In this part two I want to examine (reexamine?) the reliability or unreliability of Paul’s epistles and facts hidden in the Greek New Testament as well as other contemporary sources of the time about Paul. I will also examine Paul’s third epistle to the Corinthians and the forgeries within it done in his name by later Greek Church Fathers and their copyists.

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

The Eccentric Yet Dubious Apostle Paul

Labelling Paul as dubious is quite the understatement if one knows the various extant accounts of him available outside the popular Greek New Testament. From what we know, however, in his epistles and the book of Acts is that he was loved and hated, welcomed and shunned, provocative and a pestilence. There is even the chance he never existed as one man, but was a reference class as Dr. Richard Carrier places him. Carrier states that Paul’s six authentic letters are “far more probable hypothesis (for more on this point see How Do We Know the Apostle Paul Wrote His Epistles in the 50s A.D.?). And that makes Paul far better attested than Jesus: because we have some things written by Paul himself! That’s a serious issue of reliability of whether Paul actually understood and knew Jesus simply from an epileptic vision on the road to Damascus or from resurrection appearances after Jesus’ execution and burial.

Epilepsy and Paul

Another problematic account of Paul was his medical health issues of ectasia and exstatic seizures and its form(s) of disease classified as the “Sacred Disease” or focal epilepsy. This disease disrupts one’s daily life in many significant ways from learning, to bodily dysfunctions, to hyper-sensations such as hallucinations (visual, hearing, and taste), mood swings, to communication, speaking and cognitive functions. It isn’t hard to conclude that with all those “disruptions” in a person’s life causes all sorts of positive and negative social interactions and relationships, especially around ancient people who have little to no understanding of the disease and its manifestations, privately or publicly. And as mentioned earlier, this disease in the 1^st century CE most surely caused eccentricity and dubious behavior and speech in the eyes of other Jews and Gentiles. There’s another reliability issue.

Unfounded Claims of Jewish Lineage

In the Greek New Testament Paul claims he was born of Jewish parents in the Roman Province of Cilicia in its capital Tarsus. During his life there Cilicia was heavily Hellenized going as far back as 333 BCE when Alexander conquered Anatolia. As I covered in my 2018 series Saul the Apostate, this claim of Jewish heritage from the tribe of Benjamin is a major snag and mess.

First, nowhere in Jewish Rabbinical history is there a tribal list or ancestry of Benjamin in existence in Cilicia or Tarsus at that time, not even rumors of it. Second, it is claimed in Acts 22:3 that Paul’s rabbinic studies were under Gamaliel in Jerusalem. Yet, none of his ascribed writings and arguments in the Greek New Testament are Gamaliel or rabbinic in nature. Most historical scholars of Late Second Temple Judaism and Zugot-Tannaitic Rabbinical literature agree with this falsehood. Yet another problem of Paul’s reliability.

Paul’s Hellenic Studies and Education

On a positive inference of Paul’s eccentric exuberance for public or church preaching, his infatuation with mysteries and the Spirit of God through tongues, supernatural powers, sacraments, and fatalism (mood symptom) can be directly traced to the Gnostic lore of Alexandria and the Corpus Hermeticum, specifically the Poimandres, heavy in Greek mythology and later Hellenism. Probably not so coincidental was his education and exposure in the Hillel school. There Paul would have learned classic Hellenistic literature, ethics, and philosophy (Stoicism) and these influences do indeed reveal themselves in all his ascribed letters, especially from the Hellenistic Book of Wisdom and other Apocrypha, as well as Philo of Alexandria who is the father of harmonizing Greek philosophy with the Jewish Torah; both are transparent in Paul’s writings.

Paul’s Roman Citizenship & Anti-Semitism

Interesting enough, Paul’s background and study of Hellenistic philosophy, literature, and ethics would have suited him well to becoming a Roman citizen, later saved by a Roman centurion at the Temple amongst a serious dispute and angry Jewish mob (Acts 21:27-36), and as a result becomes a hunter-prosecutor of early annoying Christians to the Roman Empire (Acts 22:22–23:11) all while despised by Homeland Jews for his attacks on them and apostacy of Judaism.

Evidence of Paul’s Herodian Lineage & Unions

This is the most intriguing inferences and connections of Paul’s dubious reliability from the Greek canonical New Testament that is veiled, hidden inside his Epistles and Acts. There is also internal and extraneous sources of him belonging to Herodian-Jews, not Pharisaic-Jews and these sources combined and understood as a whole picture reveal a plausible conclusion he was likely/probably a Hellenic “Herodian Christos” evangelist not a Jesus evangelist. Where do we find these sources?

Alluding to and probably referencing terminology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSSs) of Qumran we find almost identical terms used in Paul’s letters to the Galatian, Corinthian, and Roman Herodian-Christians. The DSSs frequently use terms like the Enemy, the Liar or Spouter of Lies, Man of Lying, Comedian of Lying (i.e. epileptic?), and some others. They strongly pointed to the adversary of “The Righteous Teacher” within the Judean “The Way” Movement of Jesus’ disciples and followers. Paul refers to them repeatedly in his letters in Gal. 1:20, 2 Corinthians 11:31, and Romans 9:1 (to name just three) that he was not “a Liar” or he “does not lie.” This explicitly implies that his groups/churches in those three cities had been told that Saul of Tarsus deceives and maligns the truth and the faith.

Furthermore, “The Enemy” terminology is also strong and prevalent in the Pseudo-Clementines. For example, in Homilies the apparent Epistle of Peter to James the brother in Jerusalem, it states:

For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy. […]

[The Gentile Enemies] transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to the dissolution of the law. […]

…the law of God which was spoken by Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord… for thus he spoke:  “The heavens and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” (quoting Matt. 5:18)

— Homilies, Epistle of Peter to James, Ch. 2

Dr. Bart Ehrman describes the significance of this Epistle of Peter to James as a Palestinian counter-balance against the Hellenic canonical NT and Acts of the Apostles. He writes:

This book provides the counter-view to that found in the New Testament book of Acts, where Paul and Peter are thought to be completely on the same side and simpatico on every major issue. Not according to this short letter. Here Peter and James are the heroes of the faith, and Paul is the great enemy.

— Bart Ehrman Blog, “Another Forgery in the Name of Peter, April 2013, accessed Oct. 11, 2018

I cover more extensively the overall, hateful opinions of Paul by 1^st century Homeland Jews and in their DSSs in my fourth part of Saul the Apostate. And by the way, Herodian Jews did indeed receive Roman citizenry. Ironically, Paul himself openly supports this method of Roman-Herodian citizenship:

Greet Apelles, the approved in Christ. Greet those who are of the household of Aristobulus. Greet Herodion, my kinsman.

— Romans 16:10-11

Be sure to read closely Dr. Robert Eisenman’s extensive work on Paul’s Herodian bloodline and unions in my Part IV. They are quite compelling. With these sources it is no stretch to conclude that Paul’s Christ-cult and theology Christology was easily embraced by Hellenic Pagans/Gentiles because it represented very little of what Jesus’ Tannaitic, Torah-loving teachings and Sectarian reforms.

On a final note about Paul’s probable Herodian connections, the question must be asked, What would be the best alternative approach—centuries-later in the eyes and minds of the Hellenic Patristic Fathers—to a failed Messiah, who never returns, and the related Messianic OT prophecies hence also failed? Be sure to read Dr. James Tabor’s answers to this question.

Reliability & the Author(s) of Acts

The book of Acts is generally regarded by scholars to be a two-part compilation sometimes labelled Luke–Acts. Both works were addressed to a man named Theophilus, an obscure friend of Luke and by unsubstantiated conjecture, Paul’s lawyer. Nevertheless, the name Theophilus as the recipient, appears in both Luke’s Gospel and in Acts which implies Luke would be the author. That’s the traditional Greek-church theory.

But the timespan of 5–35 years (possibly 40-yrs) between writings of the two volumes—Luke in c. 80-110 CE and Acts in c. 90-120 CE—suggests that Acts was probably written well after Luke. And since both works’ authorship are anonymous, i.e. no explicit signature of the author, opens the debate that Acts had more than one author. The latter would also explain nicely the many contradictions between Luke and Acts, as well as those between Paul’s epistles and Acts. In my opinion and research, the wide differences of composition time-frames and author anonymity of Luke–Acts makes a good case that Acts had more than one author, or source, resulting in many inconsistencies and irreconcilable blunders.

What are the most glaring, damaging fallacies and inconsistencies of the book of Acts portrayal of Paul and Paul’s description of himself in his letters?

Many biblical scholars like John Crossan, Clare Rothschild, Gregory Sterling, Thomas Brodie, perhaps Richard Carrier, and Bart Ehrman are all in agreement that in specific historical details Acts is unreliable. But as far as general portrayals of Paul the book of Acts is more accurate. But does that make Acts a historical narrative? No. However, it does make Acts a theological drama and sensationalized story. In that arena I am in the same boat or posture as Richard Carrier: if a narrative isn’t completely factual, then it must be classified as an inspired-by-actual-events legend, but not an irrefutable factual transcript. Big difference.

If one needs Acts to be a reliable history, and not revisionist history (a.k.a. “bullshit”), one needs to “leave out” all the evidence that it repeatedly contradicts the eyewitness testimony of Paul, and in precisely the ways that suit its author’s agendas, and that it mimics known tropes and features distinctive of fiction and propaganda, and conspicuously omits all the actual markers of reliable histories.

— Richard carrier, “how we know acts is a fake history,” accessed 3/17/2024

Carrier goes on with his sharp criticism of the author(s) of Acts stating, “That people [of the 1^st and 2^nd century CE] routinely tried to pass off lies as genuine history was a major problem regularly complained of at the time.” He cites three different sources of these complaints, T.J. Luce, “Ancient Views on the Causes of Bias in Historical Writing,” Lucian’s “How to Write History,” and Plutarch’s “On the Malice of Herodotus.” Then Carrier lays it on thick by stating there are over 20 other “Acts” that even most all Orthodox Christians agree are bogus.

Then Carrier goes even further stating that Christians and their self-proclaimed, self-perceived impunity to bend laws of nature as God-initiated “miracles” and rewriting, re-visioning actual historical events for believers afforded Christians and their scribes the license to freely doctor up stories/Acts that suited their own agenda and lure, recruit Gentiles into the new Pauline Christology.

Additionally, Acts contains some serious historical fallacies, four that are glaring. The first fallacy is the Roman Cohorts/troops stationed supposedly in Caesarea c. 37 CE. In Acts 10:1 the “Italian regiment” would be the Cohors II Italica Civium Romanorum, or an Italian Auxiliary Unit based out of Syria. The problem with this specific unit and Acts’ account of it is that its presence in Caesarea or Judea is confirmed to be no earlier than 69 CE, thirty-two years later.

A second fallacy (of many) is the event of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 put next to Galatians 2. Examine the following image table:

Once again this shows compellingly, in my knowledgeable opinion, that Acts was written noticeably later by more than one author and authors who naïvely did not have the Gospel of Luke in front of them, making their work in Acts highly unreliable.

A third fallacy or problem is James’, the brother of Jesus, speech in Jerusalem (Acts 15:16-18) where he quotes literally from the Greek Septuagint speaking Greek. But James’ audience would’ve only been the Council members who spoke Aramaic or Mishnaic Hebrew amongst each other. Why on Earth would James speak to them in Greek? Because he would not; that would’ve been completely unnecessary, unless Acts 15 is a later retro-report than the actual speech the Acts’ author(s) haphazardly and naïvely penned.

Finally, the fourth fallacy or problem of Acts’ reliability is the Egyptian and the assassins/terrorists called Sicarii of 1^st century Judea (prior to 70 CE) and the narrative in Acts 21:38. By confusing this Egyptian with Paul the author(s) of Acts demonstrates that they used Josephus’ as a prior source and completely mistook that “The Egyptian” led them… which is wholly false.

To conclude this portion, I am in agreement with biblical scholars like Bart Ehrman and critics like Richard Carrier that as a whole the book of Acts is mostly unreliable, if not completely unreliable. It does easily give convenient historical facts about events of 1^st century CE to lend itself as valid, reliable to readers about events in Judea, Jerusalem, and its Roman rule, however, it cannot be trusted on the specific details and verifiable, confirmed external facts of the time that we do possess today.

Paul’s “Third” Epistle & Letter to the Laodiceans? What?

There are two letters (falsely) attributed to Paul called 3^rd Corinthians and another called Laodiceans. They are noted in Acts 8: 9-24 and in the Acts of Paul, a pseudepigraphal apocryphal work neither of which are in the present day NT canon.

Third Corinthians is a forgery written by Orthodox Christian Fathers to oppose circulating forgeries during the 3^rd century CE to support their own seven separate Nicene Councils’ final theologies. Marcion of Sinope became the very first major heretic of the Greco-Roman Catholic Church and our present Orthodox Christian Churches, Protestant ones included.

There were apparently Pauline letters about Marcion of Sinope circulating around c. 135 CE in Rome. Sadly, none of them exist today because extreme 2^nd–4^th century orthodox Christians destroyed and burned them. However, as luck would have it we do have letters forged in Paul’s name by Greek Church Fathers which seem to oppose Marcion. And they wrote forgeries to oppose him and his “heretical” theology in the name of Paul. Yes, the second and third generation Church Fathers fabricated and invented their own Pauline forgeries to fight Marcion. Bart Ehrman explains:

It was quite common for “orthodox” Christians (that is, Christians who accepted the theological views that eventually became widely accepted throughout Christianity) to charge “heretics” (those who taught “false teachings”) with forging documents in the names of the apostles in order to support their views. […]

The Gospel of Peter, for example, was charged with being heretical, as teaching a docetic view of Jesus. But orthodox Christians forged documents of their own. We have far more of this kind of forgery, since orthodox writings were more likely to be preserved for posterity, even if they were not actually written by their alleged authors.

— Bart ehrman, “Paul’s *THIRD* Letter to the Corinthians? A Very Interesting Forgery” — 3/6/2024, accessed 3/18/2024

Two different theologians had gone to Corinth during Paul’s missions, one named Simon (the Magician) and the other Cleobius. Both were preaching a very different gospel than Paul’s. The Corinthian Christians wanted Paul to come in person to whip the ones who had gone astray from Simon’s and Cleobius’ teachings. Their teachings were essentially:

• Do not petition the Old Testament prophets
• God is “not Almighty,” not omnipotent
• No resurrection of the flesh/dead will happen
• Earth was not created by God, but by angels
• Christos did not come here in the flesh as a man
• Christos was not born from Mary

Much of these theological doctrines sound like Marcion’s teachings. Consequently, followers of Marcion rejected an afterlife “in the flesh” at the end of time. This also meant that Christos could not have been born and had human flesh. Since the Old Testament did not belong in the canonical New Testament, disregarding the OT prophets was fine, they were no longer needed. Imagine the impact of these teachings to traditional Judeo-Christians, even Paul’s Corinthians.

But there are discrepancies above with the followers—in the forged 3^rd Corinthians that is—to what Maricon actually taught. Marcion in fact did teach that Earth was created by the OT God. Hence, it was an apparent wayward group of Corinthians that deviated from traditional Judeo-Christian creationism, not Marcion, as the Greco-Roman Church Fathers purported in their forged letter of 3^rd Corinthians. However, this group of Corinthians had similar theological ideas with Marcion, but they were not identical. It seems the 2^nd century Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr, got it wrong in making their forged epistle in the name of Paul.

The phony 3^rd letter to the Corinthians was a denunciation aimed at the rising movement of Gnostic Christianity and docetism in the 1^st and 2^nd centuries CE. In this “response letter” the early Church Fathers, not Paul, underscored several doctrines about the real nature of Christos as opposed to Marcion’s and the Gnostics’ version. One particular doctrine that 3^rd Corinthians addresses is the importance of the flesh. No, not pornography—although that would be a nice respite from this crazy religion—they mean (the early Greek Church Fathers) actual flesh and bone and blood in order to make Christos’ Incarnation theologically workable.

Assaulting the Gnostics’ beliefs, the forger(s) chastise any who proclaim that heaven, Earth, and all within them was not God’s creation are labelled heretics. In attempting to mimic Paul the forger(s) slip up and show their papyrus caper. Making the flesh one of the primary focal points caught Bart Ehrman’s attention:

This emphasis on the “flesh” is very interesting, but also a bit ironic.  One recent study of 3 Corinthians has shown that the forger[s], who was intent on opposing the false teachings of the heretics, does so by teaching ideas about the flesh that are contrary to what the real, historical Paul taught.[2]  Paul himself certainly believed that God had created this world, and that at the end of time he would redeem it.  Paul, like most Jews and Christians in his day, thought that at the end of this age there would be a bodily resurrection.  That is to say, that humans would face judgment, either reward or punishment, in their own bodies that had been raised from the dead (see for example 1 Corinthians 15).  But Paul did not call the body “the flesh.”  On the contrary “the flesh” meant something completely different for Paul.  It meant that part of human nature that is controlled by sin and that is alienated from God (see for example Romans 8:1-9).  For Paul, the “flesh” needed to be overcome, since it was controlled by sin.  The human body would be raised from the dead, but the flesh had to die.

This somewhat technical understanding of the term flesh came to be lost in later orthodox Christianity, when theologians began thinking that flesh and body were the same thing.  And that has happened here in 3 Corinthians.  Unlike Paul, this [forgery] emphasizes the importance of flesh as a creation of God that will be raised.  In other words, this is an instance in which a forger claiming to be Paul represents a point of view that is contrary to Paul’s, even though he is trying to correct, in Paul’s name, teachings that he thinks are false.

— Bart Ehrman, “Paul’s *third* letter to the corinthians? a very interesting forgery.” accessed 3/21/2024.

Letter to the Laodiceans

Another forged “letter” by early Hellenic Church Fathers done in the name of Paul is the one to the Laodiceans. According to many biblical scholars this fake letter is the epitome of stale and lacking in theme and intent. In fact, nine-tenths of the letter is just a repeat of Philippians. The opening line is from Galatians 1:1 so it shows no substance and no pop, no inspiration. Adolf von Harnack says, “[The letter,] it is with regard to content and form the most worthless document that has come down to us from Christian antiquity.“

The mystery about a letter or letters to the Laodiceans is that only one exists. It is the letter found in the Latin Vulgate, but it is remarkably short and claims to be written by Paul. Any letter to the Laodiceans from Marcion does not exist, only Tertullian writes about it attacking the Marcionites for using a revised version of Ephesians. The 4^th–5^th century Epiphanius of Salamis also references a Laodicean letter, but he merely quotes straight from Ephesians 4:5. Nonetheless, the quagmire of confusion was only made much worse by the early Greco-Roman Orthodox Church Fathers. At the very least, this paints a dubious picture on their reputation and integrity.

But here’s the rub. Forgeries were rampant during the Latin Middle Ages both in the Orthodox Roman Church—the ancestor of today’s Protestant Churches—and possibly too, we can’t know with certainty, from the Marcionites, all trying to plagiarize and imponere Paul’s letters. And whether it comes down to an age of coincidental loss of history or to an age of ruthless hunter-eradicators, it is not coincidence that the only surviving records of papyrus and manuscripts somehow all belong to the victorious Greco-Roman Orthodox Church and its 2^nd–4^th century Hellenic Fathers. Think about it.

In my last and final Part III of Paul, Acts, Forgeries & Marcion, I will explore and examine a bit further the very first major heretic and threat of the early 1^st century Roman Orthodox Church, Marcion, and why he was such a danger.

Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always

The Professor’s Convatorium © 2023 by Professor Taboo is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0