bacht

I still have trouble accepting that none of Paul is datable pre-70, but I can see that there's no way to prove it. If Paul was just a name put on a set of beliefs then his canonical bio is worthless.

I can see how Paul's letters could have had a relationship with the book of Acts, in either direction (ie. rebuttal/correction). The gospels don't mention Paul directly, unless some secondary character is meant to represent him.

Do you see the gospels as intended primarily to solidify the HJ story, with "Paul" reacting from the Marcionite or gnostic position?

aa5874

I think the first Jesus story was written by a "doomsday" character or writer who thought the end of the world was near.

Now, gMatthew may have been written before gMark, and there are two main points that may indicate such.

The church writers claimed gMatthew was written before gMark. It is my view that if gMark was written first that the church writers could have or would have said that that was the case.

Secondly, gMatthew appears to be a more "complete" biography of Jesus of the NT, from the so-called prophecy, conception, and birth, to the crucifixion, resurrection and implied ascension.

And with respect to Paul, I cannot find any corroborative information to place Paul in the 1st century. The church writers place Paul after Peter was filled with Holy Ghost and was preaching the gospel. His conversion as described is fiction and Paul claimed over 500 people saw Jesus after he was resurrected.

And further, it has been deduced that more than one person wrote letters using the name, yet the church writers seemed not aware of the fraud and declared all letters with the name as authentic as canonised.

I cannot envisage anything truthful about Paul without some external corroborative source.