Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[JaysonR]

Well, yes, the Canon puts Matthew first, doesn't it?

I was thinking of the order of composition that most people talk about; ie: Mark first, John last.

But I also understand that these gospels supposedly represent different Jesus traditions from different regions.

I was just countering proudfootz' assertion that the Christology started off high and later traditions lowered it. I don't see it that way.

The general chronology of authorship may tell us something about the growth as a whole, but it has to be considered with mind of localization; that these texts were picked up out of their localized cultural contexts and selected because the bodies which selected them for what would become the canon, agreed with their theological positions.

We cannot, then, immediately conclude off of these texts that there is an inherent 'low' to 'high' path that is cleanly linear in line with the chronology ascribed to these four texts.

In general, we can assume that the tradition followed the social build-up as nearly all human legends do, and that such took place over time so that the later works were more grand than the first, but we cannot take that assumption to then help us date a text as before or after another.

There are several social factors involved that could provoke a people to be interested in one version of the legend over another.
Probably the most famous example of this is Thomas Jefferson, whose personal Bible is probably the most humble and 'low' of Jesus legends to date.

If we were to be a thousand years from his time and unaware of him beyond finding his Bible version embedded in someone later tomb or a later copy of his work, and therefore forced to ascribe a date based on the content, we would be rather in error in deciding that because his version contains a lower Jesus than any other Jesus text, that it was therefore the text which came before all others.

That is an extreme example that is easily silly to us because we know all of the details, but it serves to easily show why using the content's 'low'/'high' standing to offer us dates is rather fallible.

Now, regarding Paul's theological position of "low" or "high" standing, Paul's Jesus would be classed as "high", so I don't know that I really agree that Paul was a "low" preacher, as Paul's Jesus is only possible after being granted some of the highest levels of metaphysical natures by showing up to his person in vision as well as performing proxy acts on behalf of humanity.
Just because Paul doesn't spend time outlining visions of Armageddon, or similar tangents of boasting claim of powers, like John or Matthew doesn't exactly mean his Jesus is "low".

What it means is that Paul didn't write in prophetic or narrative fashion, but instead wrote in an entirely different format focused on instruction (epistle format).
However, his Jesus would be hard to argue as not being "high".

This isn't remarking on anything to do with titles, but instead, implied actions.
The Jesus of Paul wouldn't be capable of most of Paul's theological outlines as a "low" model Jesus.

 

[JaysonR]

You wrote:

"It would not surprise me, however, if the individual never actually existed as that has happened countless times in Hebraic history, and receiving non-Hebrew cultures wouldn't really be capable of discerning the differences of one messianic tale from another - they would all seem to be easily about the same Hebrew guy."

Neither would it surprise me if there was no single person upon whose career christianity was founded as tradition teaches.

The Hebraic tradition seems to be full of allegorical tales about persons who didn't literally exist.

True; yet to be clear, my point was that it is possible for many actions by multiple individuals could have landed in the credit to one such individual out of confusion.

 

[JaysonR]

This is how it appears to me.

It is a mistake to put these materials in a straight linear model because they could well represent different cults with their own paths of development.

Likewise I think there may be problems if we try to impose a linear model of development on these materials and then use that as a method of dating them. For example, if we assume X must follow Z because of the perceived 'highness' or 'lowness' of the savior figure in the respective narratives.

Fully agreed.

 

[JaysonR]

I've just seen this article ALLUSIONS TO THE END
OF THE HASMONEAN DYNASTY IN PESHER NAHUM (4Q169)
http://scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Brill-partridge-volume-published-article-259-278.pdf

Sorry if it's already been discussed here, but I found the conclusion of Doudna's 2011 article of interest to this thread's topic
"...Not long after the death of Hyrcanus II the lights go out completely in the texts found in the caves at Qumran. It has long been noted that there is not a single name, event, ruler, battle, or allusion to anything later than the first century bce in any of the texts found in the Qumran caves, or indeed any text known to have been composed later than the 1st century bce among the finds. The deposits of the texts in the caves around Qumran may also have ended at this time instead of at the First Revolt as commonly supposed. The reason for the end of the texts at this time is unknown but could be related to what Josephus says was Herod’s attempt to exterminate the remaining family and partisans of Hyrcanus II. As Josephus puts it, “None was left alive of the family of Hyrcanus, and the kingdom was wholly in Herod’s power” (Ant. 15.8.10 (266)).
In conclusion, the Qumran texts being revised for the new DJD V may echo the final and tragic collapse of the Hasmonean dynasty in ways that have not yet been adequately recognized"

How is the identification of this text to 1st century events a better fit than the one proposed here, with the end of the Hasmonean dynasty?
Has Eisenmann addressed this author's thinking?

I believe he has.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/internal-evidence-vs-exte_b_3722313.html



The Theology espoused in the Scrolls belongs to the first century CE, not BCE.

He convinced me.

I cannot agree there, but I also think that I have done enough in the past pages to outline why I disagree so I won't repeat that through another round.

 

[Brainache]

The general chronology of authorship may tell us something about the growth as a whole, but it has to be considered with mind of localization; that these texts were picked up out of their localized cultural contexts and selected because the bodies which selected them for what would become the canon, agreed with their theological positions.
<snip for space>
...

OK Thanks for the correction.


Do you think it's unwise to assume that the Jesus of the reported Ebionite tradition was an early version?

 

[Brainache]

I cannot agree there, but I also think that I have done enough in the past pages to outline why I disagree so I won't repeat that through another round.

I still don't see how these ideas (in the Scrolls Eisenman cites) belong to a time before Judas The Galilean and John The Baptist.

But as you say, we did go over this before and we agreed to disagree.

 

[JaysonR]

OK Thanks for the correction.


Do you think it's unwise to assume that the Jesus of the reported Ebionite tradition was an early version?

No, as that is an assignment by cultural presence and that presence is early, and their texts are known to be limited in scope of accolades towards the Jesus figure.

 

[JaysonR]

I still don't see how these ideas (in the Scrolls Eisenman cites) belong to a time before Judas The Galilean and John The Baptist.

But as you say, we did go over this before and we agreed to disagree.

Right, but if you want to go back to one of the posts where I outlined how it lined up with the BCE dating context and question something in there, feel free and I'll try to explain again.

 

[pakeha]

I believe he has.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/internal-evidence-vs-exte_b_3722313.html

... These include references such as 'making a Straight Way in the wilderness,' alluded to twice in the document called "The Community Rule" at Qumran and one of the first douments found there in Cave I; and, as is generally well known, associated with the teaching and coming of John the Baptist 'in the wilderness' in the Synoptic Gospels (that is Matthew, Mark, and luke - but not John).

A related terminology is 'the New Covenant,' a phrase originally based on Jeremiah 31:31 and a central theme of the Damascus Document, known of course as the basis of the word 'New Testament' (i.e., the 'New Covenant'). Equally important is the allusion to and exposition of Habakkuk 2:4, perhaps the climax of the Habakkuk Commentary (or, as we in the field call it, 'The Habakkuk Pesher') and perhaps the central Scriptural building block of early Christian theology as set forth by Paul in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews and, of course, in James.

Related to these and, in particular, this last are the repeated reference to the two 'Love Commandments' of 'Piety' and 'Righteousness' (I will capitalize important concepts just as I will italicize important phrases and ideas whether in quotations or part of my own exposition) - in Josephus defined as, 'loving God' and 'loving your neighbor as yourself' - and 'Justification' theology generally. Not only are these the essence, allegedly, of 'Jesus'' (also, I prefer to put 'Jesus'' name in single quotes) teaching in the Gospels and James' in the Letter ascribed to his name in the New Testament and in early Church literature generally; but they are also the basis in the picture provided by Josephus of John the Baptist's teaching and a central category of 'Essene' doctrine as well (see Josephus' famous description of John in The Antiquities - patently more reliable than that in the Gospels based upon it).

The Theology espoused in the Scrolls belongs to the first century CE, not BCE.

He convinced me.

It doesn't seem convincing to me at all, at least the interpretation Eisenmann puts on the Isaiah 40:3 example.

These include references such as 'making a Straight Way in the wilderness,' alluded to twice in the document called "The Community Rule" at Qumran and one of the first douments found there in Cave I; and, as is generally well known, associated with the teaching and coming of John the Baptist 'in the wilderness' in the Synoptic Gospels (that is Matthew, Mark, and luke - but not John).

That JtB and the Gospel writers took Isaiah 40:30 out of context is hardly surprising, though it's hard to believe any educated Jew of the first century would have taken the cited verse to refer to other than the return of the Jews to Jerusalem from the Babylonian exile.

Isaiah 40:3 is apparently used in the "The Community Rule" as a metaphor for studying the Torah.
http://humweb.ucsc.edu/gweltaz/courses/history/hist_163/texts/serekh_vermes.pdf
"And when these become members of the community in Israel according to all
these rules they shall separate from the habitation of unjust men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare there the way of him; as it is written,
Prepare in the wilderness the way of ...., make straight in the desert a path for our God (Isa. xl, 3). This (path) 15 is the study of the law which he commanded by the hand of Moses, that they may do according to all that has been revealed from age to age, and as the prophets have revealed by his Holy Spirit."

" He shall guide them all in knowledge according to the spirit of each and according to the rule of the age, and shall thus instruct them in the mysteries of marvellous truth, so that in the midst of the men of the community they may walk perfectly together in all that has been revealed to them. This is a time for the preparation of the way into 20 the wilderness, and he shall teach them to do all that is required at that time and to separate from all those who have not turned aside from all injustice."

Relating the Community Rule's usage of Isaiah 40:3 to that recorded in the NT seems forced, since the term in the former is used in the context of studyand the NT usage is quite different, applying the text to the arrival of a Messiah, as far as I can see.
The NT appears to wrench Isaiah 40:3 out shape and hammer it into an announcement of Jesus' ministry. The Community Rule appears to use the verse as an analogy for well-directed study.

I'll look over those other examples later.

 

[proudfootz]

What you say is extremely fascinating since it was assumed by Scholars that some Pauline letters must predate the Gospel because of the "lowness" of the savior figure.

However, the very same Scholars overlooked that Later Epistles to Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy and Titus ALSO contain a "lowness" of the Savior figure but is considered AFTER the Gospels.

Even more fascinating is that ALL Non-Pauline Epistles contain a "lowness" of the Savior figure yet they are all placed AFTER the Gospels.

In any event, the low Christology in gMark is LOWER than every single book in the NT Canon.

gMark's Jesus did NOT know the significance of the Resurrection.

gMark's Jesus did NOT teach his disciples that WITHOUT the Resurrection there would be Christianity and No Remission of Sins.

The author of gMark claimed NO-ONE was told Jesus was raised from the dead.

Paul TAUGHT the Churches the significance of the Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV


The Christology in gMark is extremely low.

It will go even lower. gMark's Jesus WANTS the populace to remain in Sin.

gMark's Jesus is NOT a Savior.

Mark 4:11-12 KJV

We are going LOWER.

How LOW can gMark go?

gMark's Jesus does NOT even want the Populace to know he was the Christ.

Mark 8:30 KJV

The Christology in gMark is the Lowest of Low.

Yes, christology seems to get lower and lower over time, and today Jesus is down to mere existence and there's not much else left to say about him.

As to why the creators of gMark corrupted the Gospel of Marcion - that is difficult to determine at this great remove.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, christology seems to get lower and lower over time, and today Jesus is down to mere existence and there's not much else left to say about him.

No, In the NT the Christology of the short gMark is lower than all the LATER Gospels.

The Christology gets higher over time in the Gospels.

In the Later Gospel Jesus was God Creator, the Logos.

Typically, Epistles are doctrinal--Not biographical. Virtually all Epistles in and out the Canon would have very little about the supposed life of Jesus.

For example, the Pauline writers wrote about their alleged Revelation Gospel from the resurrected Jesus while the James Epistle dealt with the doctrine of Faith and Works.

As to why the creators of gMark corrupted the Gospel of Marcion - that is difficult to determine at this great remove.

What Gospel did Marcion write?

There is no evidence that Marcion wrote a Gospel.

No written Gospel of Marcion has ever been found.

1. Justin Martyr claimed Marcion PREACHED about another God and another Son--Not Jesus.

2. Hippolytus claimed Marcion preached Dualism and used the teachings of Empedocles.

3. Ephraem wrote "Against Marcion" and did not state Marcion corrupted the Gospels or the Pauline writings ror did he mention the writings of Marcion.

4. Tertullian admitted he was really using an ANONYMOUS writing and attributed it to Marcion.

5. Justin Martyr was a LIVING contemporary of Marcion but did not mention his writings.

The claim that Marcion knew of gLuke and the Pauline Corpus is historically bogus.

Even Apologetic and non-Apologetic writers did NOT acknowledge gLuke and the Pauline Corpus like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, and Celsus .

 

[Brainache]

It doesn't seem convincing to me at all, at least the interpretation Eisenmann puts on the Isaiah 40:3 example.


That JtB and the Gospel writers took Isaiah 40:30 out of context is hardly surprising, though it's hard to believe any educated Jew of the first century would have taken the cited verse to refer to other than the return of the Jews to Jerusalem from the Babylonian exile.

Are you saying that John The Baptist wasn't a Second Temple Jew in the first century CE?

Isaiah 40:3 is apparently used in the "The Community Rule" as a metaphor for studying the Torah.
http://humweb.ucsc.edu/gweltaz/courses/history/hist_163/texts/serekh_vermes.pdf
"And when these become members of the community in Israel according to all
these rules they shall separate from the habitation of unjust men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare there the way of him; as it is written,
Prepare in the wilderness the way of ...., make straight in the desert a path for our God (Isa. xl, 3). This (path) 15 is the study of the law which he commanded by the hand of Moses, that they may do according to all that has been revealed from age to age, and as the prophets have revealed by his Holy Spirit."

" He shall guide them all in knowledge according to the spirit of each and according to the rule of the age, and shall thus instruct them in the mysteries of marvellous truth, so that in the midst of the men of the community they may walk perfectly together in all that has been revealed to them. This is a time for the preparation of the way into 20 the wilderness, and he shall teach them to do all that is required at that time and to separate from all those who have not turned aside from all injustice."

Relating the Community Rule's usage of Isaiah 40:3 to that recorded in the NT seems forced, since the term in the former is used in the context of studyand the NT usage is quite different, applying the text to the arrival of a Messiah, as far as I can see.
The NT appears to wrench Isaiah 40:3 out shape and hammer it into an announcement of Jesus' ministry. The Community Rule appears to use the verse as an analogy for well-directed study.

I'll look over those other examples later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean_dynasty

The Hasmonean dynasty[2] (Hebrew: חשמונאים‎, r Ḥashmona'im; Audio) was the ruling dynasty of Judea and surrounding regions during classical antiquity. Between c. 140 BC and c. 116 BC, the dynasty ruled semi-autonomously from the Seleucids in the region of Judea. From 110 BC, with the Seleucid empire disintegrating, the dynasty became fully independent, expanded into the neighbouring regions of Galilee, Iturea, Perea, Idumea and Samaria, and took the title "basileus". Some modern scholars refer to this period as an independent kingdom of Israel.[3] In 63 BC, the kingdom was conquered by the Roman Republic, broken up and set up as a Roman client state. The Kingdom had survived for 103 years before yielding to the Herodian Dynasty in 37 BC. Even then, Herod the Great tried to bolster the legitimacy of his reign by marrying a Hasmonean princess, Mariamne, and planning to drown the last male Hasmonean heir at his Jericho palace.

The end of the The Hasmonean dynasty saw the installation of the Herodians.

The scrolls don't fit in that context. Complaining about the evil pollution of the Temple by Priests who don't belong there, applies to the appointment of foreigners by Herod.

It doesn't make sense that for the last hundred years of the Temple, while the Qumran site was occupied, that the people there making and writing on the scrolls were writing about some other time. They were writing about the world as they saw it, in terms of OT prophecies.

I'm not well at the moment and I don't have the energy to do much more of this right now, but I'll be interested to see how anyone can fit the Damascus document into a Maccabean time frame.

 

[JaysonR]

I don't understand the perspective that the authors were writing of their distant past.

I've attached a chart that shows DSS typical estimate dates (orange) and High Priest dates (purple).
Negative values on the right are BCE, while positive values are CE.
The names of the texts and priests are below in full listing.

There is a rather strong correlation between the dates and multiple priests of note.
What there appears to be are two primary waves of activity.
One occurs and correlates with more priests of the older dates.
A second occurs and correlates with more priests of the newer dates.
(More in detail, I think there are three clusters, but for the discussion at hand of BCE/CE ranges, there are 2 groups; one from each time range.)

I still think it is an error to attempt to treat these texts as one unified generation of work, or one singular cultural theology, when it is rather evident in many manners that the texts traverse time and culture within the Hebrew culture.

There are common themes, but also variations.
Furthermore, there are multiple and differing rules for the outlined groups of adherents.

Yet, it remains, that a large body of the texts do correlate to earlier date ranges.

There is no requirement for the acceptance of the idea that the authors would have been writing of their distant past in maintaining or authoring such texts.

 

[proudfootz]

The general chronology of authorship may tell us something about the growth as a whole, but it has to be considered with mind of localization; that these texts were picked up out of their localized cultural contexts and selected because the bodies which selected them for what would become the canon, agreed with their theological positions.

We cannot, then, immediately conclude off of these texts that there is an inherent 'low' to 'high' path that is cleanly linear in line with the chronology ascribed to these four texts.

In general, we can assume that the tradition followed the social build-up as nearly all human legends do, and that such took place over time so that the later works were more grand than the first, but we cannot take that assumption to then help us date a text as before or after another.

There are several social factors involved that could provoke a people to be interested in one version of the legend over another.
Probably the most famous example of this is Thomas Jefferson, whose personal Bible is probably the most humble and 'low' of Jesus legends to date.

If we were to be a thousand years from his time and unaware of him beyond finding his Bible version embedded in someone later tomb or a later copy of his work, and therefore forced to ascribe a date based on the content, we would be rather in error in deciding that because his version contains a lower Jesus than any other Jesus text, that it was therefore the text which came before all others.

That is an extreme example that is easily silly to us because we know all of the details, but it serves to easily show why using the content's 'low'/'high' standing to offer us dates is rather fallible.

Now, regarding Paul's theological position of "low" or "high" standing, Paul's Jesus would be classed as "high", so I don't know that I really agree that Paul was a "low" preacher, as Paul's Jesus is only possible after being granted some of the highest levels of metaphysical natures by showing up to his person in vision as well as performing proxy acts on behalf of humanity.
Just because Paul doesn't spend time outlining visions of Armageddon, or similar tangents of boasting claim of powers, like John or Matthew doesn't exactly mean his Jesus is "low".

What it means is that Paul didn't write in prophetic or narrative fashion, but instead wrote in an entirely different format focused on instruction (epistle format).
However, his Jesus would be hard to argue as not being "high".

This isn't remarking on anything to do with titles, but instead, implied actions.
The Jesus of Paul wouldn't be capable of most of Paul's theological outlines as a "low" model Jesus.

You put this so much more eloquently than I do.

 

[proudfootz]

No, In the NT the Christology of the short gMark is lower than all the LATER Gospels.

The Christology gets higher over time in the Gospels.

In the Later Gospel Jesus was God Creator, the Logos.

You are assuming we know for a fact the 'order' in which the various gospel narratives where written.

We do not have that knowledge.

Please do not speculate and stick with the facts.

Typically, Epistles are doctrinal--Not biographical. Virtually all Epistles in and out the Canon would have very little about the supposed life of Jesus.

While this may be true no one has been able to explain why preachers of doctrine in that era would refrain from doing what preachers in every other era of every other doctrine does every day of the week: use known stories of the most revered character in the pantheon as examples of the doctrines which are controversial.

Would not Jesus's own supposed circumcision be cited in a dispute over circumcision controversy if Jesus was known to be a Jew?

Would not the story of Jesus's own teachings on clean and unclean foods be used in controversies of that type if the story of his teaching on that point were known?

Given the absence of Jesus as a teacher or preacher in the epistolary cult it would seem that it is a separate cult from ones which featured Jesus as one who did have an earthly career and earthly disciples.

For example, the Pauline writers wrote about their alleged Revelation Gospel from the resurrected Jesus while the James Epistle dealt with the doctrine of Faith and Works.

Curious you cite James, who does exactly as I describe: using the known story of a revered character's biography to illustrate a doctrinal point.

What Gospel did Marcion write?

There is no evidence that Marcion wrote a Gospel.

No written Gospel of Marcion has ever been found.

Is that so?

"There are two possible relationships between Marcion's gospel and the Gospel of Luke; either Marcion revised a previously existing Gospel of Luke to fit his own agenda or else his "Gospel of the Lord" pre-dated the Gospel of Luke as we have it today and was in fact the basis for it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Marcion

1. Justin Martyr claimed Marcion PREACHED about another God and another Son--Not Jesus.

2. Hippolytus claimed Marcion preached Dualism and used the teachings of Empedocles.

3. Ephraem wrote "Against Marcion" and did not state Marcion corrupted the Gospels or the Pauline writings ror did he mention the writings of Marcion.

4. Tertullian admitted he was really using an ANONYMOUS writing and attributed it to Marcion.

5. Justin Martyr was a LIVING contemporary of Marcion but did not mention his writings.

The claim that Marcion knew of gLuke and the Pauline Corpus is historically bogus.

Even Apologetic and non-Apologetic writers did NOT acknowledge gLuke and the Pauline Corpus like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, and Celsus .

Most likely gLuke derived from Marcion.

See the dedication: to Theophilus.

Theophilus bishop of Antioch makes the most likely candidate.

We can thus date the production of gLuke and Acts to the late 2nd century.

How can Marcion know of a corruption of his book committed after his death?

He is not Jesus who flits around trying to micromanage things as a ghost!

 

[dejudge]

You are assuming we know for a fact the 'order' in which the various gospel narratives where written.

We do not have that knowledge.

Please do not speculate and stick with the facts.

You are assuming that we do NOT have the knowledge.

Why did you assume such a thing?

Please stick with facts. We have actual dated NT Codices and manuscripts.

Theories can be developed using the ACTUAL existing manuscripts and Codices.

My theory is developed from the Fact that we have existing dated manuscripts and Codices.

My theory is that Paul of the NT was NOT an Herodian and the Entire Pauline Corpus is a very LATE compilation composed after gMark.

There are enough FACTS to support my theory.

I PAY attention to details.

 

[proudfootz]

You are assuming that we do NOT have the knowledge.

Why did you assume such a thing?

Until we have good evidence to say with conviction we know for a fact X was written first, then Y, then Z came last, I can only admit we don't know.

The priority of gMark is a theory not a fact.

Please stick with facts. We have actual dated NT Codices and manuscripts.

Yes, apparently going by fragments dated we should expect to see John first, then Matthew, Luke, Acts, then Mark.

On the other hand - if the synoptics are derived from Marcion then fragments thought to be Matthew, Luke, or Mark could actually be Marcion.

Theories can be developed using the ACTUAL existing manuscripts and Codices.

My theory is developed from the Fact that we have existing dated manuscripts and Codices.

I am open to learning about your opinion.

But if it turns out the canonical gospels are based on non-canonical texts like Marcion et al well need to include them in the timeline as well.

My theory is that Paul of the NT was NOT an Herodian and the Entire Pauline Corpus is a very LATE compilation composed after gMark.

There are enough FACTS to support my theory.

I PAY attention to details.

Your participation is always welcome.

 

[dejudge]

Until we have good evidence to say with conviction we know for a fact X was written first, then Y, then Z came last, I can only admit we don't know.

We have good evidence to develop the THEORY that the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the story of Jesus was already known.

The priority of gMark is a theory not a fact.

Exactly. There is evidence to develop the THEORY that gMark's version of the Jesus story is earlier than the Pauline Corpus.

There are TWO versions of gMark, the earlier short gMark and the later longer version with 12 additional verses.

Those 12 added verses in the long gMark provides evidence that the short gMark is earlier than the Pauline Corpus.

Post-Resurrection narratives are found in all LATER writings.

The long gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline Corpus all contain LATER Post-Resurrection narratives. not found in the short gMark.

The author of the short gMark claimed NO-ONE was told Jesus was raised from the dead by the visitors to the tomb.

The Pauline writer claimed OVER 500 persons were seen by the resurrected Jesus plus the Twelve, the disciples, Cephas, James and Paul himself.

Just as it is easily seen that the Birth Narratives were LATE inventions in gMatthew and gLuke, then it should be easily seen that Post-Resurrection Narratives were LATE inventions in the Pauline Corpus.

Yes, apparently going by fragments dated we should expect to see John first, then Matthew, Luke, Acts, then Mark.

Not really--fragments are dated within a large time period sometimes, plus or minus 50 years or more and may not contain enough information to determine chronology.

Dating by paleography only tells us when a manuscript was probably written.

Markan priority was NOT derived from fragments--complete manuscripts of the Gospels were used.

 

[JaysonR]

Yes, apparently going by fragments dated we should expect to see John first, then Matthew, Luke, Acts, then Mark.

Which dating cases are you referring to with this?

 

[dejudge]

I find it alarming that Robert Eisenman uses Acts of the Apostles as an historical source to develop his argument for Paul the Herodian.

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

It can be easily seen that the author of Acts knew nothing of the Pauline Corpus and Nothing of the Pauline Revealed Gospel--Remission of Sins by the Resurrection.

We have clues of what Acts of the Apostles should look like if the author knew of the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

If the author of Acts of the Apostles knew of the Pauline Corpus then the author would be expected to have copied passages word-for-word from the Pauline Corpus and emulated the Pauline teachings.

The Synoptics are perfect examples of what is to be expected--the author of gMatthew copied sometimes word-for-word passages from gMark and emulated the teachings of Jesus found in gMark.

How in the world could the author of Acts not have anything of the Revealed Gospel from the Pauline Corpus when Paul was supposedly the founder of Gentile Churches?

The mystery of the Gospel was supposedly REVEALED to Paul.

Romans 16.25

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began..

None of the Gospels and Acts contain the Pauline Revealed Gospel--the Revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel.

The Pauline Corpus was unknown to the Gospel authors.

Which Paul was an Herodian?

There may be at least 7 different authors using the name Paul.