What do you think?
Rate this book
Der Gefälschte Paulus: Das Urchristentum im Zwielicht
In Theologie und Kirche gilt Paulus als wichtigster und zuverlässigster historischer Zeuge Jesu und des frühen Christentums. Doch dieses Buch widerspricht der allgemeinen Auffassung und zeigt auf, daß es sich bei sämtlichen paulinischen Briefen um geschickte Fälschungen aus dem 2. Jahrhundert handelt. Der Autor löst die zahlreichen ungeklärten Fragen, die die Gestalt und die Schriften des Paulus bis heute umgeben, auf überzeugende, wissenschaftlich originelle Weise. Dabei begleitet ihn der Leser/die Leserin auf einer spannenden Reise durch die mysteriöse Welt der Gnosis und des frühen Christentums. Zahlreiche Einzelbeobachtungen, die von Theologen bisher unberücksichtigt blieben, werden zu einem völlig neuen Bild des Urchristentums zusammengefügt. Am Ende des Buches findet das Paulus-Rätsel eine ebenso verblüffende wie einleuchtende Lösung.
Diese spannende Geschichte der Unechtheit sämtlicher Paulusbriefe läßt die Zeit des Urchristentums in ganz neuem Licht erscheinen, sie lädt ein zum kritischen Mitdenken und Neubewerten angeblich gesicherter Fakten der Christentumsgeschichte.
Presseecho:
- "...die protestantische Skandalerscheinung des letzten Jahres" - Roger Thiede, FOCUS
- "Kuckucksei" - "Der Wahnsinn hat Methode!" - Prof. Eta Linnemann
- "Auf F. C. Baur folgte ein Bruno Bauer und auf Rudolf Bultmann ein Herbert Braun. Man könnte hinzufügen: auf Schmithals ein Detering"- Prof. M. Hengel
- "Detering ist kein Sensationsjournalist vom Kaliber des unseligen Tandems Baigent/Leigh. Seine Thesen verdienen eine ernsthafte Auseinandersetzung" - Pfr. Fritz Gloor, Reformiertes Forum
-"...eine Verirrung, die durch die vorhandenen Quellen widerlegt wird." - Prof. Gerd Lüdemann
- "Wird die berlin-brandenburgische Kirche gegen einen Pfarrer, der nicht bloß die historische Existenz des neutestamentlichen Paulus bezweifelt, sondern auch die reformatorische Rechtfertigungslehre in Mystik auflöst, ein Lehrzuchtverfahren eröffnen?" - Prof. Rainer Riesner, idea
- "Was muß in Deutschland eigentlich noch geschehen, bis sich die evangelischen Bischöfe auf ihre Verantwortung für die Gemeinde Jesu besinnen und solche Pfarrer in die Wüste schicken?" - Ludwig David Eisenlöffel, Seminardirektor i.R.
- "Der Verfasser sagt ... mit etwas was anderen Worten: Es muß jeder selbst für seinen Glauben einstehen. Da gibt es kein Nachplappern und kein Katechismus-Aufsagen" - Pfr. Wilhelm Fuhrmann, Bremer Kirchenzeitung
Autor: Dr. theol. Hermann Detering, geboren 1953, Pfarrer i.R.
Diese spannende Geschichte der Unechtheit sämtlicher Paulusbriefe läßt die Zeit des Urchristentums in ganz neuem Licht erscheinen, sie lädt ein zum kritischen Mitdenken und Neubewerten angeblich gesicherter Fakten der Christentumsgeschichte.
Presseecho:
- "...die protestantische Skandalerscheinung des letzten Jahres" - Roger Thiede, FOCUS
- "Kuckucksei" - "Der Wahnsinn hat Methode!" - Prof. Eta Linnemann
- "Auf F. C. Baur folgte ein Bruno Bauer und auf Rudolf Bultmann ein Herbert Braun. Man könnte hinzufügen: auf Schmithals ein Detering"- Prof. M. Hengel
- "Detering ist kein Sensationsjournalist vom Kaliber des unseligen Tandems Baigent/Leigh. Seine Thesen verdienen eine ernsthafte Auseinandersetzung" - Pfr. Fritz Gloor, Reformiertes Forum
-"...eine Verirrung, die durch die vorhandenen Quellen widerlegt wird." - Prof. Gerd Lüdemann
- "Wird die berlin-brandenburgische Kirche gegen einen Pfarrer, der nicht bloß die historische Existenz des neutestamentlichen Paulus bezweifelt, sondern auch die reformatorische Rechtfertigungslehre in Mystik auflöst, ein Lehrzuchtverfahren eröffnen?" - Prof. Rainer Riesner, idea
- "Was muß in Deutschland eigentlich noch geschehen, bis sich die evangelischen Bischöfe auf ihre Verantwortung für die Gemeinde Jesu besinnen und solche Pfarrer in die Wüste schicken?" - Ludwig David Eisenlöffel, Seminardirektor i.R.
- "Der Verfasser sagt ... mit etwas was anderen Worten: Es muß jeder selbst für seinen Glauben einstehen. Da gibt es kein Nachplappern und kein Katechismus-Aufsagen" - Pfr. Wilhelm Fuhrmann, Bremer Kirchenzeitung
Autor: Dr. theol. Hermann Detering, geboren 1953, Pfarrer i.R.
- GenresReligionChristianity
676 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 9, 1995
34 people are currently reading
33 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
July 30, 2021
Who was Paul? We have to answer that before anything else. Because his writings (or better said, writings attributed to him), are the oldest Christian texts we have available. His Epistles give us a glimpse into the earliest form of Christianity in writing. Considering all the text we know that didn’t survive (as referenced by other authors that came after), we can be thankful Paul’s did. So knowing who Paul was is important because out of everything that could have survived, Paul’s letters did suggesting at some point, his were important enough to be copied enough and retained enough to survive and become a major part of the New Testament.
The FABRICATED PAUL begins by examining some basic elements of Paul. First, the only “history” we have is in the Acts of the Apostles which modern scholars have concluded is not history but an ancient novel. If any historical information about Paul is within Acts, it’s lost to history as there’s no other source to pick out what’s fact and what’s fancy. The only other thing we have for Paul is his Epistles.
The Epistles is what makes up most of this book. And from the start, the author notes that the Pastoral Epistles (those written to pastors as opposed to entire communities) have all been deemed forgeries. This includes 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. This is due to a difference in writing styles, wording and theology. It’s further noted that Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are also inauthentic for the same reasons. This leaves only seven letters considered authentic writings of Paul: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon.
But that’s still not all.
The author of this book, Hermann Detering moves into discussing the first critical studies of the Epistles conducted by the Dutch Radicals of the late 1800s. This group of critics concluded that all the letters of Paul were forgeries and that the figure of Paul was not historical. They also subsequently concluded there was no historical Jesus either. But by the 1950s, this line of thought and criticism ended as members died and passed away.
Detering, however, finds worth in what the Dutch Radicals did and spends time here giving a brief history of the movement and reasoning why they concluded Paul was fabricated. Detering concludes that Paul’s writings probably were fabricated but not necessarily Paul himself. Paul may have been a modified, retooling of someone else from history (more on that later).
An analysis of Paul’s “authentic” Epistles shows signs of Catholic meddling, wording and language that turned once Marcion-like theology into more Catholic theology. This is Detering’s analysis and he spends some time noting that Marcion, the first to create a New Testament which included a briefer form of Luke’s Gospel than what we have today and Paul’s Epistles could actually have been the author behind Paul. Detering suggests it’s also possible that not Marcion himself by perhaps students of Marcion created the letters and were later taken up by Catholic rewriters. In any case, the case is not conclusively made. There’s some smoke but not enough fire.
The final push in the book makes a case that Paul is actually a reboot of Simon Magus, where Catholics used Simon’s ideas, rewrote them to be more in line with Catholic theology and changed his name to remove the baggage Simon built up. But even here, the case is not entirely made. More smoke, but no actual fire.
The FABRICATED PAUL suffers from what Richard Carrier described as tripping over logic. Richard Carrier commented on this book, “But his (Detering’s) writings are well-informed. They just trip over logic a lot. His case is not sound. Nor is anyone else’s I’ve examined. They falter on basic methodology (like ignoring the effect prior probability must have on a conclusion, or conflating possibility with probability) and sometimes even facts (e.g., Detering seems to think self-referencing signatures commonly appear only in forgery; in fact, they are commonly found on real letters—I’ve seen several examples in papyrological journals).”
So who was Paul and why does he matter? We still cannot conclusively answer the first question. We can make some connections with historical figures in history (like Marcion and Simon Magus) but we could probably red-string-on-a-corkboard put together connections for a lot of historical figures. Just because some details match doesn’t mean we actually have a match.
As to the second question, the Epistles matter because they give us a window into the earliest writings of Christianity. Even if some were forgeries and the authentic have interpolations and have been tampered with.
What can be conclusively stated is that if any of this were the word of god (through Revelation, as Paul insists how he got his information), no one who came upon the letters thought it important to preserve them exactly as they were originally penned. The letters have been tampered with and piecemealed together from fragments and in some cases, found to be outright forgeries. All this says that even in the earliest writings of Christianity, there were disagreements and corrections and attempts by mere mortal men to pass on what they felt was the true meaning of Jesus, his purpose and what god’s plan was.
The FABRICATED PAUL begins by examining some basic elements of Paul. First, the only “history” we have is in the Acts of the Apostles which modern scholars have concluded is not history but an ancient novel. If any historical information about Paul is within Acts, it’s lost to history as there’s no other source to pick out what’s fact and what’s fancy. The only other thing we have for Paul is his Epistles.
The Epistles is what makes up most of this book. And from the start, the author notes that the Pastoral Epistles (those written to pastors as opposed to entire communities) have all been deemed forgeries. This includes 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. This is due to a difference in writing styles, wording and theology. It’s further noted that Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are also inauthentic for the same reasons. This leaves only seven letters considered authentic writings of Paul: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon.
But that’s still not all.
The author of this book, Hermann Detering moves into discussing the first critical studies of the Epistles conducted by the Dutch Radicals of the late 1800s. This group of critics concluded that all the letters of Paul were forgeries and that the figure of Paul was not historical. They also subsequently concluded there was no historical Jesus either. But by the 1950s, this line of thought and criticism ended as members died and passed away.
Detering, however, finds worth in what the Dutch Radicals did and spends time here giving a brief history of the movement and reasoning why they concluded Paul was fabricated. Detering concludes that Paul’s writings probably were fabricated but not necessarily Paul himself. Paul may have been a modified, retooling of someone else from history (more on that later).
An analysis of Paul’s “authentic” Epistles shows signs of Catholic meddling, wording and language that turned once Marcion-like theology into more Catholic theology. This is Detering’s analysis and he spends some time noting that Marcion, the first to create a New Testament which included a briefer form of Luke’s Gospel than what we have today and Paul’s Epistles could actually have been the author behind Paul. Detering suggests it’s also possible that not Marcion himself by perhaps students of Marcion created the letters and were later taken up by Catholic rewriters. In any case, the case is not conclusively made. There’s some smoke but not enough fire.
The final push in the book makes a case that Paul is actually a reboot of Simon Magus, where Catholics used Simon’s ideas, rewrote them to be more in line with Catholic theology and changed his name to remove the baggage Simon built up. But even here, the case is not entirely made. More smoke, but no actual fire.
The FABRICATED PAUL suffers from what Richard Carrier described as tripping over logic. Richard Carrier commented on this book, “But his (Detering’s) writings are well-informed. They just trip over logic a lot. His case is not sound. Nor is anyone else’s I’ve examined. They falter on basic methodology (like ignoring the effect prior probability must have on a conclusion, or conflating possibility with probability) and sometimes even facts (e.g., Detering seems to think self-referencing signatures commonly appear only in forgery; in fact, they are commonly found on real letters—I’ve seen several examples in papyrological journals).”
So who was Paul and why does he matter? We still cannot conclusively answer the first question. We can make some connections with historical figures in history (like Marcion and Simon Magus) but we could probably red-string-on-a-corkboard put together connections for a lot of historical figures. Just because some details match doesn’t mean we actually have a match.
As to the second question, the Epistles matter because they give us a window into the earliest writings of Christianity. Even if some were forgeries and the authentic have interpolations and have been tampered with.
What can be conclusively stated is that if any of this were the word of god (through Revelation, as Paul insists how he got his information), no one who came upon the letters thought it important to preserve them exactly as they were originally penned. The letters have been tampered with and piecemealed together from fragments and in some cases, found to be outright forgeries. All this says that even in the earliest writings of Christianity, there were disagreements and corrections and attempts by mere mortal men to pass on what they felt was the true meaning of Jesus, his purpose and what god’s plan was.
May 10, 2018
A Fantastic Critical Read
I am already somewhat familiar with the arguments presented in this book, and so, for me, it was not a hard read. Still it was very engaging. I will say though, that Detering needs to be careful in gathering his glimpses of "Gnosticism" and its supposed figureheads from the writings of proto-orthodox adherents. Their writings are strictly polemical and so it would have been better to rely on "gnostic" tractates such as the Gospel of Phillip instead; especially in relation to the notion of the "bridal chamber" in conjunction with the imitation of cosmic syzygies. A good read on the polemical nature of the proto-orthodox writers, which also shows that "gnosticism" preceded that of orthodox Christianity, is "The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity" by David Brakke.
I am already somewhat familiar with the arguments presented in this book, and so, for me, it was not a hard read. Still it was very engaging. I will say though, that Detering needs to be careful in gathering his glimpses of "Gnosticism" and its supposed figureheads from the writings of proto-orthodox adherents. Their writings are strictly polemical and so it would have been better to rely on "gnostic" tractates such as the Gospel of Phillip instead; especially in relation to the notion of the "bridal chamber" in conjunction with the imitation of cosmic syzygies. A good read on the polemical nature of the proto-orthodox writers, which also shows that "gnosticism" preceded that of orthodox Christianity, is "The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity" by David Brakke.
November 20, 2019
Desde o ano 2000 quando comecei de forma séria e sistemática estudar o Jesus Histórico, que a figura de Paulo me intrigava. Cheguei a classificá-lo, em artigo escrito em 2007, como "O Apóstolo Virtual", pois Paulo de Tarso, jamais se encontrou com Jesus, nunca foi designado efetivamente pelo próprio Jesus como apóstolo e em sua doutrina, praticamente, ignora de forma intencional sua vida terrena transformando-o em um Jesus cósmico como produto da sua necessidade de reafirmar o seu apostolado por meio de aparições, sonhos e visões do Senhor, quando lhe teria sido transferida a sua doutrina, caracterizando assim, segundo ele, uma escolha realizada diretamente pela vontade de Deus (1Cor 1:1; 2Cor 1:1; Gl 1:1). Alguém que reverenciava Jesus, mas não tinha nenhum interesse em sua vida terrena. Nem mesmo quando esteve em Jerusalém, como narrado em Gálatas, se interessou em visitar os locais sagrados e obter relíquias de Jesus que dariam força ao seu apostolado. Algo inteiramente inusitado. Tratou apenas de um Cristo cósmico, sem menção a detalhes da vida terrena, fato que é até utilizado por alguns estudiosos para negar a existência real de Jesus..
Isso por si só já é uma enorme questão para levantar a dúvida de Paulo ser nada mais do que uma lenda.
Não conhecia, Hermann Detering, mas ele provou ter feito um trabalho sério de muita pesquisa, especialmente na corrente radical da Holanda. Ele o faz de forma bastante convincente, minando a presumida historicidade do grande apóstolo Paulo. Algumas das falhas que Detering aponta - por si só, cada uma tomadas independentemente - não são convincentes. No entanto, quando vistos como um padrão, Detering tenta mostrar que as Cartas Paulinas podem ser melhor compreendidas como documentos escritos com uma agenda política. Esta agenda, além disso, não se encaixa perfeitamente no primeiro século, mas sim no segundo século. Ainda que eu considere que este tipo de artimanha possa parecer um pouco forçado, ou em termos modernos, uma bela teoria da conspiração.
No meio do livro Capítulo 2 e 3 quando ele trata das origens das cartas de Paulo e das lendas em torno de Paulo eu acho que ele se torna confuso, voltando a ficar mais claro no capítulo final (Chapter 4 What Remains?)
Não tenho dúvidas de que a história de Paulo passa por uma mistura de lendas mistificações e que com certeza não se pode afirmar a autoria de nenhuma de suas cartas como de um personagem denominado Paulo, em que pese a maioria creditar esta autoria para sete dessas cartas (Romanos, Corintios 1 e 2 Gálatas, Filemon, Tessalonicenses e Filipenses).
Detering ajuda a criar dúvidas: E se não houvesse comunidades paulinas, nem paulinistas, até o final do primeiro e segundo séculos do início do século? Os primeiros cristãos paulinos que conhecemos eram marcionitas e gnósticos. E se Romanos não se referisse a uma viagem de Paulo no primeiro século, mas à viagem de Marcion a Roma no meio do segundo século?
Em que pese a achar. como relatei, o livro meio confuso em seu miolo, eu o recomendo como uma boa leitura sobre o problema de Paulo. Uma leitura que deve se juntar a outras de ouros estudiosos do tema.
Isso por si só já é uma enorme questão para levantar a dúvida de Paulo ser nada mais do que uma lenda.
Não conhecia, Hermann Detering, mas ele provou ter feito um trabalho sério de muita pesquisa, especialmente na corrente radical da Holanda. Ele o faz de forma bastante convincente, minando a presumida historicidade do grande apóstolo Paulo. Algumas das falhas que Detering aponta - por si só, cada uma tomadas independentemente - não são convincentes. No entanto, quando vistos como um padrão, Detering tenta mostrar que as Cartas Paulinas podem ser melhor compreendidas como documentos escritos com uma agenda política. Esta agenda, além disso, não se encaixa perfeitamente no primeiro século, mas sim no segundo século. Ainda que eu considere que este tipo de artimanha possa parecer um pouco forçado, ou em termos modernos, uma bela teoria da conspiração.
No meio do livro Capítulo 2 e 3 quando ele trata das origens das cartas de Paulo e das lendas em torno de Paulo eu acho que ele se torna confuso, voltando a ficar mais claro no capítulo final (Chapter 4 What Remains?)
Não tenho dúvidas de que a história de Paulo passa por uma mistura de lendas mistificações e que com certeza não se pode afirmar a autoria de nenhuma de suas cartas como de um personagem denominado Paulo, em que pese a maioria creditar esta autoria para sete dessas cartas (Romanos, Corintios 1 e 2 Gálatas, Filemon, Tessalonicenses e Filipenses).
Detering ajuda a criar dúvidas: E se não houvesse comunidades paulinas, nem paulinistas, até o final do primeiro e segundo séculos do início do século? Os primeiros cristãos paulinos que conhecemos eram marcionitas e gnósticos. E se Romanos não se referisse a uma viagem de Paulo no primeiro século, mas à viagem de Marcion a Roma no meio do segundo século?
Em que pese a achar. como relatei, o livro meio confuso em seu miolo, eu o recomendo como uma boa leitura sobre o problema de Paulo. Uma leitura que deve se juntar a outras de ouros estudiosos do tema.
December 27, 2018
A fascinating book arguing not only that the so called genuine Pauline epistles were not written yet an historical Paul as we might otherwise gleam from say the book of Acts, but that the “letters” are all mid second century forgeries additionally catholicised for the purposes of the emerging Roman orthodoxy. It also speculated, somewhat convincingly to me, (and in contrast to the Ditch radical critics) who was responsible for the no. Redacted versions and who was really implied as referent of the name Paul. A great read and opens interesting possibilities as to explanations behind the formation of Christianity.
June 29, 2020
For what it Sets out to do I’d rate it higher. Detering was bright and rapt up by a radical idea.
The translation into English was decent.
Nuggets and tidbits of erudition and serious arguments, but overly laden with an esoteric and constrained radical criticism.
However, for those who accept many of his premises, his points would be like burrs: very difficult to shake off.
The translation into English was decent.
Nuggets and tidbits of erudition and serious arguments, but overly laden with an esoteric and constrained radical criticism.
However, for those who accept many of his premises, his points would be like burrs: very difficult to shake off.
May 8, 2019
Well argued and written. Thought-provoking. Well worth the read for anyone interested in early Christianity.
July 13, 2019
One of the most interesting books I've read. The apostle Paul as Simon Magus? Could it be? Detering makes a fascinating case.
February 12, 2016
In this book Hermann Detering proposes that a historical Paul did not write any, of the Pauline letters of the New Testament, let alone that there was a historical Paul. The book reads smoother than Robert M. Price's book – The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul for which Price makes use of Detering's research. It has a more personal approach to begin with, and secondly seems less technical.
The scholarly concensus is that there is a core of authentic Pauline letters – Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Detering first covers the generally consider inauthentic Pauline letters outside the consensus. He than presents his evidence for the inauthenticity of the rest.
Next, Detering gives, in his view, the real writer. This is Marcion, a second century (supposedly) heretic. The core of these letters actually covers Marcion's theology, which is that Jesus was a spiritual being, with just the appearance of being a man. Also that there are actually two gods. One the god of the Old Testament, whose concern is rightegiousness. The other, the father of Jesus, whose main concern is love. The appearant conflicts with this theology in some of the texts is said to be because Cahtolic redactor doctored the letters. He than proposes that the real Paul was one and the same with the person of Simon Magus.
Finally, Detering presents what all this mean for christians. He believes that it frees the christians from the literal letter of the New Testament texts. This freedom provides the christian with a more spiritual connection with god, similar to that portrayed by the mystics.
While I feel that I am not really qualified to say if Detering research is correct, I will say that on the face of it, it does appear convincing to me. If his research does hold up to historical evidence, than a more than qualified response would be appropriate. I will say that his conclusion is lame. The best freedom would be to jestison the whole idea of a theistic god. I feel that humans, in general, possess the resources to lead fulfilling lives without a false belief in god.
I would recommend the book for those that want exposure to a different view from the mainstream consensus on the Pauline corpus. I feel confident that those who don't would be able to dismiss Detering's approach. Although, who knows. Even, they might have a change of mind.
The scholarly concensus is that there is a core of authentic Pauline letters – Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Detering first covers the generally consider inauthentic Pauline letters outside the consensus. He than presents his evidence for the inauthenticity of the rest.
Next, Detering gives, in his view, the real writer. This is Marcion, a second century (supposedly) heretic. The core of these letters actually covers Marcion's theology, which is that Jesus was a spiritual being, with just the appearance of being a man. Also that there are actually two gods. One the god of the Old Testament, whose concern is rightegiousness. The other, the father of Jesus, whose main concern is love. The appearant conflicts with this theology in some of the texts is said to be because Cahtolic redactor doctored the letters. He than proposes that the real Paul was one and the same with the person of Simon Magus.
Finally, Detering presents what all this mean for christians. He believes that it frees the christians from the literal letter of the New Testament texts. This freedom provides the christian with a more spiritual connection with god, similar to that portrayed by the mystics.
While I feel that I am not really qualified to say if Detering research is correct, I will say that on the face of it, it does appear convincing to me. If his research does hold up to historical evidence, than a more than qualified response would be appropriate. I will say that his conclusion is lame. The best freedom would be to jestison the whole idea of a theistic god. I feel that humans, in general, possess the resources to lead fulfilling lives without a false belief in god.
I would recommend the book for those that want exposure to a different view from the mainstream consensus on the Pauline corpus. I feel confident that those who don't would be able to dismiss Detering's approach. Although, who knows. Even, they might have a change of mind.
October 16, 2015
Fascinating detective work; Bizarre conclusion
An absolutely fascinating look at why certain scholars (a minority of them, but still) claim that none of Paul's letters are authentic...and that maybe Paul didn't exist! You don't have to accept the author's out-there conclusion about Simon Magus in the last several chapters to find a lot of value in most of the book, where a lot of really obvious-in-retrospect inconsistencies in the letters crop up and demand explanation. Also, it's short, efficient, and entertainingly written. Best book I've ever disagreed with!
An absolutely fascinating look at why certain scholars (a minority of them, but still) claim that none of Paul's letters are authentic...and that maybe Paul didn't exist! You don't have to accept the author's out-there conclusion about Simon Magus in the last several chapters to find a lot of value in most of the book, where a lot of really obvious-in-retrospect inconsistencies in the letters crop up and demand explanation. Also, it's short, efficient, and entertainingly written. Best book I've ever disagreed with!
November 20, 2015
Detering is carrying the Dutch radical torch high in this one. Bordering on hyper skeptical at times, The Fabricated Paul pulls scholarship back from it's conservative roots. I initially awarded it 5 stars, but Detering is not that perfect. His conclusion is left wanting and some loose ends remain so. The empiricist in me wanted to give it 5, because of the importance of the book's achievement. Detering proves that scholars should at least answer the question, "Was Christianity birthed in complete darkness, or can we know who wrote the books in the New Testament," with a resounding "yes!"
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews