Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

Of course there is. The gospels, weak as they are, are evidence. The epistles, the very existence of Christianity. This is all evidence that must be taken into account. If you don't find that convincing, fine. Neither do I. But to call it 'not evidence' is a misrepresentation of the facts, and isn't a very good way to find the truth behind all this.

We have been over that point countless times - the plain fact is, there is no evidence of a real living Jesus in any of that bible writing, neither the letters of Paul or the canonical gospels.

What's written in those gospels and Paul's letters is, as you very well know by now, only evidence of peoples religious beliefs. There is no evidence there of Jesus.

If you arrive at your 6:40 probability on the basis of what's written in the bible, as indeed you just implied that you do, and as indeed is inevitable because the bible is the sole entire source of all belief in Jesus, then your 60:40 belief is actually based upon religious faith!

That’s not to say you are a Christian theist. What it means is you are placing your faith in the religious faith of Paul and the gospel writers. And their faith was overwhelmingly a belief in the supernatural.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

I do dispute that.

I notice you quoted me, but to my great relief, I see that I said few. I seem to be out of that fight, then.

Last I heard, you were only 90-10 for the hypothesis you favored. That's really not strong for a question about which there would be ample evidence. In what you quoted and bolded, I did describe the evidence here as sparse. So, again, I seem to be out of that fight, too.

Fnally, I don't see that anything in my quoted post which addressed the many disputes about what Paul meant, or whether what is attributed to Paul is evidence at all. Those are discussable points, but not something I actually discussed there.

I have discussed them elsewhere. It is breathtakingly obvious that Paul professed that an actual man had died hideously and shortly thereafter was raised from the dead by God. The formerly dead man would then serve as the Messiah supposedly promised to the Jews. That office was available only to human beings. The basis Paul gave for his belief is that Paul had a post mortem encounter with the man, and Paul believed that many (*) other people had, too.

Other views of Paul are possible, and Paul's professed beliefs need not reflect any actual facts.

-----------
(*) Paul cites a figure of 500 for one event. I am unable to exclude that Paul's 500 is like Marks 4,000 and 5,000, and like Jospehus' 10,000. I do not interpert any of these figures as an actual count, and in no case was the author ever plausibly in a postion to perfrom a count.

 

[Belz...]

I'm just trying to figure out the reason why an atheist would engage in a long and convoluted apologetic for Jesus using the same arguments that Christians use while insulting everyone who disagrees, it seems to go beyond any rational reason and be an emotional thing so I'm looking for an emotional reason.

Maybe it's a sore spot?

See ? You're doing it again. Instead of arguing the evidence or lack thereof, or argument or lack thereof, you argue the posters. In addition to that, you do it by inventing what's going on in their heads.

So let me get this straight... you can't understand why someone who doesn't believe in god might think that a human existed ? Because that's what this is about: having a person who corresponds to part of the Jesus myth be historically at the source of Christianity. I see no reason why this would require any sort of religious thought.

On the other hand, I could see why someone who doesn't believe in god would want Jesus to NOT exist, so as to further validate their atheistic worldview (that was me a while ago). I'd think that about 100% of "mythers" (for lack of a better term) are agnostics or atheists. So actually, that accusation might have more merit than the reverse.

Alternatively we can stop trying to guess each other's motives and focus on the actual issue. What do you think ?

 

[Belz...]

You always promote fallacies.

You just can't be nice with people, can you ?

You are the one arguing that if Jesus existed that he was a Jew but have utterly failed to present any evidence.

See, here's the problem with you:

I am not arguing that Jesus existed.

Can you get that through your skull ?

 

[zugzwang]

All threads throughout the Web are when they involve the MJ perspective. RatSkep is only the most extreme example. The fact is that the kind of intolerance that, for instance, would actually ascribe a soft spot for Jesus(!) to those who are merely undecided is typical of the kind of take-no-prisoners hardliners like Dejudge, Tsig and some others. That's why some HJ-ers like myself and Tim O'Neill have just plain had it and push back with real fury. We see crypto-cultism in a lot of mythers if not necessarily all. Some atheist HJ-ers thought they had left woo merchants and cultists behind them -- and then they find that right here among the mythers. Yes, it's infuriating -- although I'm the first to concede it's not always admirable to give in to such exasperation, and I'm one of the worst offenders.

Stone

Well, these threads seem relatively civilized, so I was a bit startled when Tsig said rather peremptorily that I shouldn't be discussing Doherty! Why wouldn't we discuss one of the chief mythicists?

I suppose it's a sore spot, rather than a soft spot - I mean the idea of a HJ.

 

[Craig B]

If you arrive at your 6:40 probability on the basis of what's written in the bible, as indeed you just implied that you do, and as indeed is inevitable because the bible is the sole entire source of all belief in Jesus, then your 60:40 belief is actually based upon religious faith!

That’s not to say you are a Christian theist. What it means is you are placing your faith in the religious faith of Paul and the gospel writers. And their faith was overwhelmingly a belief in the supernatural.

These two paragraphs don't sit well together, and they don't make complete sense, or add any weight of content to your argument. We must ask, was the religious faith of the evangelists based, in any of its parts, on sources of information available to them, that contained notices of a real person? Whether or not it consists of belief in the supernatural, faith may be initiated by real, as well as imaginary or mythical, persons or events. That is the question at issue here.

 

[IanS]

I quoted the line where Paul says Jesus took some bread and told the disciples to eat it and remember him etc...

This is an obvious reference to Jesus as someone who eats and drinks and talks to people about food rituals. It contradicts the poster's stated position.

Rather than respond to this point, after saying he would answer contingent upon me answering another of his points (which I did), he has continued to ignore it.

The point still stands.

.

Just concerning ideas such as the above - one very obvious source from which Paul may have got the idea of a messiah who shares a ritual meal of wine and bread, is from the earlier Essene community of that same region.

For example - Paul’s description of Jesus as an apocalyptic messiah, is the same apocalyptic messiah-belief already preached up to 200 years before by the Essene's, as is provable from the DSS. But also in the DSS, they describe the faithful participating in a ritual consuming of bread and wine.

So that’s fairly obvious as a possible source from which Paul, who was already preaching something very similar to the Essenes, obtained the belief that the messiah would share a ritual supper consuming bread and wine.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

Just concerning ideas such as the above - one very obvious source from which Paul may have got the idea of a messiah who shares a ritual meal of wine and bread, is from the earlier Essene community of that same region..

Also an obvious source from where Jesus might have gotten the idea.

obtained the belief that the messiah would share a ritual supper consuming bread and wine.

There's nothing in Paul about a supper. That's a later embellishment of the story, our earliest survivng example of it being canonical Mark. The Didache, which is hard to date (maybe contemporary with Paul, maybe later than any Gosepl) attests to a eucharistic ritual, but offers no institution narrative at all, whether at a supper or otherwise.

It is entirely possible that the ritual came first (admirers of Jesus gathered at a weekly? meal, and they saw the obvious symbolic potential of food and drink, and the psychological effect of eating mindfully), and the story about Jesus having done it came later. John, the last Gospel, has no eucharist, but depicts Jesus using menu imagery in speeches about himself, not at meals.

and a quote from someone else that you included, but for which you aren't responsible

This is an obvious reference to Jesus as someone who eats and drinks

There's noting in Paul about Jesus eating or drinking. Compare the physical business of The Sixth Sense, in which Dr Crowe manages to get through almost the whole film without actually moving a physical object, and yet all the while interacting seamlessly with living people, not even noticing that [spoiler removed]. Jesus "took" physical objects and "broke" one of them. That's more than Dr Crowe does, but then, Paul doesn't give the specifics, either.

Speaking of other people, Paul doesn't say anything about disciples, either. As noted, John depicts Jesus talking to general audiences, not just disciples, about hus culinary potential. It really isn't obvious, then, that Paul has the disciples in mind. That's another later embellishment of the story, just as John's version is, too. Paul doesn't say.

 

[The Norseman]

Can you give me a hint?

Was it: "People make up stories all the time, therefore Jesus is a made up story"? Because that's as close as he gets to a cohesive theory as far as i've seen.

No, that's not really close. I will track down what he's said and quote it for you relatively soon because I cannot summarize it well enough to be sure I'm accurate.

I go offline and read library books for years about this subject, and you accuse me of being ignorant?

Thanks.

You're ascribing insult where none exists. I don't remember ever insulting you before nor did I call you ignorant nor did I imply such; in fact, I've gone out of my way to thank you many times for being civil with me and you've noted that I've been civil with you. Seeing that's been our history regarding the Jesus issue, I would think that I'd get the benefit of several doubts when it comes to you thinking I've insulted you.

It certainly puts you in opposition to what all the Historians are saying about the subject. If that's the position you want to adopt, that's your choice.

It puts me in opposition to many bible scholars and possibly some historians.

It's not that, it's just when they say things like: "Paul probably only ever used the septuagint", or "How do you know the Temple was a centre of Jewish Learning?", that reveals to everyone who is paying attention, that these guys have no clue what they are talking about.

Sure I can agree with you that it can show ignorance of the subject. Your second example could be a question to test your background knowledge too. I'm not saying that it's true with your example, just that some posters might ask such a question to continue a dialog with you.

Why on earth should anyone take them seriously after saying the crap that they have?

Some posters are full of crap on both sides of this issue and some post ridiculously hysterical-sounding screeds too. Those I ignore but I personally try to take most posters seriously on both sides of this issue. My goal is to try and learn more and not to score points off of others.

It doesn't actually. Comparing the Myther stuff to the Historical corpus on this subject, is like comparing "Loose Change" to the NIST Report.

If you can't see that, then I can only recommend you read some books.

I don't know the reference to "Loose Change" or the NIST Report. And, strangely enough, I am reading books on the subject; in fact, I mentioned in a response to you the book Zealot by Reza Aslan that I happened to borrow just yesterday. I thought you'd be more interested since you said you believe in a Jesus the Zealot.

I can tell pseudohistory when I see it.

And I'm looking at it right now.

I suppose you're implying that I'm practicing pseudohistory. A not so subtle dig at me perhaps? I also suppose since you believe I insulted you, you feel quite free to insult me "back". Well, for my part, I will continue trying to treat you respectfully.

 

[Brainache]

Just concerning ideas such as the above - one very obvious source from which Paul may have got the idea of a messiah who shares a ritual meal of wine and bread, is from the earlier Essene community of that same region.

For example - Paul’s description of Jesus as an apocalyptic messiah, is the same apocalyptic messiah-belief already preached up to 200 years before by the Essene's, as is provable from the DSS. But also in the DSS, they describe the faithful participating in a ritual consuming of bread and wine.

So that’s fairly obvious as a possible source from which Paul, who was already preaching something very similar to the Essenes, obtained the belief that the messiah would share a ritual supper consuming bread and wine.

Why do you date the DSS so early? They were still being deposited up to the time of the revolt against Rome in 70 CE. The Habakkuk Pesher describes the Romans destroying the cities of Judea:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

"For behold, I rouse the Chaldeans, that [bitter and hasty] nation" [[Hab 1.6a]].

Interpreted, this concerns the Kittim [who are] quick and valiant in war, causing many to perish. [All the world shall fall] under the dominion of the 14/ Kittim, and the [wicked . . .] they shall not
believe in the laws of [God . . .]


Column 3 - More on the "Kittim" (Romans) ; as "Eagle"

["who march through the breadth of the earth to take possession of dwellings which are not their own"] [[Hab 1.6b]].

and they shall march across the plain, smiting and plundering the cities of the earth.

For it is as He said, "to take possession of dwellings which are not their own. They are fearsome and terrible; their justice and grandeur proceed from themselves" [Hab 1.7].

Interpreted, this concerns the Kittim who inspire all the nations with fear [and dread]. All their evil plotting is done with intention and they deal with all the nations in cunning and guile.

"Their horses are swifter than leopards and fleeter than evening wolves" [Hab 1.8].

Their horses step forward proudly and spread their wings; They fly from afar like an eagle avid to devour.
...

Now can you find me any historical events from 200 BCE that involve the Romans "Devouring" the cities of Judea? The eagle bit is the dead give-away.

I can find you plenty from the years leading up to 73 CE, not so many before then.

So, I see no reason not to think the "Teacher Of Righteousness" is the bloke we now call "Jesus".

Simple.

Christians hate this theory and it has the added bonus of evidence.

Come to the Dark Side Ian, we have Scrolls...

...
Speaking of other people, Paul doesn't say anything about disciples, either. As noted, John depicts Jesus talking to general audiences, not just disciples, about hus culinary potential. It really isn't obvious, then, that Paul has the disciples in mind. That's another later embellishment of the story, just as John's version is, too. Paul doesn't say.

He does talk about those from James and the Apostles and the Pillars and Cephas...

 

[IanS]

These two paragraphs don't sit well together, and they don't make complete sense, or add any weight of content to your argument. We must ask, was the religious faith of the evangelists based, in any of its parts, on sources of information available to them, that contained notices of a real person? Whether or not it consists of belief in the supernatural, faith may be initiated by real, as well as imaginary or mythical, persons or events. That is the question at issue here.

Well precisely that question has, afaik, been unambiguously answered here long, long ago - the answer is, to quote your own words asking if " the religious faith of the evangelists based, in any of its parts, on sources of information available to them, that contained notices of a real person? " ... the answer is that there is apparently absolutely no evidence that it was ever based on any living person named Jesus.

And that's why absolutely no such evidence has ever been posted in any of these HJ threads.

If anyone thinks there is evidence of a real Jesus, as distinct from merely evidence of ancient superstitious religious beliefs, then by all means post it.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

He does talk about those from James and the Apostles and the Pillars and Cephas...

Actually, I was discussing what Ian had quoted from somebody else, concerning the institution narrative. Paul doesn't say whom Jesus was talking to. In the quoted matter from inside Ian's post, somebody was talking about Paul depicting Jesus speaking to his disciples.

But since you bring up these names, where does Paul say that any of these folks were disciples of Jesus? You mentioned apostles (capital-A? did Paul make that distinction?). Didn't Paul suggest that he was an apostle? Paul wasn't a disciple, though. At the risk of provoking a discussion of James, isn't part of the controversy that Paul may have meant Jesus' brother, who wasn't a disciple?

Lucky thing I was only talking about the institution narrative. It would take a book chapter at least to sort out what Paul thought of the various members of the James Gang. We wouldn't want that.

 

[Brainache]

No, that's not really close. I will track down what he's said and quote it for you relatively soon because I cannot summarize it well enough to be sure I'm accurate.

Ok. Thanks.

You're ascribing insult where none exists. I don't remember ever insulting you before nor did I call you ignorant nor did I imply such; in fact, I've gone out of my way to thank you many times for being civil with me and you've noted that I've been civil with you. Seeing that's been our history regarding the Jesus issue, I would think that I'd get the benefit of several doubts when it comes to you thinking I've insulted you.

Sorry, I thought you were saying I didn't know as much about this subject as IanS.

It puts me in opposition to many bible scholars and possibly some historians.

No, it puts you in opposition to 99% of Historians. It is an established Consensus, just like in any other Academic field.

Sure I can agree with you that it can show ignorance of the subject. Your second example could be a question to test your background knowledge too. I'm not saying that it's true with your example, just that some posters might ask such a question to continue a dialog with you.

I'm pretty sure that is not what IanS was doing at the time.

Some posters are full of crap on both sides of this issue and some post ridiculously hysterical-sounding screeds too. Those I ignore but I personally try to take most posters seriously on both sides of this issue. My goal is to try and learn more and not to score points off of others.

OK.

I don't know the reference to "Loose Change" or the NIST Report. And, strangely enough, I am reading books on the subject; in fact, I mentioned in a response to you the book Zealot by Reza Aslan that I happened to borrow just yesterday. I thought you'd be more interested since you said you believe in a Jesus the Zealot.

I'm still trying to get my head around this Eisenman hypothesis. But I think he has a similar idea, from the reviews I read. Not sure if he does the "Herodian" angle though.

I suppose you're implying that I'm practicing pseudohistory. A not so subtle dig at me perhaps? I also suppose since you believe I insulted you, you feel quite free to insult me "back". Well, for my part, I will continue trying to treat you respectfully.

Sorry, No. I was referring to the Myther stuff, not your post. I probably worded it poorly.

It was aimed at some of our more strident fellow Forumites' approach to questions of historicity.

 

[IanS]

Ian

Also an obvious source from where Jesus might have gotten the idea.

Well that would be assuming Jesus existed in the first place. And we can't make that assumption, since there is no evidence of him.

All we actually know about this is that Paul's letter is the source of that story of bread and wine. So the question is where the author of that letter could have got the story from (not where an unknown hypothetical Jesus might have got any such idea).

And as I just pointed out, there is something very similar from as much as 200 years earlier in the DSS.

There's nothing in Paul about a supper. That's a later embellishment of the story, our earliest survivng example of it being canonical Mark. The Didache, which is hard to date (maybe contemporary with Paul, maybe later than any Gosepl) attests to a eucharistic ritual, but offers no institution narrative at all, whether at a supper or otherwise.

Well, if the word "supper" is not in Paul, then that is even more similar to the Essene DSS example, because afaik the word "supper" is not in the DSS ritual either ... it's just some sort of religious ritual centred around the taking of bread and wine.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

Well that would be assuming Jesus existed in the first place. And we can't make that assumption, since there is no evidence of him.

No, actually it doesn't require such an assumption. It's simply a hypothesis, exactly parallel to your hypothesis that Paul made it up. I don't assume either one, but I can discuss either one as a possibility, as I am doing right now for both.

All we actually know about this is that Paul's letter is the source of that story of bread and wine.

No, we don't know that. The Didache has those elements and may be earlier than Paul. Paul is the earliest mention for which there is currently a narrow consesnus estimate for the dating. We can see that Paul documernts a stage in the progressive elaboration of the story (-ies), but we don't (and can't) know that his is the earliest stage. I doubt that it is. So do you, apparently. That much, then, you and I shouldn't need to debate.

So the question is where the author of that letter could have got the story from (not where an unknown hypothetical Jesus might have got any such idea).

No, actually Jesus has been proposed as Paul's source. It's a hypothesis, it can be examined.

And as I just pointed out, there is something very similar from as much as 200 years earlier in the DSS.

Yes. In the Odyssey, Odysseus and Circe have a ritual meal, too. I doubt the idea was original with Homer, either. (O & C had a nice dessert, but this is a family forum, and Paul seems to have frowned on that sort of thing.)

Well, if the word "supper" is not in Paul, then that is even more similar to the Essene DSS example, because afaik the word "supper" is not in the DSS ritual either ... it's just some sort of religious ritual centred around the taking of bread and wine.

Obviously, the fewer specifics something has, the fewer conflicts it might have with any anteceents, whether or not the antecedents are influences. Unfortunately, the fewer specifics the somthing has, the fewer points of agreement it might have with antecedents, even if they are influences. There is nothing Paul that portrays Jesus as participating in a "ritual." What Jesus supposedly did on the specified night is by Paul's time a ritual, but that night has come and gone.

 

[Brainache]

...
And as I just pointed out, there is something very similar from as much as 200 years earlier in the DSS...

.

I think they are contemporaneous with Paul. I think he's the "Spouter of lies":
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

"Behold the nations and see, marvel and be astonished; for I accomplish a deed in your days, but you will not believe it when] told" [Hab 1.5].

[Interpreted, this concerns] those who were unfaithful together with the Liar, in that they [did] not [listen to the word received by] the teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God. And it concerns the unfaithful of the New [Covenant] in that they have not believed in the Covenant of God [and have profaned] his holy name. And likewise,

this saying is to be interpreted [as concerning those who] will be unfaithful at the end of days. They, the men of violence and the breakers of the Covenant, will not believe when they hear all that [is to happen to] the final generation from the Priest [in whose heart] God set [understanding] that he might interpret all the words of his servants the prophets, through whom
he foretold all that would happen to his people and [his land]...

If you think that was left there in 200 BCE, what were all those people doing there in the first century? I think it's fair to assume they were writing scrolls right up to the end; ie circa 70 CE.

 

[IanS]

... anyway, it refers to the nature and person of Jesus, thus, 'low Christology' means Jesus is human; 'high' means he is divine and human; and I suppose there is ultra-high - only divine, not human. Hence, the adage that mythicism requires a very early and very high Christology.

How about the extremely obvious and ultra simple alternative of the known fact that Jews had preached precisely that same OT messiah belief as a matter of their divinely inspired certainty since at least 500BC? How about that as the answer to where they got the idea from?

 

[Craig B]

... Now can you find me any historical events from 200 BCE that involve the Romans "Devouring" the cities of Judea? The eagle bit is the dead give-away.

I can find you plenty from the years leading up to 73 CE, not so many before then.

You can't have been looking very diligently.

The Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC) occurred during Pompey the Great's campaigns in the east ... His conquest of Jerusalem ... spelled the end of Jewish independence and the incorporation of Judea into the Roman Republic as a client kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(63_BC)

ETA This incursion was a big deal! The Romans under Pompey definitely "devoured" the cities of Judaea. Another passage from my source:

Pompey erected siege towers and brought up siege engines and battering rams from Tyre. Under the protection of slingers driving the defenders from the walls, these began to batter the walls surrounding the Temple ... First over the wall was Faustus Cornelius Sulla, son of the former dictator and a senior officer in Pompey's army. He was followed by two centurions, Furius and Fabius, each leading a cohort, and the Romans soon overcame the defending Jews. 12,000 were slaughtered, while only a few Romans troops were killed.
Pompey himself entered the Temple's Holy of Holies which only the High Priest was allowed to enter, thereby desecrating it.

This worried the Essenes and other pious sectarians, to whom the integrity of the Holy Places was a matter of the highest importance.

 

[Brainache]

You can't have been looking very diligently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(63_BC)

Destroy many cities did he?

Have Eagles on his standard did he?

Pompey doesn't match the description:

...[Interpreted, this] concerns the Kittim who trample the earth with their horses and beasts. They come from afar, from the islands of the sea, to devour all the peoples like an eagle which cannot be satisfied, and they address [all the peoples] with anger and [wrath and fury] and indignation.

...
"They scoff [at kings], and princes are their laughing-stock [Hab 1.10a].

Interpreted, this means that they mock the great and despise the venerable; they ridicule kings and princes and scoff at the mighty host.

"They laugh at every fortress; they pile up earth and take it [Hab 1.10b].

Interpreted, this concerns the commanders of the Kittim who despise the fortresses of the peoples and laugh at them in derision. To capture them, they encircle them with a mighty host, and out of fear and terror they deliver themselves into their hands. They destroy them because of the sins of their inhabitants.

Pompey didn't do this.

...the Kittim. And they shall gather in their riches, together with all their booty, "like the fish of the sea."

And as for that which he said, "therefore they sacrifice to their net and Burn incense to their seine": Interpreted, this means that they sacrifice to their standards and worship their weapons of war...

Again these are things the Romans under Vespasian did, not Pompey.

And that is just one scroll.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

 

[IanS]

Ian


No, actually it doesn't require such an assumption. It's simply a hypothesis, exactly parallel to your hypothesis that Paul made it up. I don't assume either one, but I can discuss either one as a possibility, as I am doing right now for both.

No, your words were assuming he exists. You proposed that Jesus could have got the idea from the DSS. Well that can only happen if Jesus exists. He can’t get anything from the DSS unless he existed.

Ian[/b
No, we don't know that. The Didache has those elements and may be earlier than Paul. Paul is the earliest mention for which there is currently a narrow consesnus estimate for the dating. We can see that Paul documernts a stage in the progressive elaboration of the story (-ies), but we don't (and can't) know that his is the earliest stage. I doubt that it is. So do you, apparently. That much, then, you and I shouldn't need to debate.

Why are you even bothering to argue that Didache may be earlier than Paul when you know that most scholars say it’s later? See here -

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

Didache
The Didache (/ˈdɪdəkiː/; Koine Greek: Διδαχή) or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didachē means "Teaching"[1]) is a brief early Christian treatise, dated by most scholars to the late first or early 2nd century.


The earliest extant copy of Paul is supposedly P46 dated c.200AD. What is the date of the earliest extant similarly complete and readable copy of Didache? Do you know?

But whether it was Paul or Didache that first mentioned bread & wine is irrelevant, because it was by then already in the DSS. So either of them could have got that idea from the DSS.

The point is that someone here tried to claim the bread and wine idea was unique to and arising from Paul. Well, it’s not! It was almost certainly already in the DSS as much as 200 years before. That’s the point (as I am sure you really knew all too well).

Ian
No, actually Jesus has been proposed as Paul's source. It's a hypothesis, it can be examined..

How in the world can Jesus be the source of Paul's information, unless Jesus existed? Your “proposal” assumes Jesus existed.