The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

It is most fascinating that the very persons who ask for evidence for an historical Jesus are TERRIFIED to ask for the evidence for an historical Paul.

There is NO corroborative evidence, no historical data from antiquity for Paul of Tarsus, the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

The character called Paul was an INVENTION EXACTLY like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul were FABRICATED to falsely give PRIMACY to the Christian Canon.

Exactly so, dejudge. For once I agree. There is no better reason for believing in Paul than for believing in Jesus, except that the information given about Paul is more plausible than much of that given for Jesus. But apart from you, most of these people do believe in Paul. Yet in the interest of equity they shouldn't!

Again, your post is void of logic.

You BELIEVE what you imagine is plausible.

We are not dealing with 'palusibility' but EVIDENCE from antiquity [historical data] that Paul was a figure of history in the time of King Aretas.

You cannot identify an accepted non-apologetic historical source of antiquity which can show that Jesus of Nazareth or Paul were figures of history.

Where does Paul come from? The Bible. Where else? Nowhere! Are we allowed to pick and choose things to believe out of the Bible, on the mere grounds that they seem plausible? Absolutely not!

You got them there, dejudge!

Where does Adam come from? Where does the Angel Gabriel come from? Where does the Holy Ghost come from? Where does Satan the Devil at the temptation come from?

You have confirmed that you are a "pick and choose" Bible Believer.

Tell us what you Pick and Choose to believe in the Baptism event??

Mark 1

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened , and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

1 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased .

Christians of antiquity did also pick and choose things to believe out of the Bible.

Some claimed Jesus of Nazareth was on earth WITHOUT birth.

 

[Walter Ego]

To Walter Ego. This will go on and on, and it will never stop.

I find myself in agreement with this comment.

"I have been a bit baffled about why this matter evokes such strong feelings, especially among atheists. Since we all admit that there’s no evidence that Jesus was the son of God, did miracles, was resurrected or born of a virgin, and died for our sins, does it really matter so much if he’s based on a historical person? Why does this evoke such strong feelings, and such acrimonious arguments, from atheists?

Perhaps some of our concern comes from this: if we can show that there’s no historical Jesus, then the myth of Christianity tumbles down. That is, it’s no so much about convincing ourselves about the non-historicity of Jesus as convincing Christians."

Bingo!

l feel like I'm standing on a street corner being harangued by Bible-thumping fundamentalists.

Thou shall NOT believe in a Historical Jesus! Halleluiah, Praise Atheism!

 

[dejudge]

Who are HJers trying to impress with the FICTION that Joseph was the father of Jesus?

Christians Scholars and Fundamentalists use the Christian Bible to argue Jesus existed as described in the NT.

There are Billions of Christian Scholars and Fundamentalists who believe Jesus the Son of God was really real, that he was raised from the dead on the THIRD day and ascended to heaven before the day of Pentecost.

Christian Scholars and Fundamentalists pray to the ascended and resurrected Jesus for salvation.

HJers admit the Christian Bible is not historically credible.

Why are HJers using the very same Christian Bible with admitted fiction and mythology as history?

An historical Jesus was not plausible in antiquity.

Myth Jesus, the Transfiguring, Water Walking Son of a God was far more plausible that an HJ and that this precisely why there are BILLIONS of Christians up to this very day.

An HJ does not make any sense.

An HJ cannot walk on WATER, TRANSFIGURE or RESURRECT on the THIRD day.

The fables called Gospels REQUIRE mythology--NOT history.

 

[Craig B]

Where does Adam come from? Where does the Angel Gabriel come from? Where does the Holy Ghost come from? Where does Satan the Devil at the temptation come from?

You have confirmed that you are a "pick and choose" Bible Believer.

I am not a Bible Believer at all, and you know it. This, as I have pointed out in this thread recently, is the absurd line taken by the mythicists. They accuse rationalist HJ proponents of preaching Christianity. In your case I've said that you can't be made to stop such nonsense, and that you have no other argument than this absurdity.

I don't choose to believe in ghosts and angels whether they are in the NT or not. But these NT people I do choose to believe in:
Pontius Pilate - governor of Judea
Sergius Paulus - governor of Cyprus
Erastus - city treasurer of Corinth
Gallio - governor of Corinth
Aretas - king of the Nabataeans

Tell us what you Pick and Choose to believe in the Baptism event??

This

One of the arguments in favour of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John is that it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent, typically referred to as the criterion of embarrassment in historical analysis. Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew attempts to offset this problem by having John feel unworthy to baptise Jesus and Jesus giving him permission to do so in Matthew 3:14–15.

Christians of antiquity did also pick and choose things to believe out of the Bible.

Some claimed Jesus of Nazareth was on earth WITHOUT birth.

You're at it again, aren't you? You have no way of evaluating sources. None at all. Mark has no birth story. That doesn't mean he believed Jesus had never been born: it means he had no beliefs about any supernatural events connected with Jesus' birth.

 

[IanS]

Bingo!

l feel like I'm standing on a street corner being harangued by Bible-thumping fundamentalists.

Thou shall NOT believe in a Historical Jesus! Halleluiah, Praise Atheism!

Now in that big bold red lettering, you do begin to look & sound like an evangelizing Christian!

You pop into this thread years late, apparently unaware of things that have been discussed to death here already, trying to re-run those same arguments all over again. And you write posts such as the above mainly just complaining about "atheists" haranguing you on street corners just like bible-thumping fundamentalists telling you that you must not believe in Jesus.

Well that's all completely untrue, isn't it! You just made all that up!

Firstly, the scepticism here is nothing to do with people being "atheists". Nobody here has said atheism is the reason they doubt the existence of Jesus.

The truth of the matter is that despite 2000 years of almost everyone believing Christian speakers and bible scholars who have assured everyone that Jesus was certainly real and that the evidence proved it beyond doubt, it actually turns out that there is no such evidence of Jesus at all, and for all that time those Christian writers and bible scholars have been very seriously misleading everyone, if not actually deliberately lying about having such "certain" evidence of Jesus.

In fact to the contrary, we now know, courtesy of exposure in books like those from Wells, Ellegard, Avalos, Carrier, if not from very much earlier books by writers such as Robertson and Remsberg, or even Bertrand Russell, that quite contrary to there being overwhelming and certain" evidence of Jesus, there is in fact a huge mountain of undeniable evidence showing why the biblical stories of Jesus were certainly untrue.

That's the reason for the scepticism here. I.e., zero evidence for a human Jesus, but in fact a huge amount against.

 

[maximara]

Exactly so, dejudge. For once I agree. There is no better reason for believing in Paul than for believing in Jesus, except that the information given about Paul is more plausible than much of that given for Jesus. But apart from you, most of these people do believe in Paul. Yet in the interest of equity they shouldn't!

But Paul (of his seven epistles) is just some guy writing to other about his visions so why would history record much about him?

As a general rule history records the important, the unusual. Some relatively obscure guy writing to even obscurer people about his visions is not going to hit the historical radar screen on his own.

Acts comes off as the 1st to 2nd century equivalent of a dime novel or penny dreadful with little to no historical value and so is useless in determining how important Paul really was.

As I have pointed out before there is no external evidence for most of the would be messiahs Josephus writes about. Heck, for some of them Josephus didn't even record their names!

The messiah in the vein of Moses that Pontius Pilate used an army to crush for example we just know as 'the Samaritan prophet'

The messiah who supposedly led an army of 30,000 people in an attempt to take Jerusalem by force which the Romans drove back killing 400 and capturing 200 is known only as 'the Egyptian Jew Messiah'.

The messiah who Roman governor Festus crushed c.59 CE was crushed by an army composed "both horsemen and footmen" is even most of a cypher then the other two.

AFAIK what Roman records of these messiahs that existed have not survived but there is no reason to doubt they existed.


The reason Jesus existence is doubted is NOT just because there are no reliable records of him but also because of the way the Christians handled the other works that could have supported the existence of Jesus or even the supposed atrocities against the Church in the 1st to 2nd centuries:

Why wasn't On Superstition by Seneca the Younger preserved? And if it could have been from 40 CE why was its non mention of Christianity in Rome such a big deal to Augustine?

Why weren't three of the five books that made up Philo's Embassy to Gaius (c40 CE) which gave a detailed account of Pontius Pilate's rule preserved? Better question why in the 4th century was it claimed Philo met Peter despite no word about Jesus being preserved in Philo.

Why wasn't Clovius Rufus' detailed history of Nero which should have documented Nero's treatment of Christians not preserved?

Why wasn't Pliny the Elder's history of Rome from 31 to then present day (sometime before his death in 79) with a volume for each year preserved?

Why the entire section covering 29-31 CE of Annals of Tacitus cut?

Why are the section sections covering 6 to 2 BC and 30 CE in Cassius Dio's Roman History missing?

 

[maximara]

Now in that big bold red lettering, you do begin to look & sound like an evangelizing Christian!

You pop into this thread years late, apparently unaware of things that have been discussed to death here already, trying to re-run those same arguments all over again. And you write posts such as the above mainly just complaining about "atheists" haranguing you on street corners just like bible-thumping fundamentalists telling you that you must not believe in Jesus.

Well that's all completely untrue, isn't it! You just made all that up!

Firstly, the scepticism here is nothing to do with people being "atheists". Nobody here has said atheism is the reason they doubt the existence of Jesus.

The truth of the matter is that despite 2000 years of almost everyone believing Christian speakers and bible scholars who have assured everyone that Jesus was certainly real and that the evidence proved it beyond doubt, it actually turns out that there is no such evidence of Jesus at all, and for all that time those Christian writers and bible scholars have been very seriously misleading everyone, if not actually deliberately lying about having such "certain" evidence of Jesus.

In fact to the contrary, we now know, courtesy of exposure in books like those from Wells, Ellegard, Avalos, Carrier, if not from very much earlier books by writers such as Robertson and Remsberg, or even Bertrand Russell, that quite contrary to there being overwhelming and certain" evidence of Jesus, there is in fact a huge mountain of undeniable evidence showing why the biblical stories of Jesus were certainly untrue.

That's the reason for the scepticism here. I.e., zero evidence for a human Jesus, but in fact a huge amount against.

This whole atheism is the reason to doubt the existence of Jesus nonsense annoys me. There are atheists who believe Jesus existed and there are deists and followers of other religions where "Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris"

The evidence for Jesus being anywhere near the level of importance the Gospels claim is nil.

 

[dejudge]

This whole atheism is the reason to doubt the existence of Jesus nonsense annoys me.

This whole atheism is the reason to doubt Jesus was a figure of mythology nonsense is annoying.

There are atheists who believe Jesus existed and there are deists and followers of other religions where "Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris"

The evidence for Jesus being anywhere near the level of importance the Gospels claim is nil.

There are atheists who argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of mythology just like the God of the Jews, Satan, the angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve because of LACK of historical data from antiquity.

Jesus, God, Satan, the angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve are MYTH/FICTION characters in the Christian Bible.

It is extremely annoying when people who call themselves atheists ask for historical evidence for the God of the Jews, Satan, the angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve but REFUSE to present credible historical data for their belief about Jesus in the NT.

 

[dejudge]

Acts comes off as the 1st to 2nd century equivalent of a dime novel or penny dreadful with little to no historical value and so is useless in determining how important Paul really was.

Your statement is extremely fascinating.

Acts of the Apostles is useless historical garbage yet it is still being used to date the writing of the Pauline Corpus when in fact it mentions NOTHING about letters to Churches or Pastorals from Saul/Paul.

In addition, there are NO existing manuscripts of Acts of the Apostles from the 1st century.

Acts of the Apostles has ZERO historical value to argue for the historicity of Jesus, the disciples and Saul/Paul and ZERO corroboration for the date of composition of the Entire Pauline Corpus.

 

[waters]

Personally I don't see the logic in thinking "Paul" came after Mark. The idea that Paul could have had access to Mark with so much reference material to push his own version of Christianity and NOT use it doesn't make that much sense.

Mohammed and Islam?

But Paul (of his seven epistles) is just some guy writing to other about his visions so why would history record much about him?

How do you know that?
How do you know that they were not composed by, (just as an example) "Irenaeus", or Origen of Alexandria, or a thousand other well educated Greeks?

How do you know when, or where, they were composed?

The only real evidence we have of Paul's letters, is a Latin manuscript, of unknown provenance, authored, supposedly, at the end of the second century, in Greek, by "Irenaeus", and then "translated" into Latin.

If "Paul's" letters had preceded the gospels, surely ONE of the authors of the gospels would have referenced them--using maximara's logic.

Against maximara: The message in the epistles contradicts that found in the gsopels: in particular, the Galatians were foolish for running back to Moses, instead of sticking with Jesus. A faction fight, basically. So, I would not be surprised that Paul has nothing in common with the precedent gospels. He is writing something quite different: Ignore circumcision. Ignore prohibition about eating with gentiles; Ignore demands to enter the mikveh post-menstruation.

Paul, not Jesus, is the founder of Christianity. And yes, I agree, Craig B is correct, we know even less about Paul, than Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

Can you furnish the name of the entity who had donated his DNA to the person who you can name as Jesus' mother?

If that's your threshold of evidence for historical figures, you're bound to be dissapointed by your history lessons.

 

[maximara]

Mohammed and Islam?

According to wikipedia: "Muslims believe that the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and lost Gospels, such as that of Peter, contain fragments of Jesus' message, but that the majority of the original teaching has been altered or lost."

The only real evidence we have of Paul's letters, is a Latin manuscript, of unknown provenance, authored, supposedly, at the end of the second century, in Greek, by "Irenaeus", and then "translated" into Latin.

Untrue. Papyrus 46 is in Greek and conservatively dates from 175-225 (a more realistic range is 150-250)

If "Paul's" letters had preceded the gospels, surely ONE of the authors of the gospels would have referenced them--using maximara's logic.

Given the Gospels are about Jesus life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection why would they mention works that were written some 15 to 20 years later? That would be like expecting a work on the Civil War to talk about Grant's failure as a president some 20 years later and about as nonsensical.

Against maximara: The message in the epistles contradicts that found in the gsopels

Big deal the Gospels contradict themselves:

For all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. - John 15:15

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. (ie I know more then am telling you guys) - John 16:12

---

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34

One of them ... drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus ... Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. -Matthew 26:51-52

 

[dejudge]

...Paul, not Jesus, is the founder of Christianity. And yes, I agree, Craig B is correct, we know even less about Paul, than Jesus.

Neither Paul nor Jesus started a Christian cult.

In the NT itself, the Jesus character did not want the populace to know he was Christ and did NOT even acknowledge he was the Christ to his OWN disciples until Peter made the claim in PRIVATE.

In the Pauline Corpus the chatacter called Paul PERSECUTED the Christian Faith BEFORE he himself preached his Revealed Gospel of the resurrected Jesus.

The Jesus story and cult appear to have originated with the so-called Heretics mentioned in "Against Heresies".

In "Against Heresies" the author mentioned the names of the so-called Heretical cults which preached stories of Jesus but introduced ALL FAKE authors of the Canon in order to give primacy to the Church.

Virtually everything that is stated in "Against Heresies" about the chronology and authorship of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus have been REJECTED by Scholars.

In order to falsely give primacy to the Canon, it is stated in "Against Heresies" that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels since at least in the time of Philo and that ONE SINGLE person called Paul wrote ALL the Epsitles under the name of Paul.

Those claims in "Against Heresies" have utterly REJECTED almost universally by Scholars.

It is far more likely that it was the SO-CALLED HERETICS who started the Jesus story and cult.

The Canonised Gospels and Epistles appear to be LATER mutilated and corrupted versions of the Jesus stories which originated with the so-called Heretics.

Even apologetic writers up to the 2nd century show NO awareness of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

 

[waters]

If that's your threshold of evidence for historical figures,

Nope. That's my threshold for establishing an "historical basis" for a clearly mythological creature, whether that creature be Babe the Blue Ox, or Superman, or Jesus of Nazareth, OR, clearly fictional characters, like Hikaru Genji, OR, characters in a publication, by an author renowned for writing obviously fictional stories, such as Peregrinus, written by Lucian, where that character is supposed to have interacted with clearly identified mythical beings, e.g. Zeus.

 

[waters]

According to wikipedia: "Muslims believe that the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and lost Gospels, such as that of Peter, contain fragments of Jesus' message, but that the majority of the original teaching has been altered or lost."

First of all, I deny that I know anything. I am poorly educated in this realm. If I write contrarily, as if knowing everything about all things, then, my apologies to the forum. I genuinely come here to learn, and part of that educational process is to attempt to challenge, not usually with success, I grant you.
In the case of Islam, where I am not only wholly ignorant, but filled with prejudices, in view of ISIS, I must acknowledge, nevertheless, a curiosity, about the Muslim world view of Paul's epistles.

My starting point, "foolish Galatians", is perhaps naive. But the way I look at it, with my prejudices, and not with any kind of insight or knowledge, the Muslims appear to have adopted some of the very elements which Paul had protested, claiming supercession by Christianity:

They observe the requirement to pray facing Jerusalem (Mecca, same absurdity);
They observe the requirement to fast at certain times;
They demand circumcision;
They denounce polytheism;
They abhor pork;
They practice incantations and rituals performed by trained magicians (aka rabbi), to "bless" the food before consuming it.

So, yes, they are correct, "Jesus" original message has certainly been lost, and the group has been led astray by the scoundrel Paul, a fake apostle.

The question, though, remains unanswered. Is there anything in Islamic literature that attests to the existence of Paul's epistles before they are mentioned by Irenaeus at the end of the second century? Did they wield any influence in the Arabian peninsula, or does the Muslim world equate Christianity with the gospels, exclusively, ignoring the letters of Paul? I am unsure that an answer to this question will assist me in clarifying why I believe that the epistles came AFTER the gospels.

 

[waters]

Untrue. Papyrus 46 is in Greek and conservatively dates from 175-225 (a more realistic range is 150-250)

And when did Irenaeus write Adv. Haeres.?
Same time, yes?
Point is, the reference to Paul's letters comes AFTER Justin Martyr's texts.

Surely, if the epistles had been widely distributed, Justin Martyr would have mentioned the controversy surrounding the message found in those letters.

Justin Martyr quotes extensively from the Hebrew old testament, and that doesn't mean that Justin disagreed with Paul's renunciation of the Road oft Traveled, but it is disconcerting to observe so many folks, today, who accept the notion of Paul having written those epistles (P46) before the Gospels (P45), given that Justin makes no reference to any of the epistles in his extant books.

Does p46 contain 1Timothy 5:18? No, it does not, but, here it is, from Codex Sinaiticus:
λεγει γραρ η γραφη .... αξιοϲ ο εργατηϲ του μιϲθου αυτου
English:
" states indeed the scripture .... worthy the workman of the wages of him"
Luke 10:7 (excerpt of second half)
................αξιοϲ γαρ ο εργατηϲ του μιϲθου αυτου
English:
.........."worthy indeed the workman of the wages of him"
So, "Paul's letter", 1 Timothy, regards Luke 10:7 as grafe, γραφη, i.e. "Scripture", and therefore quotes from it.

It is not easy to quote from something written one or two centuries after one's own text.

How likely was it, to proclaim something as having the same ecclesiastical weight, as texts attributed to Moses, and other old testament authors? How could such a declaration have escaped the critical eye of Justin Martyr? I think it is simply much more reasonable to assume, we have no proof of course, that Paul's epistles represented a reaction to the gospels. In essence, he had been a revisionist.

 

[maximara]

So, yes, they are correct, "Jesus" original message has certainly been lost, and the group has been led astray by the scoundrel Paul, a fake apostle.

The question, though, remains unanswered. Is there anything in Islamic literature that attests to the existence of Paul's epistles before they are mentioned by Irenaeus at the end of the second century?

Considering that by definition there is no "Islamic" literature before the 6th century when Muhammad was even born this is a kind of silly question. It is on par with asking that the "English" literature of the Roman empire is.

WE have something that possibly pushes Paul back to the mid 2nd century.

Did they wield any influence in the Arabian peninsula, or does the Muslim world equate Christianity with the gospels, exclusively, ignoring the letters of Paul? I am unsure that an answer to this question will assist me in clarifying why I believe that the epistles came AFTER the gospels.

Considering we are talking about things well after our first intact bibles and from what we know Islamic Arabs didn't even get to the Great Library until 642 to save stuff the Christians had missed and would rediscover when when El Cid conquered Toledo, Spain in the 11th century I don't see the relevance given the Codex Sinaiticus proves Paul existed in the 4th (330–360).

Papyrus 46 has a date range (150-250) that encompasses the c180 Against Heracles so this is reasonable evidence that Paul existed in the 2nd century...long before Muhammad was even born or the Great Library got devastated in the attack of Aurelian in the 3rd. Claims that Marcion of Sinope's Apostolikon were the writings of Paul push that date back to 140 CE and that is as far as that method can take us.


The remaining method is historical criticism (not to be confused with textual criticism and paleography). As I have pointed out before language of a particular time (and even place) has a particular structure, grammar, syntax, and rhythm.

This is why reading English works from the 19th century can be so difficult; the language feels "wrong" for lack of a better word.

The same is true of someone familiar with reading 19th century English literature who comes across a work trying to imitate that style; it too will feel "wrong".

As I have said before if I today took modern ink and paper and copied a work for the 19th century historical criticism would still show the original work copied was from the 19th century despite everything else being from 2015.

It was historical criticism that established that only 7 of the supposed 14 Pauline epistles likely came from Paul.

If you go back to the 19th century you will find the 1869 Biblical notes and queries which gives a comprehensive list of Church father that reference or even quote "Paul"'s writings.

Justin Martyr's Dial. p. 336 D seems to reference Second Epistle to The Thessalonians and Irenseus refers to it in Adv. Hcer. 3, 7, 2 So "Paul" in some form must have existed for those authors to either reference or use his ideas which agrees with what little we have.

So "Paul" existing at least by c140 seems to be given and historical criticism points to the Greek being as it is believe to existed in the mid 1st century to early 2nd century CE (given nearly every Epistle is actually two or more letters edited together and the amount of material from that time and place that is as fine as we can get)

 

[maximara]

And when did Irenaeus write Adv. Haeres.?
Same time, yes?
Point is, the reference to Paul's letters comes AFTER Justin Martyr's texts.

Surely, if the epistles had been widely distributed, Justin Martyr would have mentioned the controversy surrounding the message found in those letters.

Justin Martyr quotes extensively from the Hebrew old testament, and that doesn't mean that Justin disagreed with Paul's renunciation of the Road oft Traveled, but it is disconcerting to observe so many folks, today, who accept the notion of Paul having written those epistles (P46) before the Gospels (P45), given that Justin makes no reference to any of the epistles in his extant books.

Does p46 contain 1Timothy 5:18? No, it does not, but, here it is, from Codex Sinaiticus

Well Marcion supposedly knew of but did not use Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pastoral Epistles (J. J. Clabeaux, A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion (Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 21; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989) in c 140 CE so that doesn't mean anything other then Luke had to exist by that time and since Matcion was using that in his bible as well that is a 'no duh'

Some scholars believe it was Marcion who first edited "Paul" letters into the Epistles that we more or less know today.


"The content of P46 is close to that of Marcion's earlier Apostolicon. It contains the same epistles, except that P46 also contains Heb, and the order is significantly different from Marcion’s:

Gal, 1 & 2 Cor, Rom, 1 & 2 Thes, Eph, Col, Phm, Php

Given the range of dates ascribed to P46, (From late 2nd to early 3rd century) it is quite possible that it was written specifically to counteract Marcion, using ‘approved’ mss of the Paulines instead of the (in some places quite different) text found in the Apostolicon." - The Contents of Codex P46

---

The point in all this is why complicate things by saying Paul doesn't exist? All you have is a guy writing about visions and making very vague references to his previous life as a persecutor of Christians in the seven epistles (ie Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) he is though to have actually written with everything else in Paul's name being a pseudograph.

The 19th century radical Dutch theory that Paul didn't exist just over complicates things. There is a reason that the idea didn't really get and traction then and isn't that common among Christ Mythers today; it serves no real purpose and violates Occam's razor.

What purpose does it serve to have Paul a fictional person? What is so critical in his seven edited epistles that is so vital to the HJ position that Paul must be passed off as a fictional person? I have asked this question before and didn't get any answer then.

 

[Craig B]

It is extremely annoying when people who call themselves atheists ask for historical evidence for the God of the Jews, Satan, the angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve but REFUSE to present credible historical data for their belief about Jesus in the NT.

Is it? Why? You think that the existence of gods, or angels, or first people created by gods from dust or bones while they were making the universe are of equal plausibility with the existence of wandering preachers whose family live in Galilee?

 

[dejudge]

...The 19th century radical Dutch theory that Paul didn't exist just over complicates things. There is a reason that the idea didn't really get and traction then and isn't that common among Christ Mythers today; it serves no real purpose and violates Occam's razor.

No-one today, Scholar or not, has been able to produce a single shred of evidence to contradict the theory that Paul was a figure of fiction.

The theory that Paul in the NT was not a figure of history is supported by the existing evidence.

A fictional Paul does not complicate anything EXCEPT your ASSUMPTIONS.

A non-historical Paul explains why Christian and non-apologetic writers of antiquity showed no awareness of Paul, no awareness of Pauline Churches, no awareness of the Pauline Corpus AND NO AWARENESS of the Pauline Revealed Gospel from the resurrected Jesus.

The character called Paul in the Paul Corpus is WITHOUT historical corroboration outside of apologetic sources and the claims made by Paul about the resurrected Jesus are completely non-historical.

Paul not only WITNESSED non-historical accounts but also PARTICIPATED in the same events which did not and could not have happened.

Paul of the NT is a fictional character UNTIL historical data can be found.

What purpose does it serve to have Paul a fictional person?

Your question is most laughable?

Anyone who is familiar with "Against Heresies" should understand why the Fake authors were invented.

Fake authors [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul] were fabricated to falsely give primacy to the NT Canon.

What is so critical in his seven edited epistles that is so vital to the HJ position that Paul must be passed off as a fictional person?

You have no contemporary Pauline writings dated to the 1st century so you are making stuff up.

You have no actual historical data for Paul of Tarsus.

Which manuscript or Papyri did Paul write??

I have asked this question before and didn't get any answer then.

Your questions have been answered already. Paul in the NT never had any real existence.

You have not and cannot answer these questions.

Which version of the existing Pauline Corpus did Paul write?

Who edited seven letters of the Pauline Corpus?

When were the seven letters of the Pauline Corpus composed originally?

What is the PROVENANCE for the Pauline Corpus?