon is a pseudepigraph intended to beef up the authority of Bishop Onesimus by linking him fictively with Paul." page 504.

Jake