The Historical Jesus III

[Craig B]

Cheers GDon and Maximara; I should have read 1 Clement before I commented.

(Though I still think the possibility the document was written or edited, to fit into Jerusalem before the fall of the 2nd Temple, should still be considered, even if it is a low possibility)

It may not in fact be as early as has been suggested here, Temple notwithstanding. Most commentators assign it to the 90s CE. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

Hebrews may be earlier.

ETA My linked source notes these items of internal evidence.

Laurence Welborn writes about the dating of 1 Clement (op. cit., p. 1060):

Thus one must rely upon more general statements in the epistle and in tradition. The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called "ancient" (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived "blamelessly" as Christians "from youth to old age" (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. There are references to the letter by the middle of the next century in the works of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.16; 4.22; 4.23). Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140.

 

[dejudge]

Marcion in thought to have been the person to put some version of a Paul corpus together but we are talking c140 here long after both Clement and Ignatius were long dead and gone.

Marcion is thought to put together a version of the Pauline Corpus??

What absurdity!!!

Marcion preached that Jesus was WITHOUT Birth and WITHOUT Flesh, that the son of God came down DIRECTLY from heaven, that Jesus was NOT the Son of God of the Jews and God Creator.

The Pauline Corpus CONTRADICTS the heresies of Marcion.

In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed Jesus was the Son of the God of the Jews, the Lord from heaven and made of a woman.

Marcion used the writings of Empedocles NOT the Pauline Corpus or the Gospels.


Galatians 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

Justin's Apology LVIII

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

[Refutation of All Heresies 7

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets).

For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum.

Ephraem' Against Marcion III

These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker.

The Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN to Marcion.

The Pauline Corpus are ANTI-MARCIONITE writings AFTER Marcion.

Ephraem's Against "Marcion" is evidence that Marcion knew and wrote NOTHING of the Pauline Corpus.

The pattern of forgeries or false attribution is now exposed.

It was the writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus where FAKE authors were introduced to give primacy to the Church.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude are ALL FAKES or FALSELY attributed.

The so-called Heretics PREDATED the Jesus story in the Canon.

The teaching of Marcion and the Marcionites PREDATE the Pauline Corpus.

 

[dejudge]

Acts is pure and pure propaganda bordering on the 1st to 2nd century equivalent of a Dime Novel.

Now tell us the main characters in the pure pure propaganda called Acts of the Apostles?

The main characters used to promote the pure pure propaganda of Acts of the Apostles are Paul, Jesus, Peter and James.

The Pauline Corpus contain the same characters who were used in Acts of the Apostles.

The Pauline Corpus is without chronology if the pure pure propaganda of Acts of the Apostles is not employed.

The Pauline Corpus is a product of pure, pure propaganda.

 

[Craig B]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude are ALL FAKES or FALSELY attributed.

The so-called Heretics PREDATED the Jesus story in the Canon.

The teaching of Marcion and the Marcionites PREDATE the Pauline Corpus.

So the New Testament POSTDATES a movement that began around 144 CE and was still extant more than two centuries later!

 

[maximara]

It may not in fact be as early as has been suggested here, Temple notwithstanding. Most commentators assign it to the 90s CE. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

Hebrews may be earlier.

ETA My linked source notes these items of internal evidence.

And your link ALSO has this:

Alvar Ellegård has argued for a date as early as the sixties of the first century for a few reasons in his Jesus: the Temple cult is mentioned in the present tense (pp. 38-39), Peter and Paul are mentioned as of "our generation" (pp. 39-40), and the letter seemed to have been written during a persecution, perhaps that of Nero (p. 40).

Thomas J. Herron's 2010 Clement and the Early Church of Rome: On the Dating of Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians goes into insane amount of detail both internal and external pointing to a pre-70 CE date for 1 Clement.

Also Early Christian Writings has 50-95 for Hebrews (the index of the works on that site all have the date ranges. and it is interesting what fall where.

 

[dejudge]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude are ALL FAKES or FALSELY attributed.

The so-called Heretics PREDATED the Jesus story in the Canon.

The teaching of Marcion and the Marcionites PREDATE the Pauline Corpus.

So the New Testament POSTDATES a movement that began around 144 CE and was still extant more than two centuries later!

You have no evidence [internal or external] from Clement or Ignatius that letters of the Pauline Corpus were composed c 50-60 CE.

The evidence from antiquity shows that the Pauline Corpus are ANTI-MARCIONITE teachings composed NO earlier than c 180 CE or AFTER "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus.

Celsus and Justin Martyr did NOT know the Pauline post-resurrection story that OVER 500 persons and Paul was seen of the Resurrected Jesus.

In fact, NONE of the authors of the Canonical Gospels knew the Pauline post-resurrection OVER 500 story.

The claim that Paul was a witness that God raised Jesus from the dead is a LATE invention and was UNKNOWN even in Acts of the Apostles.

The internal evidence, the external evidence and historical criticism show that the Pauline Corpus is historically bogus and were UNKNOWN by Christians and Non-Christians of antiquity up to at least the late 2nd century.

 

[Craig B]

Also Early Christian Writings has 50-95 for Hebrews (the index of the works on that site all have the date ranges. and it is interesting what fall where.

I wrote that Hebrews was probably earlier. The link has 80-140 for 1 Clement, and I think that is more commonly accepted than pre-70. What do you think the consensus is, if there is one? Some of the evidence I quoted is very suggestive.

It is quite possible for people to write as if the Temple is still there when it's not. Don't Jewish writers do this in the much later Talmud?

 

[dejudge]

I wrote that Hebrews was probably earlier. The link has 80-140 for 1 Clement, and I think that is more commonly accepted than pre-70. What do you think the consensus is, if there is one? Some of the evidence I quoted is very suggestive.

The dating of Clement to 80-140 CE cannot show that letters in the Pauline Corpus were composed c 50-60 CE.

It is quite possible for people to write as if the Temple is still there when it's not. Don't Jewish writers do this in the much later Talmud?

ONLY Jewish writers did that??

Paul claimed he was a Jew!!!

Christians of antiquity ADMITTED others Christians MANIPULATED and Corrupted the stories of Jesus.

In Church History it is admitted that 2nd Peter does NOT belong in the Canon.

It is a well established fact that the Christian Bible, including the Pauline Corpus, are riddled with fictional accounts under the pretense of history.

For hundreds of years it was ASSUMED all the letters of the Pauline Corpus were actually written by Paul but now it is known that there were MULTIPLE authors writing AS IF the Temple was still standing when it was NOT.

The very same pattern is found in ALL the Canonical Gospels.

The authors of the Gospel write AS IF the Temple was still standing when it was NOT.

 

[Mcreal]

Originally Posted by maximara
Marcion is thought to have been the person to put some version of a Paul corpus together but we are talking c140 here ..

Marcion is thought to put together a version of the Pauline Corpus??

What absurdity!!!

Marcion preached that Jesus was WITHOUT Birth and WITHOUT Flesh, that the son of God came down DIRECTLY from heaven, that Jesus was NOT the Son of God of the Jews and God Creator.

The Pauline Corpus CONTRADICTS the heresies of Marcion.

The later Pauline Corpus might contradict the alleged theology of Marcion, but it's still possible that Marcion had texts that were part of early Pauline theology.

Marcion used the writings of Empedocles not the Pauline Corpus or the Gospels.

Perhaps, but this -

Refutation of All Heresies 7

Quote:
When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets).

For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum.

- may not be a true reflection of what happened either.

The teaching of Marcion and the Marcionites PREDATE the Pauline Corpus.

Yes, it is likely that the theology of Marcion and the Marcionites predates the eventual Pauline corpus (ie. the one we have today), but Marcion and the Marcionites may have contributed to to the development of the Pauline corpus (either directly, or by contributors to the Pauline corpus 'reacting' to Marcionite theology).

It is likely there were various versions of the Pauline corpus before the final version we have today.

The so-called Heretics PREDATED the Jesus story in the Canon.

Yes. Hence the need to analyze & discuss the works of these 'so-called Heretics' to try to work it all out.

I don't think it's as black and white as you portray, dejudge.

It was the writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus where FAKE authors were introduced to give primacy to the Church.

Yes, it's likely a lot of attribution as probably done around the time of Irenaeus.

The story of Irenaeus is a weird one - allegedly collecting and collating texts in isolation in the western Mediterranean.

It is Irenaeus who is alleged to have collated the first full canon.

 

[maximara]

It is quite possible for people to write as if the Temple is still there when it's not. Don't Jewish writers do this in the much later Talmud?

There is more then one Talmud: the Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi) and the easier to read (but later) Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli). When people use "Talmud" by itself they tend to refer to the Talmud Bavli but which are you referring to?


Also each of the Talmuds are actually in two parts: the actual oral tradition itself (Mishnah) and the commentary (Gemara). In this writing "as if the Temple is still there" statement is the Gemara being used or is the raw Mishnah what is being talked about?

The Gemara is more then just a gloss explaining unclear words or phrasing or providing precedents or examples but also is the spring board for the practice of havruta (a paired study and focused conversation regarding the material)

Orit Kent's "A Theory of Havruta Learning" gives a glimpse into this. Heresy simply doesn't exist with these texts; there is no one way to read them and debate on their meaning is encouraged. Contrast that with nearly every sect of Christianity which has this 'there is ONE WAY to read this and if you don't agree you are either misguided or an agent of the Devil' mentality.

 

[dejudge]

The later Pauline Corpus might contradict the alleged theology of Marcion, but it's still possible that Marcion had texts that were part of early Pauline theology.

Anything is possible WITHOUT evidence. Speculation and imagination do not require any evidence at all.


It is probable that Marcion did not have any texts of the Pauline Corpus based on the evidence from antiquity.

It is probable that there were no early Pauline theology based on the evidence from antiquity.

It is probable that all the letters of the Pauline Corpus are forgeries or false attribution based on the evidence from antiquity.

It is probable that Jesus was a figure of mythology based on the evidence from antiquity.

Yes, it is likely that the theology of Marcion and the Marcionites predates the eventual Pauline corpus (ie. the one we have today), but Marcion and the Marcionites may have contributed to to the development of the Pauline corpus (either directly, or by contributors to the Pauline corpus 'reacting' to Marcionite theology).

It is probable that Marcion and the Macionites did not contribute to the development of the existing Pauline Corpus based on the evidence from antiquity.

It would appear Marcion was DEAD before the Pauline Corpus was invented.

It is likely there were various versions of the Pauline corpus before the final version we have today.

I cannot examine supposed MISSING Pauline letters which have NEVER been seen or known.

What does the MISSING Epistle to the Romans say in the first verse?

The so-called Heretics PREDATED the Jesus story in the Canon.

Yes. Hence the need to analyze & discuss the works of these 'so-called Heretics' to try to work it all out.

I don't think it's as black and white as you portray, dejudge.

Maximara and Craig B think it is black and white. They believe Paul lived in the time of Aretas simply because it is in the Christian Bible a known source of fiction, forgeries or false attribution.

I have worked out that the Pauline Corpus is historically bogus and was composed no earlier than c 180 CE using multiple sources.

This is a PARTIAL list of the writings I have analyzed and discussed.

1. "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

2. First Apology" attributed to Justin Martyr.

3. "Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr.

4. Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

5. "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

6. Prescription Against the Heretics" attributed to Tertullian.

7. Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

8. Against Hierocles" attributed to Eusebius.

9. "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian

10. "Against the heathen" attributed to Arnobius.

11. "Against Marcion" attributed to Ephraem the Syrian.

12. "De Viris Illustribus" attributed to Jerome.

13. The Apocritus' attributed to Macarius Magnes.

14. The short gMark found in the Sinaiticus Codex.

15. Writings attributed to Philo.

16. Writings attributed to Josephus.

17. Writings attributed to Tacitus.

18. Writings attributed to Pliny the Elder.

19. Writings attributed to Suetonius.

20. Church History attributed to Eusebius.

It was the writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus where FAKE authors were introduced to give primacy to the Church.

Yes, it's likely a lot of attribution as probably done around the time of Irenaeus.

The story of Irenaeus is a weird one - allegedly collecting and collating texts in isolation in the western Mediterranean.

It is Irenaeus who is alleged to have collated the first full canon.

A proper analysis of "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus reveals that it is the work of Multiple authors [a blatant forgery or false attribution]

The author who argued in Against Hereasies 2.22 that Jesus was crucified when he was an OLD MAN 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius which is about c 50 CE is NOT the same author who claimed to have knowledge of the Pauline Corpus and the Gospels.

The Gospels show that Jesus was crucified under PILATE in the reign of Tiberius and that Paul preached Christ crucified and RESURRECTED since the time of King Aretas.

"Against Heresies" is evidence that the Pauline Corpus is PLANTED evidence and was UNKNOWN in the time of the supposed Irenaeus.

It is virtually impossible that Irenaeus could have argued that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age if he had the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

In addition, Irenaeus would have been a known complete IDIOT if people in the time of Irenaeus had knowledge and WRITTEN documents that Jesus was crucified under Pilate c 33 CE.

The argument that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age in "Against Heresies" 2.22 is EVIDENCE that Tacitus Annals 15.44 is a FORGERY.

 

[Mcreal]

It is probable that Marcion did not have any texts of the Pauline Corpus based on the evidence from antiquity.

It is probable that there were no early Pauline theology based on the evidence from antiquity.

It is probable that all the letters of the Pauline Corpus are forgeries or false attribution based on the evidence from antiquity.

I have worked out that the Pauline Corpus is historically bogus and was composed no earlier than c 180 CE using multiple sources.

This is a PARTIAL list of the writings I have analyzed and discussed.

1. "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

2. "First Apology" attributed to Justin Martyr.

3. "Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr.

4. "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

5. "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

6. "Prescription Against the Heretics" attributed to Tertullian.

7. "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

8. "Against Hierocles" attributed to Eusebius.

9. "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian

10. "Against the heathen" attributed to Arnobius.

11. "Against Marcion" attributed to Ephraem the Syrian.

12. "De Viris Illustribus" attributed to Jerome.

13. 'The Apocritus' attributed to Macarius Magnes.

14. The short gMark found in the Sinaiticus Codex.

15. Writings attributed to Philo.

16. Writings attributed to Josephus.

17. Writings attributed to Tacitus.

18. Writings attributed to Pliny the Elder.

19. Writings attributed to Suetonius.

20. Church History attributed to Eusebius.​

Yes, there was lots of confusion then, and that seems to have led to lots of confusion now.

 

[Mcreal]

A proper analysis of "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus reveals that it is the work of multiple authors [a blatant forgery or false attribution]

The author who argued in Against Heresies 2.22 that Jesus was crucified when he was an OLD MAN, 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius, which is about c 50 CE, is not the same author who claimed to have knowledge of the Pauline Corpus and the Gospels.

Cheers. Good points

 

[Mcreal]

It is claimed that Paul had to sneak out of Damascus, in a basket, through a window in the wall, to escape the ethnarch of King Aretas (2 Corinthians 11:32, 33; and Acts 9:23, 24).

This places Paul in Jerusalem ~37CE after his conversion, which raises the question of why Paul could not have recorded first-hand stories about Jesus.

And, Josephus attributes Aretas's defeat of Herod Antipas, in the winter of CE 36/37, to the beheading of John the Baptist.

So there was a lot for Paul to actually record if the narratives were true.

 

[Craig B]

It is claimed that Paul had to sneak out of Damascus, in a basket, through a window in the wall, to escape the ethnarch of King Aretas (2 Corinthians 11:32, 33; and Acts 9:23, 24).

This places Paul in Jerusalem ~37CE after his conversion, which raises the question of why Paul could not have recorded first-hand stories about Jesus.

And, Josephus attributes Aretas's defeat of Herod Antipas, in the winter of CE 36/37, to the beheading of John the Baptist.

So there was a lot for Paul to actually record if the narratives were true.

Paul's source of "information" about Jesus was revelation from on high, which unsurprisingly told him nothing, as it was delusionary.

He deprecated the apostles, and believed that his own contacts with the risen Jesus were more significant than information received from humans in the normal way. So even if ordinary human information was available to him, he was not motivated to relate it.

 

[Mcreal]

2 Corinthians 11: 32,33 is the end of 2 Cor 11 -

30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.

the start of 2 Cor 12 -

1 I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

Is it all delusionary?

The Pauline writer can talk about "a man in Christ fourteen years ago", but not relay stories from the same time, from likely eye-witnesses to the actual Christ, from a few years before-hand ?

 

[maximara]

It is claimed that Paul had to sneak out of Damascus, in a basket, through a window in the wall, to escape the ethnarch of King Aretas (2 Corinthians 11:32, 33; and Acts 9:23, 24).

This places Paul in Jerusalem ~37CE after his conversion, which raises the question of why Paul could not have recorded first-hand stories about Jesus.

And, Josephus attributes Aretas's defeat of Herod Antipas, in the winter of CE 36/37, to the beheading of John the Baptist.

So there was a lot for Paul to actually record if the narratives were true.

Actually as explained before the whole King Aretas-Damascus thing has problems regarding the whole 28-40 period (this is why I had the caveat "yes I know but for the moment go with it " regarding this claim) .

I clobbered this timeline based on the material I could quickly access:

1) Damascus was incorporated into the province of Syria and granted autonomy roughly c54 BC (Skolnik, Fred; Michael Berenbaum (2007) Encyclopaedia Judaica Volume 5 Granite Hill Publishers pg 527)

2) In 23 BC Augustus gave Herod the Great control of Zenodorus lands and perhaps Damascus as well.

3) In the sources that say Herod the Great gained control of Damascus that control is either given back to Syria upon his death or is part of the Herod Philip got (it is admittedly muddled here)

4) In 6 CE the control of Herod Archelaus' lands is given to Syria (Samuel Rocca (2005) The Army of Herod the Great)

5) Before Herod Philip's death his wife and Herod Antipas agreed to divorce their spouses and marry each other. This marriage may have happened as early as 24 CE (Christiane Saulnier)

5) After Herod Philip's (no later then 34 CE) death his lands are given to Syria which are controlled by Vitellius

Given we have Roman coins which supposedly "prove" Roman control of Damascus to at least to 33/34 and perhaps as late as 37 CE there is simply no where in time we can reasonably put a garrison of Aretas in the 34-40 period.

Aretas would have had no reason to invade was was now Syrian province territory in his quarrel with Antipas.

Vitellius would not have simply left the troops of a now hostile leader so deep in his lands; he would have either crushed him or neutralized their threat.

Caligula was good friends with Lucius Vitellius (the Elder) and Herod Agrippa I both had supported him while Aretas was a willful barbarian king that Tiberius had wanted to make war with. The idea that Caligula would snub a friend and supporter over a willful barbarian king who had effectively rebelled is stark raving bonkers.

More over if this map of Herod the Great's kingdom is correct Damascus was NEVER part of Herod the Great's empire but was part of the Syrian provence (As I mentioned the literature is a little wonky on this but most of the maps of Herod the Great's kingdom I have seen have Damascus way outside it

The above map has Damascus some 50 miles northwest of the furthest northern point of what became Phillip's part.

Also as related by Josephus after Phillip's death in 33/34 CE all of Phillip's lands became part of the Syrian provence. This pushed the border of the Syrian provence even further south...almost even to the southern part of Galilee section of Herod's part.

Logistically there would be no reason for Aretas to take troops that far north as it would have required attacking Vitellius.

More over if Aretas was that far north then Vitellius wouldn't have wasted time going down the coast but would have met any troops in Damascus under Aretas control rather then risk those troops being used in any flanking counter attack.

This effectively kills the idea of any Aretas troops in Damascus from 36 to 40 CE.

Now I can see Aretas and Philip teaming up against Agrippa I but this would set any Aretas garrison in Damascus no later then 34 and likely no earlier then 28 CE (if we accept the whole Jesus-JTB connection) and that is assuming the MAJORITY of maps of Herod the Great's kingdom are wrong and Damascus was part of Philip's lands.

As I said I think if Paul did write this (yes there are issues there as well ) I think he pulled a Ronald Reagan and misremembered events and simple escaped Damascus sometime before 40 CE and simply latched on to Aretas as the main ruler he could remember when writing the passage.

If we give this passage of Paul the benefit of a doubt then it totally screws up the Gospel account as it would make Paul's conversion too early because we are told Paul could have converted 6 years previously before this event. But if the event can be at best demonstrated via logic to have happened n later then 34 CE then Paul's conversion could have happened as early as 28 CE or before Jesus supposedly even started his ministry.

Please note that Irenaeus's claims about Jesus being at least 46 years old when crucified and this happening no earlier then 41 CE (Claudius Caeser) results in the same inescapable conclusion with Paul converting long before Jesus was crucified.

The best we can come up with this passage is that Paul escaped a "garrison" of men in Damascus some time during the reign of Aretas IV who may or may not have had control over those troops.

 

[Craig B]

2 Corinthians 11: 32,33 is the end of 2 Cor 11 -

the start of 2 Cor 12 -

Is it all delusionary?

The Pauline writer can talk about "a man in Christ fourteen years ago", but not relay stories from the same time, from likely eye-witnesses to the actual Christ, from a few years before-hand ?

You are repeating what I stated in my last post.

Paul's source of "information" about Jesus was revelation from on high, which unsurprisingly told him nothing, as it was delusionary.

He deprecated the apostles, and believed that his own contacts with the risen Jesus were more significant than information received from humans in the normal way. So even if ordinary human information was available to him, he was not motivated to relate it.

The "man in Christ" obtained revelations from the third heaven, no less; and he refers to them, weird as they are. But Paul never met the living Jesus, and would need to have obtained information about him from Jesus' surviving companions. This source of data, Paul explicitly rejects. Among other statements, Galatians 1 proclaims

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

And from later in the same chapter, Paul specifies

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

 

[Mcreal]

I reckon a lot of the Christian texts were written in retrospect, and situated in other locations to the writer's then-location, so early readers of the texts could not dispute them, thus increasing perceptions of authenticity.

 

[dejudge]

It is probable that all the letters of the Pauline Corpus are forgeries or false attribution based on the evidence from antiquity.

I have worked out that the Pauline Corpus is historically bogus and was composed no earlier than c 180 CE using multiple sources.

This is a PARTIAL list of the writings I have analyzed and discussed.

1. "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

2. "First Apology" attributed to Justin Martyr.

3. "Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr.

4. "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

5. "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

6. "Prescription Against the Heretics" attributed to Tertullian.

7. "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

8. "Against Hierocles" attributed to Eusebius.

9. "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian

10. "Against the heathen" attributed to Arnobius.

11. "Against Marcion" attributed to Ephraem the Syrian.

12. "De Viris Illustribus" attributed to Jerome.

13. 'The Apocritus' attributed to Macarius Magnes.

14. The short gMark found in the Sinaiticus Codex.

15. Writings attributed to Philo.

16. Writings attributed to Josephus.

17. Writings attributed to Tacitus.

18. Writings attributed to Pliny the Elder.

19. Writings attributed to Suetonius.

20. Church History attributed to Eusebius.

Yes, there was lots of confusion then, and that seems to have led to lots of confusion now.

The NT stories of Jesus are NOT confusing at all.

Did not gMatthew state Jesus was born AFTER his mother was found with child by some kind of Holy Ghost [a pure Ghost without sin].

There is no confusion.

What did Ignatius say to the Ephesians?

Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost [a pure Ghost without sin]