The Fabricated Paul. Early Christianity In The Twilight.

[Geezer]

I've been reading both Robert M. Price book The Amazing Colossal Pau & Hermann Detering's book The Fabricated Paul. Both author's books reach the same conclusion but Detering's is less wordy.

 

An excerpt from The Fabricated Paul.

 

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.

"Hermann Detering once again proves himself the most keenly insightful New Testament scholar of this generation, worthy to stand among the neglected giants of the radical criticism whose work he has brought to light to stir today's Bible students from their deep dogmatic slumbers. My own debt to his work is profound." - Prof. Robert M. Price
“Scandalous publication” – Roger Thiede, FOCUS 1996
“Cuckoo’s egg … there’s a method in the madness” – Prof. Eta Linnemann

 

Apologist date the Epistles as having been written first around AD35-50 and then the Gospels around AD50-90 but historians date them very differently. Historians date the Gospels first around AD71-90 and the Epistles in the late first century to the first quarter of the second century.

 

Both authors believe the Apostle Paul was a literary figure rather than a real person. These books present their arguments and the evidence to support their conclusions. If they are correct this is just more historical evidence that Christianity is based on fabricated stories.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Isn't the standard view that there are six genuine epistles of Paul: Romans, Galatians, Philippians, I and II Corinthians, and Philemon? I thought many mainstream biblical scholars view the others as "deutero-Paul" or whatever.

 

Edit: whoops, it's seven. I forgot I Thessalonians.  

[Geezer]

32 minutes ago, ficino said:

Isn't the standard view that there are six genuine epistles of Paul: Romans, Galatians, Philippians, I and II Corinthians, and Philemon? I thought many mainstream biblical scholars view the others as "deutero-Paul" or whatever.

 

Both authors deal with that question in great detail and their conclusion is that Paul didn't write any of the Epistles because he didn't actually exist in the flesh. They go into detail explaining why they believe Paul could not have written any of the epistles. In their view all of the epistles were most likely written in the early part of the second century which is too late for Paul to have written them. You will have to read the books, or at least one of the books, to obtain the reasons & details for their ultimate conclusions.

 

Both authors are acknowledged experts. That doesn't mean they are right of course, but it does indicate those with a different view would have to present compelling evidence to refute Price & Detering's conclusions. I am not aware of anyone who has done that, but doesn't mean there is not a counter argument by a qualified historian out there somewhere.

 

I found it interesting that Atwill's dating of the gospels in his book Caesar's Messiah agrees with Price & Detering's, but that alone doesn't prove his belief that Josephus wrote the gospels or that his interpretation of the gospel's is correct.

[♦ ficino ♦]

At this point, I can't block out time to read Price's and Detering's books, but thanks for the summary of their conclusions.

[readyforchange]

How prominently does Marcion figure into Price's and Detering's books?  I remember reading somewhere that there are theories Marcion authored some of Paul's letters. 

[Geezer]

Price & Detering are not the only scholars that believe Simon, Marcion & his students wrote the Epistles using Paul as their pen name. Their books would have to be read to obtain a full picture for their reasons & conclusions. 

 

Essentially, if scholars are right, Christianity was created by Simon & Marcion. Christianity is their version of a Gnostic religion. 

[Joshpantera]

On 4/26/2017 at 8:46 AM, Geezer said:

Price & Detering are not the only scholars that believe Simon, Marcion & his students wrote the Epistles using Paul as their pen name. Their books would have to be read to obtain a full picture for their reasons & conclusions. 

 

Essentially, if scholars are right, Christianity was created by Simon & Marcion. Christianity is their version of a Gnostic religion. 

 

This sort of thing seems important to try and figure out if possible. Nailing down true christian origins would be huge. Especially if the truth is that Marcion created Pauline Christianity and the gospels simply rode out a copy cat, bandwagon writing period thereafter. After which an orthodox exoteric tradition emerged which sought to eliminate the original esoteric presentations. Imagine the perspective that would bring. 

 

That reminds me of the Mandella Effect thread. 

 

If the folks at CERN happen to be reading threads here at ex-C along with any Illuminati out there, then perhaps they'd be kind enough to go back in time and make sure that reality changes to where ample evidence of christian origins is not lost to time. Through us a bone here folks, please. Scroll in a jar that explains everything, something home run substantial...

[Geezer]

I'm currently reading David Fitzgerald's book Nailed 10 Christian myths that prove Jesus never existed. He also has a three volume set called Mything in action that offer evidence that Jesus never existed in the flesh.

 

The author presents some interesting information regarding how Universities have strong armed their professors to prevent them from presenting evidence that Jesus never existed. He actually surveyed all the universities in the U.S. that offer religious studies. One third acknowledge they require their employees to sign a statement of faith requiring they do not say or write anything that disagrees with that statement. Failure to comply is grounds for immediate termination. 

 

Approximately 20% of the universities refused to answer the question. The rest claim they give their professors academic freedom, but even so peer pressure seems to be the unofficial way professors are kept from wandering too far off the reservation.

 

Fitzgerald provides a list of scholars that were fired because they violated the universities statement of faith & some of those violations were minor offenses, such as Adam & Eve weren't real people, people popping out of their graves after the crucifixion probably didn't happen, etc. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 4/21/2017 at 3:49 PM, ficino said:

Isn't the standard view that there are six genuine epistles of Paul: Romans, Galatians, Philippians, I and II Corinthians, and Philemon? I thought many mainstream biblical scholars view the others as "deutero-Paul" or whatever.

 

Edit: whoops, it's seven. I forgot I Thessalonians.  

In the book that I'm reading on the Pauline forgeries by Bart Ehrman he also points these out as being accepted Pauline scriptures that coincide with one another and are written by one single author. It is on these that he bases his whole arguement on all the other Pauline scriptures which are forged. So while we today can't say difinitively whether or not "Paul" existed. We can say that these accepted Pauline letters were written by one author. As they all have the types, traits, etc of having been written by one person. (Presumably Paul) I think it's somewhat ludicrous to accept that all biblical figures were made up. At some point one person started the movement and he would have been considered a founding father. Simon and marcion both made their own forgeries as well as others in Pauls name. But even then their forgeries have been found out so that still leaves that there was one author aside from them who wrote the accepted epistles and called himself paul. Whoever this person is, is most likely the author of Christianity and if Jesus never existed, he is also the author of The Christian myth.

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

I should point out also that in Bart Ehrman book Forgeries and counter forgeries he points out the evolution of Christian theology and the possible reasoning behind the forgeries. Some were written in response to the concerns of believers when Jesus didn't return within one generation. They had to change the theology of the church from one of giving up all your belongings and live a celebate life because the end is near to one where the pastors were to be the husband of one wife and looking forward to Jesus coming sometime in the distant future.

 

It is an interesting read after you get past his explanations of all the criteria he looks at to prove what is and isn't a forgery.

 

DB

[Joshpantera]

22 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

I should point out also that in Bart Ehrman book Forgeries and counter forgeries he points out the evolution of Christian theology and the possible reasoning behind the forgeries. Some were written in response to the concerns of believers when Jesus didn't return within one generation. They had to change the theology of the church from one of giving up all your belongings and live a celebate life because the end is near to one where the pastors were to be the husband of one wife and looking forward to Jesus coming sometime in the distant future.

 

It is an interesting read after you get past his explanations of all the criteria he looks at to prove what is and isn't a forgery.

 

DB

 

I like straddling both views. You need familiarity with Ehrman verses guys like Doherty, Carrier, Price, etc. The latter is more or less a critical examination of things that go beyond where Ehrman seems wiling to go. For instance, Ehrman takes Nazareth at face value. There's a ton wrong with that conclusion, but he tows the party line and accepts it as the historical Jesus' home town. He picks and chooses his battles. Somewhere that he feels is more acceptable to question, he'll give hell. The other guys steam past those reservations....

 

I don't see a problem with at least some authentic Pauline Epistles. I've read theories that suggest the story was once about Apollonius who traveled to similar places as Paul. Then you have to decided whether that constitutes Paul as mythological if that were the case. Maybe one original writer, but maybe mythological as well.

[sdelsolray]

Regardless of who wrote the Pauline Epistles, and I do agree that is an important set of inquires, the content of all of them contain typical religious dogma based on unsupported mere assertions, the author's personal opinions and polemics attacking perceived enemies.

[Geezer]

1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

Regardless of who wrote the Pauline Epistles, and I do agree that is an important set of inquires, the content of all of them contain typical religious dogma based on unsupported mere assertions, the author's personal opinions and polemics attacking perceived enemies.

 

In this case it seems the evidence points to the Epistles, whoever wrote them, being a form of Gnostic thinking & beliefs. And the Epistles are the basis for the Christian religion. I think it's obvious the Gospels & Epistles are promoting two very different religions & the religion of Jesus wasn't the ultimate winner.

 

Numerous scholars agree the Epistles have been modified, redacted, & rewritten more times than there are even words in them by those holding more orthodox (Catholic) views through the ages. So we ended up with a hybrid Catholoc Gnostic religion that is confusing & contradiction. 

[L.B.]

Let's also never forget that the group responsible for collating and "canonizing" the bible had a very specific agenda - one that has some fundamentalist fringe groups debating to this day whether the so-called "canon" is authentically "from god".

 

Every word of every piece of writing in the bible was written at a certain time, from a certain place, according to a certain doctrine, to address very specific issues - and none of the scholars alive today, nor for centuries, had or have any clue what those original issues were. All they can do is offer conjecture based on what they try to infer from other passages within the same writings.

 

I guarantee that the people who decided that XYZ is the "official canon" (and ABC is not) had NO CLUE that the so-called "Protestant Reformation" would happen one day. They had NO IDEA that the world was going to be anything but increasingly under the power and influence of the Church and, later, the pope-emperors who would dictate social and political policy for much of the then-modern world.

 

All that crap was put together for reasons we could never figure out if we wanted to - and I guarantee that those issues are long, long dead. The little warring sects of Gnostic and Hebrew "believers" in various versions of the Christ/Messiah myth are all long gone. Today, we have people who fight over writings that had nothing to do with them and couldn't have anticipated their existence.

 

It's outdated bullshit even before it's unbelievable bullshit. It stopped mattering to people over 2,000 years ago, because the question/answer, issue/resolution, argument/dogma dichotomies that occasioned the writings of the bible are long over.

 

The bullshit in the bible is only made MORE unbelievable by the idea that some people think the magic book is talking about THEM when they read it.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

16 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I like straddling both views. You need familiarity with Ehrman verses guys like Doherty, Carrier, Price, etc. The latter is more or less a critical examination of things that go beyond where Ehrman seems wiling to go. For instance, Ehrman takes Nazareth at face value. There's a ton wrong with that conclusion, but he tows the party line and accepts it as the historical Jesus' home town. He picks and chooses his battles. Somewhere that he feels is more acceptable to question, he'll give hell. The other guys steam past those reservations....

 

I don't see a problem with at least some authentic Pauline Epistles. I've read theories that suggest the story was once about Apollonius who traveled to similar places as Paul. Then you have to decided whether that constitutes Paul as mythological if that were the case. Maybe one original writer, but maybe mythological as well.

 

The problem I have is that in the accepted authentic epistles he is writing to churches he has established and that are still in existence at the time reminding them of various teachings. Even the early forgers likewise to make it seem authentic, reminded those churches of the times he visited them, as he did. It seems to me that their had to have once been a Paul to give his epistles and the later forgeries weight to the people, or else they would have just brushed it off as the rubbish that it was.

     This makes me think there were people still alive at the time that had met Paul in person. I think that it is more probable that Jesus was a made up story from this man who called himself paul. And that Paul was the originator of the Christian faith who set up these small cults, which grew into churches, and eventually after Constantine took over the world with an iron fist through the Catholic Church. 

      All I see is an ancient version of what we have all seen in more modern history, concerning cults and new religions. It could even be applied to the story of moses aswell. At some point someone had to make up the character of moses. We all know here that moses most likely didn't exist and the exodus was a lie. Likewise it appears that Jesus probably didn't exist and his life was a lie, fabricated by whoever Paul was. 

      From what Geezer and everyone have said about price it just feels like he is the extreme opposite of a fanatic christian. And just like left and right politics. I usually find that the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. The two extremes are usually full of bias.

      At some point someone had to dream all of this up. I would like to know who that was as well but I'm sure we will never know for sure. But like LB said all the epistles were written to counter a perceived enemy or religious dogma that was circulating in the church. Even the originals did this. And it's all religious dogma and bullshit. I'm sure on that we can all agree lol.

 

DB

 

[Geezer]

Robert M Price is my favorite scholar for a couple of reasons. His qualifications and research are above reproach. As far as Price's scholarship being extreme I believe history bears out that views and theories on pretty much any topic that is outside the mainstream thinking is always considered extreme. At one time a flat earth was the accepted mainstream belief and any other theory could get you executed.

 

History seems to confirm the majority are proven wrong more often than not with the passing of time. Many, if not most, mainstream thinking, beliefs, ideas, and theories were at some time considered extreme. So, I like how thorough Price researches his subject. He is so thorough that I find some of his books are somewhat tedious at times because he goes out of his way to defend his findings with numerous references.

 

The other reason I like Price is because he's courageous.   A little research will confirm that religious academia is corrupt. Many scholars are forced to sign a statement of faith oath in order to obtain employment and this oath prevents them from publishing or discussing any evidence that falls outside the schools statement of faith. Non compliance results in immediate termination.

 

Religious scholars that are not bound by statements of faith are still subject to being controlled by peer pressure and intimidation. Another one of my favorite scholars is Bart Ehrman. His scholarship and research, like Price, is above reproach. He, like Price, is a true Historical scholar. Unfortunately some time ago I began to sense that Ehrman seems to fear academic political correctness. He clearly does not feel comfortable rocking the boat and seems to be quite concerned about what other scholars think of his research and conclusions. In other words there are lines that he apparently will not cross. I assume this reluctance is fueled by his fear that his professional reputation will be damaged and if that happened it could ruin his credentials and standing in the scholarly community. That would be the kiss of death for his career.

 

This became most evident when he wrote a book defending the mainstream belief that Jesus was a real person. It was obvious that his normal high standards for  research and scholarship were missing in this book. His defense for the position he was taking was weak at best. His argument fell flat because it was mostly a rehash of old dogmatic traditional defenses. There was nothing new in the defense of his position.

 

Price, Fitzgerald, Detering, Doherty and others refuse to be unduly influenced by the status quo when it comes to stating what the evidence suggest is the truth. The scholarship clearly favors a mythical Jesus and this alternative conclusion is slowly gaining acceptance in mainstream secular academia. Schools associated with Churches or denominations will obviously never accept a mythical Jesus for obvious reasons.

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

This makes me think there were people still alive at the time that had met Paul in person. I think that it is more probable that Jesus was a made up story from this man who called himself paul. And that Paul was the originator of the Christian faith who set up these small cults, which grew into churches, and eventually after Constantine took over the world with an iron fist through the Catholic Church.

 

I'm at an intellectual disadvantage here because I am not aware of Price's exact arguments on the Pauline Epistles. I have no idea what he cites or where he goes with it. I'm more familiar Earl Doherty. The mythicist views that I'm aware of question if maybe Paul was someone else, but not so much completely made up. Doherty puts together a hell of a scenario by looking only at the authentic Pauline Epistles isolated away from all other NT content, in order to see what it looks like raw and stripped down to bare essentials. And it looks like Paul and his churches in question where some type of Gnostics with a conceptualization of a heavenly being from a realm above the earth. That's what the raw content reveals. They thought that there were hidden messages in scripture that spoke about it. It was a new interpretive twist. And Doherty expresses that there were many different ideas about a celestial being Jesus all competing with each other. 

 

Enter the Pauline Epistles expressing the writer and his churches Gnostic views. 

 

Doherty thinks that an orthodox tradition that was in the mix eventually rose to the fore front and changed much of the original content to try and make things appear orthodox all along. This doesn't seem very different than what we know of monotheism, which evolved in the same manner. Later, the monotheistic copiest's rendered and altered things in certain ways to make it appear as if the OT was about one true god the whole time, when in fact there traces of reference to many different gods. It's all about making it appear as if the later evolution of beliefs had been there all along. 

 

Maybe Geezer can contrast the above Pauline theory with Prizes exact arguments. 

[Geezer]

24 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I'm at an intellectual disadvantage here because I am not aware of Price's exact arguments on the Pauline Epistles. I have no idea what he cites or where he goes with it. I'm more familiar Earl Doherty. The mythicist views that I'm aware of question if maybe Paul was someone else, but not so much completely made up. Doherty puts together a hell of a scenario by looking only at the authentic Pauline Epistles isolated away from all other NT content, in order to see what it looks like raw and stripped down to bare essentials. And it looks like Paul and his churches in question where some type of Gnostics with a conceptualization of a heavenly being from a realm above the earth. That's what the raw content reveals. They thought that there were hidden messages in scripture that spoke about it. It was a new interpretive twist. And Doherty expresses that there were many different ideas about a celestial being Jesus all competing with each other. 

 

Enter the Pauline Epistles expressing the writer and his churches Gnostic views. 

 

Doherty thinks that an orthodox tradition that was in the mix eventually rose to the fore front and changed much of the original content to try and make things appear orthodox all along. This doesn't seem very different than what we know of monotheism, which evolved in the same manner. Later, the monotheistic copiest's rendered and altered things in certain ways to make it appear as if the OT was about one true god the whole time, when in fact there traces of reference to many different gods. It's all about making it appear as if the later evolution of beliefs had been there all along. 

 

Maybe Geezer can contrast the above Pauline theory with Prizes exact arguments. 

 

It isn't something that's easily recapped. It is a complex theory with a lot of background information that is vital. You really have to read the book and/or Deterings book the Fabricated Paul. And if that isn't enough then Fitzgerald's books Mything in Action & 10 Christian Myths That Prove Jesus Never Existed.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

With that I must read the book. I hate being at an intellectual disadvantage about this theory on Paul. I've taken a break from reading on mythicism for a while now and it seems I'm falling behind. I'd better catch up....

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

38 minutes ago, Geezer said:

 

It isn't something that's easily recapped. It is a complex theory with a lot of background information that is vital. You really have to read the book and/or Deterings book the Fabricated Paul. And if that isn't enough then Fitzgerald's books Mything in Action & 10 Christian Myths That Prove Jesus Never Existed.

 

 

I suppose I need to read the books aswell. I would like to see what evidence he brings up. Maybe then we could either agree or I could form a better arguement on the subject. I'm fairly new to reading books against the biblical account so I have a lot of reading to do before I begin to catch up to a lot of the other members.

 

DB

[Joshpantera]

In the meanwhile, here's an article from Jesus Never Existed that cites Detering's work on Paul: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm

 

 

[Ablemate]

I find the Paul figure fascinating.

Lets not forget Jesus is a Jew, assuming a Jesus figure. He lives by Jewish law with a few radical ideas but the Levant was full of messianic prophecy, messianic figures and general unrest from Roman occupation.

In one of his letters Paul claims to go up to Jerusalem to see Peter, James, John and the elders or leaders of the Jesus sect.

He agrees to let them preach to Jews and he goes to recruit gentiles, letting them off some of the more unsavoury aspects of Judaism like circumcision, dietary requirements etc.

Since Saul/Paul is a Roman citizen and not a Jew this would seem to be advantageous to him. He doesn't get complete agreement in Jerusalem but goes off and does it anyway.

He then goes off and makes up Xianity. It isn't jesus' teaching and he never met or knew Jesus.

 

[Geezer]

If Price's theory is correct about Paul then he was either a literary creation by Marcion & Simon or else they edited & rewrote his Epistles, sometime in the early part of the second century, in order to create a gnostic Christian Faith. 

 

As many scholars have noted Paul & Jesus did not teach the same things. Jesus was an Orthodox Jew & Paul was a Gnostic.

[Ablemate]

Following on from that it makes the myth of Peter as the first pope strange to say the least.

why would he have any interest in a church which defiles his Jewish roots?

seems strange Paul didn't take the job.

 

[JadedAtheist]

One thing to keep in mind with the theory of Paul not being a historical figure is that people like Price are somewhat backed into a corner over it. Once you reject a historical Jesus, it makes it very hard to reconcile that with what's written in the Pauline epistles. For example, Paul talks about meeting with other apostles (such as Peter), and the brothers of Jesus. You then have to then take a more allegorical interpretation of these topics and you have to try and take as you can of Paul out of concrete history. 

 

That said, I think it's important to read works by people like Price because reading such a different opinion really opens up the debate and helps you look at the biblical texts in ways you wouldn't have ever seen them before.