gstafleu

aa5874,

that is interesting reasoning as to the historicity and timing of Paul. I have a question, though.

It is hardly controversial to observe that Paul has little or no of the historical detail provided in the gospels. The explanation as to why this is so may be controversial, the observation itself is not.

Why then, if one were to "invent" a Paul after the gospels, would one include so little of the gospel details? The only reason I can think of is that the inventor wanted to distance him/herself from the gospels. And the only reason for the lack of historical gospel-like detail would then be because the rival faction that was producing the Paulines did not see Jesus as the kind of person/entity portrayed in the gospels.

That provides some sort of solution to the strange absence of gospel-like details in an post-gospel Paul. But I still have this uneasy feeling one would even in that case expect more gospel-like details in Paul than we see.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

I recalled that discussion, and in fact did not add in the epistle of Polycarp because of it; the usual dating of both Clement and Ignatius, however, is still relevant, even with these earlier dates for Marcion.

I am wondering how we know this for certain. It is true that we do not find the name of Paul in the extant writings of Justin; but how do we know that Justin could not bring himself to mention the name of Paul in, say, his work against Marcion, which has been lost to us?

Ben.

aa5874

Not really, there were many versions of Jesus but Marcion's version appear to be of great concern to the Christian Church and Marcion's Jesus was believed to be on earth the same time as the Jesus of the NT, during the reign of Tiberius.

But, Tertullian in his Five Books Against Marcion, written around the end of the 2nd century, gave some clues for the invention of the character Paul and the names of the authors of the Gospels.

Tertullian in Against Marcion 4.4 So, Tertullian made his agenda very clear, he will prove that Marcion's version of Jesus is really a recent invention with no history, but Tertullian's main characters, Jesus and his disciples were all fictitious, including Peter and James, the so-called brother of Jesus.

Now, how is it that Paul and Peter were preaching in Rome?

How is it Paul stayed with Peter for 15 days in Jerusalem?

Peter was a fictitious disciple of Jesus, possible invented by the unknown author of Mark or the memoirs of the apostles.

How is it Paul MET the fictious character James, the so-called brother of the fiction called Jesus?

James, the brother of the Jesus, was a fictitious character, possibly invented by the unknown author of Mark or the memoirs of the apostles.

Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius appear to have been duped, they assembled a history of fiction. See "Church History" by Eusebius for the confirmation of the fiction.

Doug Shaver

Most of it, I don't, either.

That would be a contradiction. Anyone who writes a work of fiction knows that what he writes is not true. If he believes it and it isn't true, then what he writes is errors.

gstafleu

That seems rather easy: Paul invented (or really knew) James, and that James was then incorporated into the Gospels. If we assume the gospels were sourced from many places, why not also from Paul?

Gerard

Doug Shaver

I don't consider all conspiracy theories to be lunacy, but I do find them all to be lacking in parsimony, and I see no way for Paul to have been a simple fabrication of second-century Christians without there having been a conspiracy of some kind.

I'll take a look when I get a chance, but no telling when that will be.

patcleaver

James was the brother of a high priest named Jesus bar Damneus, the one called Christ.

Christ is a title of the high priests because the priests were anointed.

gstafleu

So any priest was a Christ, and hence any priest called Jesus was a Jesus Christ? Didn't know that. Interesting, if true.

Gerard Stafleu

patcleaver

Just search for anoint and anointed in Strong's. Anointing was part of the initiation/coronation ceremony or priests and kings.

Kings were also Christs (anointed), but there were no kings named Jesus in the 1st century.

spamandham

Maybe this is just semantics, but I wouldn't consider a process of one upmanship where competing sects augment existing texts repeatedly and hack together new ones as 'proof' that their faith is the true faith to be a conspiracy per se, even though the net effect is the same.