Falsified Paul Hermann Detering

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Falsified Paul Hermann Detering

Post by Michael BG »

Hermann Detering believes that all the Pauline letters were not written by Paul. A translation is here in broken up into chapters http://www.egodeath.com/TheFabricatedPaul.htm.

In a previous thread (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=157&start=30) Peter Kirby wrote,
Peter Kirby wrote: To me, the first question is whether the epistles are "authentic," whether they are the correspondence addressing real situations written occasionally to real recipients. If they are, then "Paul," meaning the writer of such actual letters, existed. We don't need to establish any level of similarity between the writer and some "flesh and blood figure" because the writer of these letters to churches, if they are indeed genuine in their epistolary form, is immediately understood as "Paul," and people who can pick up a writing instrument to send a letter tend to have some flesh and some blood.

If they are not authentic or genuine, or cannot be established to be, and if they are only attributed to a person named Paul but are not actually being written in the heat of the situations implied and not actually written to the churches described, then the second question becomes whether Paul existed at all, given that the letters attributed to a Paul are pseudepigraphical.
This seems a very sensible place to start, with the internal evidence. As I think external evidence is near useless, the only exception would be if we had the Marcionite versions of the letters.

Peter Kirby does try to present arguments against Detering (http://peterkirby.com/dialogue-concerni ... stems.html). I am not sure how persuasive 1 Peter and James can be in dating the Pauline letters. I think they are not dated independently of them, but just dated in relation to them. 1 Clement and the letters of Ignatius I accept can’t be used as evidence. Papias is problematic as well. I found one quote in Papias – “it is said by the apostle, ‘For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death’” (in section V of http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html). This agrees with 1 Cor. 15:25-26, but Papias does not state it was said or written by Paul. Also it is possible that Papias is quoting from the Marcionite Aposolikon or the proto-Catholic version of 1 Corinthians and so it doesn’t help with dating.

The only argument that appeals to me is concerning 1 Thess. 4:13-18. Would someone attribute to Paul that Paul believed that the end of time would happen in the lifetime of some of those alive when Paul is meant to be writing if the author knew that it didn’t happen? However this assumes that the author of the letter believes Paul to be writing before 70 CE. There is evidence that by the second century it was believed that Peter and Paul were alive at the same time. Therefore if the style of this section is the same as other sections can we use that style comparison as evidence that both were written by the person we are calling Paul?

I couldn’t find any good critiques, only
(http://www.tektonics.org/af/detering01.php by I think James P Holding as it seems identical to https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7Jr ... ul&f=false I think he might be an apologist) plus Richard Carrier http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7643 which was discussed along with Detering’s response in this thread (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2439&hilit=detering).

Does anyone know if a liberal Pauline scholar has written a rebuttal?

When we discuss gospel verses we don’t assume that they go back to Jesus, but consider if a case can be made for them to go back to Jesus, to the gospel author, or early Christian teachings / communities. When discussing verses in Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon we don’t assume we have to make a case that these are the words of Paul, we just assume they are. Should the assumption be changed? Should we accept that within these letters their might be the words of Paul, but we have to make a case for why we think a particular section is from Paul, rather than only making a case for why we think a section was not written by Paul? Is it possible to make such a case for more than 1 Thess. 4:13-18?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Falsified Paul Hermann Detering

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Michael BG wrote:Papias is problematic as well. I found one quote in Papias – “it is said by the apostle, ‘For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death’” (in section V of http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html). This agrees with 1 Cor. 15:25-26, but Papias does not state it was said or written by Paul.
It is worth pointing out that the quotation you adduce here is not actually attributed to Papias. Rather, it is attributed to "the elders" to whom Irenaeus refers at various times. These passages were in former times often thought to derive from Papias, but modern scholars are more skeptical of this easy identification. The passage in question comes from Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.36.2b:

Hanc esse adordinationem et dispositionem eorum qui salvantur, dicunt presbyteri, apostolorum discipuli, et per huiusmodi gradus proficere, et per spiritum quidem ad filium, per filium autem ascendere ad patrem, filio deinceps cedente patri opus suum, quemadmodum et ab apostolo dictum est: Quoniam oportet regnare eum quoadusque ponat omnes inimicos sub pedibus eius.

The elders, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the order and disposition of those who are being saved, and that they progress through such grades, and that through the spirit some ascend to the son, but that through the son some ascend to the father. the son then finally ceding his work to the father, just as also it is said by the apostle: "For it is necessary that he reign until he puts all his enemies under his feet."

Another issue is that the content of what "the elders" used to say, even if it is genuine (which is not necessarily a given), is quoted indirectly, making it very difficult to tell when said content comes to an end. It is altogether possible that Irenaeus himself has added the most pertinent bits from Paul.

A better candidate for evidence that Papias knew (and appreciated) the apostle Paul, and the only other candidate that I know of which names Papias instead of "elders" or the like, comes from Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse, commentary on Revelation 12.7-9:

And Papias spoke in the following manner in his treatises: Heaven did not endure his earthly intentions because it is impossible for light to communicate with darkness. He fell to earth, here to live, and when mankind came here where he was he did not permit them to live in natural passions; on the contrary, he led them astray into many evils. But Michael and his legions, who are guardians of the world, were helping mankind, as Daniel learned. They gave laws and made the prophets wise. And all this was war against the dragon, who was setting stumbling blocks for men. Then their battle extended into heaven, to Christ himself. Yet Christ came, and the law, which was impossible for anyone else, he fulfilled in his body, according to the apostle. He defeated sin and condemned Satan, and through his death he spread abroad his righteousness over all. As this occurred, the victory of Michael and his legions, the guardians of mankind, became complete, and the dragon could resist no more because the death of Christ exposed him to ridicule and threw him to earth, concerning which Christ said: I was seeing Satan fallen from heaven like a lightning bolt. In this sense the teacher understood not his first fall, but the second, which was through the cross, and this did not consist of a spatial fall, as at first, but rather judgment and expectation of a mighty punishment.

This passage is extant, I believe, only in Armenian. Though it seems to be a direct quotation, it suffers from the lack of quotation marks in antiquity, and it is hard to tell where Papias' own words (again, if they are genuine) cease and Andrew's own commentary (or interpolated comments, for that matter) picks up again.

Ben.

PS: Refer to Peter Kirby's blog post about putting Papias in order for other purely hypothetical attributions to Papias that include information about Paul; just search the page for instances of "Paul".
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Falsified Paul Hermann Detering

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
A better candidate for evidence that Papias knew (and appreciated) the apostle Paul, and the only other candidate that I know of which names Papias instead of "elders" or the like, comes from Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse, commentary on Revelation 12.7-9:

And Papias spoke in the following manner in his treatises: Heaven did not endure his earthly intentions because it is impossible for light to communicate with darkness. He fell to earth, here to live, and when mankind came here where he was he did not permit them to live in natural passions; on the contrary, he led them astray into many evils. But Michael and his legions, who are guardians of the world, were helping mankind, as Daniel learned. They gave laws and made the prophets wise. And all this was war against the dragon, who was setting stumbling blocks for men. Then their battle extended into heaven, to Christ himself. Yet Christ came, and the law, which was impossible for anyone else, he fulfilled in his body, according to the apostle. He defeated sin and condemned Satan, and through his death he spread abroad his righteousness over all. As this occurred, the victory of Michael and his legions, the guardians of mankind, became complete, and the dragon could resist no more because the death of Christ exposed him to ridicule and threw him to earth, concerning which Christ said: I was seeing Satan fallen from heaven like a lightning bolt. In this sense the teacher understood not his first fall, but the second, which was through the cross, and this did not consist of a spatial fall, as at first, but rather judgment and expectation of a mighty punishment.

This passage is extant, I believe, only in Armenian. Though it seems to be a direct quotation, it suffers from the lack of quotation marks in antiquity, and it is hard to tell where Papias' own words (again, if they are genuine) cease and Andrew's own commentary (or interpolated comments, for that matter) picks up again.

Ben.

PS: Refer to Peter Kirby's blog post about putting Papias in order for other purely hypothetical attributions to Papias that include information about Paul; just search the page for instances of "Paul".
The passage is discussed at Papias & NT

Andrew Criddle
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Falsified Paul Hermann Detering

Post by Michael BG »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Papias is problematic as well. I found one quote in Papias – “it is said by the apostle, ‘For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death’” (in section V of http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html). This agrees with 1 Cor. 15:25-26, but Papias does not state it was said or written by Paul.
It is worth pointing out that the quotation you adduce here is not actually attributed to Papias. Rather, it is attributed to "the elders" to whom Irenaeus refers at various times. These passages were in former times often thought to derive from Papias, but modern scholars are more skeptical of this easy identification. The passage in question comes from Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.36.2b:

Another issue is that the content of what "the elders" used to say, even if it is genuine (which is not necessarily a given), is quoted indirectly, making it very difficult to tell when said content comes to an end. It is altogether possible that Irenaeus himself has added the most pertinent bits from Paul.
Thanks Ben I was just accepting it as Papias without looking to see if context was given. This just means that the evidence from Papias is even less.
andrewcriddle wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
A better candidate for evidence that Papias knew (and appreciated) the apostle Paul, and the only other candidate that I know of which names Papias instead of "elders" or the like, comes from Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse, commentary on Revelation 12.7-9:

This passage is extant, I believe, only in Armenian. Though it seems to be a direct quotation, it suffers from the lack of quotation marks in antiquity, and it is hard to tell where Papias' own words (again, if they are genuine) cease and Andrew's own commentary (or interpolated comments, for that matter) picks up again.

Ben.
The passage is discussed at Papias & NT

Andrew Criddle
Thanks Andrew, Monte Shanks states there is some question about who actually is writing this, stating that the author doing the quoting might be “Constantine, a metropolitan of Hierapolis who flourished approximately four hundred years after Andrew” (p. 249). However it seems clear it is not a quote from Paul, even if it might be a summary based on his ideas. It seems that we do not have a direct quote from Paul in the writings of Papias that we have. It seems safe to conclude that Papias cannot help us date the letters of Paul.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Falsified Paul Hermann Detering

Post by Peter Kirby »

It's not really a direct argument, maybe not even an indirect one, but wrestling with the textual problems in the Pauline letters forced me to confront the authenticity question again...

http://peterkirby.com/marcions-shorter- ... -paul.html

Maybe interpolations tip the scale in some way (one way, or the other)?

I'd suppose that the textual criticism of these letters must sit alongside the higher criticism of these letters, as equal partners...
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply