Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 10-26-2005, 05:41 AM

Detering's publication, The Fabricated Paul is out -
JHC Volume 10, No. 2 - Fall 2003 (English translation of: Der gefälschte Paulus, 1995, translated by Prof. Darrell Doughty )
Amazon link: http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASI...194652-7250903

Mod note: the above is Amazon.de, in Germany. For US buyers there is this link:
Der gefälschte Paulus: Das Urchristentum im Zwielicht - but it doesn't look like you can order it from there.

It is available at http://www.radikalkritik.de/
A reviewer observes:

Quote:

In theology and church Paul is regarded as the most important and most reliable historial witness to Jesus and early Christianity. This book nevertheless contradicts the common conception and shows that all the Pauline letters are in fact skillful falsifications from the second century. The author solves the numerous unresolved questions that surround the figure and the writings of Paul until today in convincing and scholarly original ways. At the same time, the reader accompanies him on his breath-taking trip through the mysterious world of Gnosticism and the early Christianities. Numerous individual observations which have not been considered by theologians until now are brought together to produce an entirely new picture of early Christianity. At the end of the book the puzzle of Paul finds a solution that is as amazing as it is illuminating. This exciting history of the spuriousness of all the Pauline writings allows the time of earliest Christianity to appear in an entirely new light and invites a critical consideration and new evaluation of presumably certain facts of Christian history.

Ben C Smith · 10-26-2005, 09:06 AM

I have at certain points been attracted to some of the more radical stances on Paul and the early church, but the arguments often seem to hit a wall before I can embrace the conclusion. For example, the following comes from page 19 of that Detering link (for which many thanks, Ted H.):

It is also very remarkable that the supposed student of Gamaliel, who certainly would have received instruction from him in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament, cites passages from the Old Testament exclusively from the Greek version -- as if in his life he had never learned Hebrew!

I would find it very uncomfortable indeed to conclude with Detering that Paul was a gentile, not a Jew, but then have to support my position with an argument like this one.

Ben.

Julian · 10-26-2005, 10:16 AM

Ben, are you saying that it is a weak argument or an erroneous one? I think I must be missing something.

Julian

Ben C Smith · 10-26-2005, 10:26 AM

It seems erroneous to me to assume that Paul would do his own translation from Hebrew to Greek on the fly when a Greek translation was already available. He is free to do so, of course, but it is fallacious to reason that his use of the LXX means that he must not have known Hebrew, just as it is fallacious to reason that a modern scholar who in his or her popular works habitually quotes from the RSV must not know Greek or Hebrew.

(Please note that I am not arguing that Paul knew Hebrew; I am presenting what to me seems the obvious stance that his use of the LXX is not a good argument against his knowing Hebrew.)

Ben.

Amaleq13 · 10-26-2005, 11:07 AM

Couldn't it be argued that we should expect Paul, regardless of his training, to refer to the translation of the text most familiar to his audience?

rlogan · 10-26-2005, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Detering's publication, The Fabricated Paul is out -

Hooray!

This is some real progress. I'm getting it.

Ben C Smith · 10-26-2005, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Couldn't it be argued that we should expect Paul, regardless of his training, to refer to the translation of the text most familiar to his audience?

That would certainly be my starting assumption until somebody proved otherwise. At the very least such a procedure would not strike me as unexpected.

Ben.

Zeichman · 10-26-2005, 12:14 PM

Or perhaps his scribes used the Septuigent, rather than Paul himself.

jakejonesiv · 10-26-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Or perhaps his scribes used the Septuigent, rather than Paul himself.

Detering's point is that Paul was a fiction. It follows that Paul's alleged training by Gamaliel and supposed knowledge of the Hebrew version of the scriptures are also fictional. This view is consistent with the Pauline use of the Septuagint.

Jake Jones

jakejonesiv · 10-26-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Hooray!

This is some real progress. I'm getting it.

I agree. The biggest obstacle to the understanding of the contents of radical criticism is the lack of easily understandable articles in English.

Jake Jones

10-26-2005, 09:06 AM	#2
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	I have at certain points been attracted to some of the more radical stances on Paul and the early church, but the arguments often seem to hit a wall before I can embrace the conclusion. For example, the following comes from page 19 of that Detering link (for which many thanks, Ted H.): It is also very remarkable that the supposed student of Gamaliel, who certainly would have received instruction from him in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament, cites passages from the Old Testament exclusively from the Greek version -- as if in his life he had never learned Hebrew! I would find it very uncomfortable indeed to conclude with Detering that Paul was a gentile, not a Jew, but then have to support my position with an argument like this one. Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-26-2005, 10:16 AM	#3
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	Ben, are you saying that it is a weak argument or an erroneous one? I think I must be missing something. Julian

10-26-2005, 10:26 AM	#4
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	It seems erroneous to me to assume that Paul would do his own translation from Hebrew to Greek on the fly when a Greek translation was already available. He is free to do so, of course, but it is fallacious to reason that his use of the LXX means that he must not have known Hebrew, just as it is fallacious to reason that a modern scholar who in his or her popular works habitually quotes from the RSV must not know Greek or Hebrew. (Please note that I am not arguing that Paul knew Hebrew; I am presenting what to me seems the obvious stance that his use of the LXX is not a good argument against his knowing Hebrew.) Ben.

10-26-2005, 11:07 AM	#5
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Couldn't it be argued that we should expect Paul, regardless of his training, to refer to the translation of the text most familiar to his audience?

10-26-2005, 12:14 PM	#8
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	Or perhaps his scribes used the Septuigent, rather than Paul himself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.