apatura_iris

The problem with this idea is that there are numerous discrepancies between Paul's teachings and Jesus'. If Paul invented Jesus he would have kept things consistent.

spamandham

Paul as depicted in the NT is probably not historical either, though that character may be rooted in a 'historical Paul'. The best argument I've seen, (Hermann Detering, http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html ) is that the historical Paul was Simon Magus, and that the Paul we know started as a composite character invented by Marcion, folding aspects of Simon Magus and Marcion himself together.

This character was later modified by the Catholic church to suit it's purposes, resulting in the NT Paul. Enough of the historicizing aspects of Jesus found in "Paul's" letters appear to be later additions inserted by the Catholic redactors, that IMHO it's safe to conclude they all are. That then suggests that Mark (or whatever it was based on if not original) is the earliest source that mentions the Jesus of Christianity.

Minimalist

However you cannot speak for the last guy who edited "Paul's" writings. For all you know he had an agenda of his own and made a few strategic changes to the text.

It would be different if we had the original manuscripts to see what, if anything, this "Paul" may have said.


But we don't.

Solo

But au contraire, mon cher, any second-class conspiracy buff will tell you that Paul quoting from Jesus and agreeing with his economics - let the morrow take care of itself - would have been as good as giving the swindle away.

Jiri

Newton's Cat

The name change from Mark to Paul may have come about as a consequence of a "religious conversion". Mark is a "warlike" name, Paul is more appropriate for a man preaching a peaceful religion (similar to the Saul-Paul name change).

Mark wrote the story of Jesus - which in its original form may have been a play aimed at intellectuals and philosophers. The audience/readers were not expected to believe it was "historical" - though it may not have been entirely fictional.

Mark then changed his name to Paul, founded a religious movement and wrote a number of letters to his followers.

Now enters the "founder of Christianity" - who systematically altered and expanded Mark's story of Jesus and interpolated Jesus and Christianity into Paul's letters and wrote other letters purported to be written by Paul.

Mark 1, 35-45

And rising up very early in the night he went out and went away to a desert place and there prayed.

Peter and his cronies then appear and he goes off with them.

Verse 40 then continues:

And comes to him a leper ....

Verse 40 is a continuation of verse 35 - verses 36-39 were interpolated into the text.

Immediately after healing the leper Jesus "gets stroppy" with him and:

"sternly admonishes him" and THROWS HIM OUT!

The Greek word for "sternly admonish" means to get REALLY angry! After earlier being "filled with tenderness" towards the leper Jesus abruptly changes attitude immediately after healing the guy!

... and so on throughout Mark.

Mark, as with have it today, was written by two very different personalities - and the guy who "changed the storyline" was entirely responsible for the inclusion of Peter, etc.

Scholars talk about the Paulinian and the Petrine "influences" in Mark.

Finally:

And immediately after leaving the synagogue they went into his house. Now his mother-in-law lay sick with a fever ....

... and the voice that spoke to Jesus after his baptism by John was supposed to be understood as his DECEASED FATHER.

... and so on.

spamandham

Huh? The name "Mark" was attributed to that work much much later, and if one of the authors involved in "Paul's" epistles was also involved in writing "Mark", I guess I would expect some kind of similarity between the two.

Cesc

It should be taken into consideration that "gospel" means "good news", but I think these Pauline scriptures are interesting here:

KJV:
Imo, you have to read and understand Philo Judaeus' writings and particularly his idea of the "logos" as Gods middleman if you want to understand the theology of the Pauline scriptures. I think its obvious that Paul is trying to breathe life into Philo's "Logos" when he's theologising about JC.

Another thing I believe is paramount is understanding the concept of death/resurrection in connection with the mystery initiations. I think Freemasonry aswell as every single one of the ancient "mystery schools" have got the same idea as Paul have when he writes about being initiated into the christian faith by dying and resurrecting with Christ. What there're talking about is an intellectual and spiritual death on a personal level and a subsequent resurrection/rebirth as a new enlightened or initiated person.

Not as ethically oriented, the Greek Mysteries most likely had you role-play Demeter or Aphrodite and her trip to the underworld and subsequent resurrection. That way you got initiated or reborn or resurrected into the Mysteries. The old 'you' is dead and a new 'you' is resurrected. Just like nature every spring or God's heavenly sun through the 12 signs of the zodiac.

They are allegories, like the gospel accounts of Jesus I'd argue, used for the purpose of making a "normal" person into a true gem of understanding and enlightenment, like the light of the world resurrecting every spring. Or in Pauls Jewish theology, save you, initiate you into the Mysteries of Gods Kingdom, through the death and resurrection of Christ so you'll go to heaven when the world was going to come to an end within 10-20 years.
The alchemists call it making mundane metal into gold and the Freemasons call it making a raw stone into a perfect cube. Both allegories for the enlightening of a human being, namely you.
Christians might call it receiving the knowledge of Jesus or something like that. Initiated into the faith through the rebirth ritual with the "living water" of the womb, the "holy water."
Paul was most probably an initiate into the Mysteries and had experienced these concepts and thought he had a new revolutionary idea inspired by Jewish Allegorism and especially Philo.

Im personally positive that Paul knew all about the writings of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria. There was a whole school of thought that I think has much to do with the foundation of the Christianity we know today, the Jewish Allegorists in Alexandria. Without Philo Judaeus there would be no Christianity, I contend.