For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Confused Ape]

Hermann Detering a German pastor and scholar makes a very compelling case that the Paul of Tarsus character in the New Testament was based on Simon Magus. If Detering is correct (and I believe he is), then the Paul we know of from the New Testament did not exist.

Wikipedia gives a link to Detering's article on The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles

Dutch Radical Criticism is the usual name of a school that in the nineteenth century arose within Dutch New Testament scholarship, whose representatives aimed at vitiating two axioms of New Testament scholarship still cherished today. They contested a) the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth and/or b) the authenticity of the lot of the Pauline Epistles.

It's all very complicated although it seems that a lot of people think that Marcion was the chief culprit for forging the epistles. Detering's own idea is that there were already legends about Paul in Marcion's time.

The best proof for the existence of such a legend is none other than Luke's Acts of the Apostles. Yet the presentation of Paul in the Acts is by no means the only form of the Pauline legend; it rather presents only a very specific and tendential image, precisely that of Luke's church, i.e., of the Established (Catholic) Church.Also (and especially) in the circles of the second-century Gnostics and Marcionites stories and anecdotes seem to have been circulating, in which the apostle's life and work were presented in a likewise miraculous and legendarily embellished way. The legend found literary expression in the so-called Acts of Paul among which are also the Acts of Paul and Thekla.

Well, it would make life easier for Marcion if he had a legendary character to work with. He could then produce all the letters he'd 'found' without everyone asking "Who the heck was Paul?"

Now to Simon Magus.

b) But we cannot as yet satisfactorily explain all the character traits of the implied author of the Epistles by reference to the legend literature of the second century. The question must also be asked whether the Paul of the legendary literature may not after all be based on a particular historical person. The question of Paul's historical identity can, I think, be solved only simultaneously with the following problems:

ii) It should be investigated anew, why in a certain branch of the primitive Christian literature, the so-called Pseudo-Clementines and Kerygmata Petri, Paul is identified with Simon Magus. The basic problem found here may be formulated as follows: In the Pseudo-Clementines Simon is mentioned by name and combatted. The heresies he is reproached with are Marcionite. And the words that are put into his mouth are those of Paul.

The identification of Simon-Paul put forward in the Pseudo-Clementine literature has up to the present been one of the most difficult problems for New Testament scholarship. There is a series of solutions for it; in my Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus? I have thoroughly described the theory of the Tübingen scholars, who saw in Simon a caricature of Paul; today the problem is, in the majority of cases, solved in a most complicated, literary-critical way.

In our search for the historical Paul, the question, I think, forces itself on us more than ever: How seriously should we consider the statement that, for the author, or authors, of this Judaistic, anti-Pauline literature, Paul is indeed no one but Simon Magus?

f) Finally it should be asked, how it comes about that Marcion explicitly appeals to Paul (as his spiritual father), although the Fathers of the Church emphatically stick to the opinion, that Marcion is connected with Simon Magus through the heretic Kerdo, i.e., that he comes from the school of Simon the Magus, whom again Marcion mentions nowhere.74

After all that and a lot more I think he might be saying that Simon Magus could have been invented as a caricature of a mythical Paul but it's very unlikely that Paul was based on a real person called Simon Magus.

Ah ha, Just! Then, ipso facto, Detering is not a real scholar as all real scholars believe otherwise.

I did a search for all articles mentioning Simon Magus on jesusneverexisted.com and have yet to find one where Humphreys proves that Simon Magus never existed. Maybe I haven't used the right keywords and there's such an article somewhere.

I've been wondering why the site is so disorganised as if it's designed for cherry picking where various ideas are concerned and then I remembered what one of his qualifications is and where he's had life experience.

a post-graduate pedagogic certificate

He taught for many years both in the UK and abroad, the latter including periods in Turkey and Papua New Guinea, the former including a Senior Lecturership in Modern Languages.

This could explain his approach where he presents Simon Magus as being a real person in several articles. Maybe he wants his visitors to question whether Simon Magus existed rather than just taking his word for it. After all, a really good teacher teaches students to evaluate information and think for themselves. I've also found a few cases where he refers to a document as if providing a clue. "If you want more, search for it yourself."

As for 'real' scholars never coming up with ideas which others don't believe in, look at Bart Ehrman's book where he presents the 'real historical Jesus'.