Paul, Acts, Forgeries & Marcion – Part II

Posted on March 23, 2024 by Professor Taboo

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.

*The Gate of Cleopatra, or the Sea Gate and Roman road in modern day Tarsus, Turkey.*

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.

*Dead Sea Scrolls today and the Pesher Habakkuk scroll written c. 2,000 years ago about the “Wicked Priest” and “the Spouter of Lies” as well as “the Enemy.”*

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?

*Apostles performing Acts of miracles and evangelizing Gentiles and Jews alike — Image from pereprava.org*

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:

Paul and Barnabas are appointed by Antioch church (v. 2). Meeting involves the church, the apostles, and the elders (v.4, 6). No report. Includes the Apostolic Decree (v , 29). Gal. 2. Paul goes up (with Barnabas and Titus) by revelation (v. 2). Meeting is private, before those of repute (v.2). Includes an agreement on division of labor (v. 9). Mentions a request and agreement to remember the poor (v. 10). Those of repute added nothing to me (v.6).

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.

Bodmer Papyrus 66 (3rd Corinthians?) by an unknown writer in the 3rd century CE – http://www.bible-researcher.com/papyrus66.html, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9422663

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.“

*Ruins of ancient Laodicea, a city 10.5 miles northwest of Colossae, Asia Minor or modern day Turkey*

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 an “apparent” danger.

Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always

Paul, Acts, Forgeries & Marcion – Part I

Posted on March 13, 2024 by Professor Taboo

My good friend Ark (Egyptian Akhenaten) over at A Tale Unfolds has recently gotten into a lengthy discussion/debate with an American(?) pastor about the tale of the Christian resurrection and the reliability or unreliability of the Greek New Testament. He, myself, and many other secularists, atheists, and humanists of our WordPress community have been in these debates with evangelicals, fundamentalists, or otherwise hyper-conservative religious faith-followers an untold amount of times over many years, or at least over a decade, probably more. We are all very experienced, well-informed, well-educated, and quite reasonable in our non-religious views and/or secularism. All of us pop holes in their weak apologetics everywhere and with lethal precision.

*The oldest extant New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus that ends at Mark 16:8, with no resurrection story whatsoever. It was written by four different Greek scribes.*

When we indulge these Faith-followers^TM almost all those times the ending is boringly predictable: They believe merely because their own personal, imagined, paranormal construct makes them feel good inside. Period. They fail miserably every time they try to defend their individual fabricated mental construct because they can never produce any degree of convincing evidence that their “God,” their “Savior,” or their “Holy Scriptures” existed or are universally reliable and unanimous. Yet they keep coming around like a never-ending three-ring circus.

But enough rambling, let’s get on with the subject at hand.

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?

We immediately run into a major problem asking this question before even reaching the starting-line or into the starting stalls. What is it? The severe lack of any independent sources for the resurrection tale. Or to say it another way sources that are not strictly Hellenic-Greco-Roman manuscripts, i.e. the earliest extant 4^th-century CE Greek-based New Testament called the Codex Sinaiticus (above image). But this surviving vellum parchment is a manuscript copy of over 292–322 some years later than the events, persons, and concepts they purport to convey and narrate. How much personal bias, editing, changing, and omitting could take place by ancient copyists and scribes overseen and supervised by early archbishops and church fathers over a span of two centuries? A lot. That was a rhetorical question.

Major Problem #2: Confusion among all Christian apologists concerning whether the resurrection story was a non-material event, i.e. a different body, an immaterial body, and thus not in history or time and space. Or if the resurrection was material, the same body, a material body, i.e. in history as a chronological time and space event. The latter belief is held by virtually all Christian apologists and faith-followers today.

These two Christian postures are important because a non-material body does not require an empty tomb nor a body in the flesh, a tactic that avoids all the problematic Gospel and New Testament contradictions and confusion. In other words, the resurrection was an act by God within His dimensions, power, and omnipresence. With a material body it does require an empty tomb and a literal body in the flesh, a far, far harder defense of the resurrection.

*Late Second Temple Jewish Ossuaries with bones of two noblemen – photo Gali Tibbon / AFP / Getty Images*

Major Problem #3.0 and #3.1: Miracles. Did they exist then? Do they exist today? With a material body defense Christians must debate whether or not miracles, or a creator God, events, and people can bend or subvert the commonly accepted laws of nature, physics, chemistry, Quantum Mechanics, et al, to explain the testimony of very biased sources: the Greek Gospels. However, this debate then presents another subproblem of this major problem: background probability. What is meant by background probability of a claim or testimony?

Jeffrey J. Lowder, co-founder of Internet Infidels and researcher in Philosophy of Religion, Metaethics, and Inductive Logic, is one great scholar to explain “background probability of testimony”:

Suppose someone that was presumably reliable and trustworthy claimed they had just flown over a lake by flapping their arms. Surely no rational person would take such a claim seriously (at least initially; although we might change our minds if this event could be repeated). We would reject such a claim because it goes against everything which we know about the powers of the human mind, modern physics, etc. Apart from the testimony of such an event, we would rate the prior probability of such a claim so infinitesimally low that it would invalidate the testimony and make the claim unbelievable.
— Jeffrey j. lowder, the historicity of jesus’ resurrection, accessed march 10, 2024

What is “background probability” (B-P) to a resurrection believer and what is it to a secularist, atheist, or agnostic?

B-P to a Non-Believer: Lets suppose God does exist. If God does exist, then to a believer’s or theist’s world-view and perception, at least to themselves, they can plausibly argue that the “background probability” is improved, if not greatly improved. An all-powerful Creator who designed the laws of nature and the universe could certainly intervene and awestruck us with abnormalities of which we are unfamiliar. And if a God could do that, then it follows that a mere resurrection and levitation of a man is completely within His powers.

Furthermore, a believer and other theists have the doctrine of Special Revelation. From my extensive blog-page Why Christianity Will Always Fail:

Special Revelation is direct revelation to an individual or a group. This sort of revelation includes dreams, visions, religious miracles, experience of extraordinary events, and prophecy like manifestations of “tongues.” It also includes holy scriptures like the Old and New Testaments or the Bible.

Humans can believe to themselves and make-believe to themselves anything they want with very few limits, including the existence of a God. However, not all humans align with this train of thought. Hence, because of widespread disbelief in a deity or deities, it makes sense that this God or gods would intervene in human history revealing His plan, His nature, and His purpose for life on Earth. Richard Swinburne of Oxford University England argues “miracles might be especially useful for the purpose of authenticating a divine messenger or prophet.”

The two reasons above—the existence of God/Gods and Special Revelation—believers can conceivably argue that if God/Gods exist, then the probability of the resurrection improves despite the severe lack of independent sources. Another point to consider in this miracles-paradigm is should a theist/believer reject the resurrection, they must seek out the historical sources and context to do so. A very intriguing position for the believer.

For a non-believer, or secularist, or atheist, “background probability” for the resurrection is as ludicrous as pigs flying and cows on the Moon. Thus, for an event of teleportation of a man executed and dead for supposedly three days and nights, i.e. beyond resuscitation, is simply unrealistic given the known constraints of the human brain and vital organs after 5-minutes and up to 35-minutes for Myocardial ischemia. Plus, such an event would go against all laws of nature. Scottish philosopher, historian, and empiricist David Hume, states “for an atheist to be justified in believing a miracle on the basis of testimony, the possibility that the testimony is false would have to be a greater miracle than if the alleged event actually occurred.” Therefore, the B-P makes a resurrection infinitesimal or impossible to accept for non-believers.

Popular Defenses for the Resurrection

Most lay Christians use the works of two or three apologists to defend the resurrection of Yeshua bar Yosef, or Iēsous Christós in the Greek. The late Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, and J. Warner Wallace are three of many that faith-followers trust to do their legwork. Of these three apologists I will focus on Dr. Craig because he is generally regarded as one of the best. Also, one of his academic advisors and fellow alum was Norman Geisler.

From his website “Reasonable Faith,” Craig’s defense of the resurrection has three premises: 1) the empty tomb, 2) “appearances” after his execution, and 3) the supposed origin(s) of the Christian faith. Let’s examine these while remembering the severe lack of independent sources about Jesus, i.e. non-Greco-Christian sources.

The Empty Tomb Premise — What diverse evidence is there for the empty tomb? Craig addresses this question with 10-lines of evidence in one of his books. Here, I will only quote two of those lines, what he thinks are most important:

Craig purports “One of the most important facts, I think, undergirding the empty tomb is oddly enough the burial story of Jesus. […]
In any case, the Jewish authorities certainly could have made an end to the whole affair by simply pointing to the closed tomb of Jesus and said, “Look! The grave is occupied, he is not risen from the dead” and that would have been the end of it. Therefore, the accuracy of the burial story, I think, provides powerful grounds for affirming the historicity of the empty tomb account.”
“Another aspect of the empty tomb narrative itself, as it is found in the Gospel of Mark, is that this portion of the narrative was probably part of Mark’s early source material that he used for describing the passion and the death of Jesus – the last week of Jesus’ life and his crucifixion. […]
Also, the empty tomb story is connected to the burial account by syntactical and linguistic ties. For example, the pronouns used in the empty tomb story have their antecedents in the burial story so it is really one smooth account. When you remember that Mark is the earliest of our Gospels, that means that his source material was even older and this passion narrative that included the empty tomb story could have gone back to within the AD 30s even. Remember Jesus was crucified about AD 30 so we are talking about a source that is extremely old and is therefore a valuable source of historical information.”

Craig goes on to explain two or three other lines of resurrection evidence on his website, but nowhere at all does he go outside of the Synoptic Gospels other than a peculiar, very brief mention of the early 2^nd century CE Apocryphal Gospel of Peter story, again strictly Greco-Christian sources only. Craig attempts, albeit poorly, to garner pseudo-Judaic sources from Talmudic literature (70–640 CE) and Middle Age polemic Jewish “propaganda,” as he describes it:

One final piece of evidence that might be mentioned would be the fact that the earliest Jewish polemic, or anti-Christian propaganda, itself presupposes the empty tomb. [6] The earliest Jewish polemic that was launched against the Christian proclamation “He is risen from the dead” was to state that the disciples came by night and stole away his body; then the Christians responded to that that there was a guard at the tomb and they would have prevented the theft and so on and so forth. [7] The interesting thing in this dispute is not the historicity of the presence of the guard. Rather the interesting thing is what the Jewish polemic was saying in response to the Christian proclamation “He is risen from the dead.” Were they saying these men are drunk with new wine or his tomb is still out there on the hillside? No, they were saying the disciples came and stole away his body. Think about that for a minute. What that implies is that the body was missing. The earliest Jewish polemic was itself an attempt to explain away the empty tomb. Thus, we have evidence for the empty tomb which comes not from the Christians but from the very enemies of the earliest Christians themselves which is historical evidence of first rate quality because it comes not from the sources which believed in the resurrection but from those which disputed it.

So on the basis of reasons like this and many others the majority of New Testament critics today affirm the historicity of the empty tomb story.
— William lane craig, from “Resurrection,”
Veritas Forum interviews, the reasonable faith website

I am baffled how Craig came up with this feeble Polemical Jewish conclusion. In the 5^th and 6^th centuries CE Jews were not the least bit concerned with Greco-Christian myths and tales spread around the Mediterranean. From the JewishEncyclopedia.com:

In a book entitled “Contra Judæos,” the Archbishop of Seville grouped all the Biblical passages that had been employed by the Fathers to demonstrate the truth of Christianity. Whether learned Spanish Jews took up the controversy and replied to Isidorus’ arguments by counter-treatises in Latin, as Grätz believes (“Gesch.” v. 75 et seq.), is doubtful. In Spain, as everywhere else in that period, the Jews paid little attention to attacks written in Latin or Greek, which languages were not understood by the masses. Moreover, the Christian dogmas of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc., seemed to them to stand in such direct contradiction to both the letter and the spirit of the Old Testament that they deemed it superfluous to refute them.

More aggressive was Saadia’s contemporary, the Karaite Al-Ḳirḳisani. In the third treatise of his “Kitab al-Anwar wal-Marakib” (ch. xvi.) he says that “the religion of the Christians, as practised at present, has nothing in common with the teachings of Jesus. It originated with Paul, who ascribed divinity to Jesus and prophetic inspiration to himself. It was Paul that denied the necessity of obeying the commandments and taught that religion consisted in humility; and it was the Nicene Council which adopted precepts that occur neither in the Law nor in the Gospels nor in the Acts of Peter and Paul.”
— Jewishencyclopedia.com, polemics with christians and further

It’s safe to say that Craig’s argument for “the empty tomb” is at the most wishful for Christians, and in the least, wholly unconvincing for non-Christians. He actually offers no important pagan evidence as he claims he does.

Jesus’ Appearances Premise — What diverse evidence exists for Jesus’ appearances days after his execution? Craig’s answer from his website:

“The primary evidence that we have for Jesus’ post-mortem appearances would come first of all from Paul’s list of witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15. There he says that when Christ rose from the dead he appeared to Cephas (or Peter), then to the twelve disciples, then to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom were still alive at the time of his writing though some had died, then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and then last of all, says Paul, “he appeared also to me.” ”

The implication Craig makes here are six (6) counts of attestation to Jesus being alive days after his execution and burial. They are Peter, the twelve disciples (including Peter again), “500 brethren,” James his brother, all of the apostles, and Paul. None of these six counts of attestation are independent sources or testimony. They are all Judeo-Christians and even Paul, or Saul of Tarsus, is a highly unreliable source as I covered in my five part blog-series Saul the Apostate. And Craig’s final comment about Jesus’ appearances goes:

So we have in Paul’s information very good grounds for believing that various individuals and groups of people under various circumstances saw appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. The Gospel accounts, I think, provide confirmation and attestation that goes to confirm and fill out the details of these appearance stories. [16]

Notice Craig’s vague and veiled descriptions of “various individuals and groups of people.” It is certainly reasonable to suppose that all these individuals and groups were Judeo-Christians, again barring Paul, who had vested interests or skin in the game that Jesus was not the dead, failed Messiah as thousands of Homeland Jews and Gentiles were asserting at the time according to the Greco-Roman New Testament and later writings of early generation Hellenistic Church Fathers.

Another fact that must be remembered with these above counts of attestation and Craig’s framing of them is that the Gospels were written over 40–110 years after Jesus’ execution, burial, and purported resurrection (see image below). It is quite plausible in a range of degrees that the much later testimonies recorded in the Gospels and Acts were retrofitted by those Greco-Roman scribes and copyists to corroborate Paul’s letters regarding the resurrection. This would also explain the many internal contradictions or inaccuracies of the resurrection in the Greek canon of the New Testament.

*Chronological Order of the Greek New Testament Canon*

As noted earlier in the first image above, the oldest surviving Gospel copy, the Gospel of Mark, does not have any resurrection story after Jesus’ execution and burial. It ends at Mark 16:8, nothing more, nothing less until later retrojections were made into Mark c. 70-75 CE or later. This is a lethal blow to Christianity’s core doctrine and its apologists.

Hence, Craig’s argument is not proof Jesus rose from the dead. Moreover, there are still no non-Christian sources or pagan sources of the resurrection. In fact, the Jewish doctrine of a resurrection of the dead is not only quite different than Paul’s, the Gospels, and Acts, but is barely even a mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah and Daniel to be precise. This fact weakens or undermines early Judeo-Christian testimonies as unrelated.

Therefore, Craig’s argument for the validity of appearance stories is not only his biased six sources cited, but worse, an implied kangaroo court of “witness testimonies.” I think this argument is one of Craig’s weakest and is near laughable.

Origin(s) of the Christian Faith Premise — How did “The Way” Movement, a reforming Jewish sect in 1^st century CE Roman-ruled Judaea and Galilee arise? Craig answers this in a long, sporadic rabbit-trail way:

All scholars agree that the Christian faith, or the Christian movement, – “The Way” as it was called at the first – came into existence because the original disciples firmly and sincerely believed that God had raised Jesus from the dead. They proclaimed this message everywhere that they went. Indeed, Christianity could not have come into existence without this prior belief. […]

The resurrection of Jesus is what enabled them to believe that Jesus was Messiah after all; that God had vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead despite the fact that the Jewish leaders had crucified him for blasphemy. It showed that his claims were true after all.

So without this prior belief in the resurrection of Jesus the Christian movement could never have sprung into being; it could never have come to exist. The question then becomes: where in the world did the disciples come up with this outlandish belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead? If you deny that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then you have got to explain the origin of the disciples’ beliefs in terms of either Christian influences, pagan influences, or Jewish influences on them. Obviously, it could not have been the result of Christian influences for the simple reason that there wasn’t any Christianity yet. Since the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was foundational for Christianity, it cannot be explained as the later retrojection of the Christian church back into the records because there would not have been any Christian church had they not believed in the resurrection to begin with. […]

None of these factors serve to account for the origin of the disciples’ belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead. We have here a belief which nothing in terms of antecedent historical influences can account for. Therefore, it seems to me that the best explanation for the origin of this belief and the origin of the Christian movement itself is that the belief was true – Jesus did rise from the dead. That explains the origin of the Christian faith.

Unfortunately for Craig, by delving into 1^st century CE Jewish customs, doctrines, and traditions he shows his amateur knowledge and understanding of Talmudic literature of post-Second Temple Judaism (70–640 CE).

The resurrection doctrine is fleshed out in a variety of rabbinic sources. Among the ideas associated with it is the belief that during the messianic age the dead will be brought back to life in Israel. According to the Talmud , all bodies not already in Israel will be rolled through underground tunnels to the holy land. Avoiding this process, which is said to be spiritually painful, is one reason some Jews choose to be buried in Israel.

At least two talmudic sources note that the righteous will be brought back from the dead wearing the clothing in which they were buried. .

According to the Jewish mystical tradition, souls can be reincarnated in different bodies if those souls have not completed their missions on earth. At the time of the resurrection, the individual soul will be split among the various bodies it once inhabited, and the portion of the soul whose mission was completed in a particular body will return to that body.
— myjewishlearning.com, resurrection of the dead

Thus, from the above elaboration Craig has misrepresented Talmudic traditions and literature as well as wrongly connect them with the Greek New Testament canon. In Peter Schäfer’s book, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007, Schäfer argues:

The references of Yeshu (Aramaic) were not from the early Tannaitic period (1st and 2nd centuries) but rather from the 3rd and 4th centuries, during the Amoraic period. The references of Yeshu in the Babylonian Talmud were “polemical counter-narratives that parody the New Testament stories, most notably the story of Jesus’ birth and death” and that the rabbinical authors were familiar with the Gospels (particularly the Gospel of John) in their form as the Diatessaron and the Peshitta, the New Testament of the Syrian Church. The message conveyed in the Talmud was a “bold and self-confident” assertion of correctness of Judaism, maintaining that “there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater.”
— Jesus in the talmud, wikipedia

Obviously William Lane Craig is not Jewish nor is he a scholar in Second Temple Judaism and Messianism. One must look elsewhere to understand the large chasm between his faith and theology and that of Jesus’ reform movement and his sectarian Judaism. He is way off.

Debunking the Resurrection

One of the most renown atheists and critics of Christianity—or as I like to call it, Pauline Christology—is Dan Barker, Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and minister turned atheist. From his book Losing Faith in Faith, in his chapter Jesus: History or Myth?, he explains in four simple reasons why the resurrection and Jesus are not an actual event or a historical person. I often argue this as well for very similar reasons citing some of the same sources:

There is no external historical confirmation of the New Testament stories. [i.e. non-Greco-Christian sources]
The New Testament stories are internally contradictory.
There are natural explanations for the origin of the Jesus legend.
The miracle reports make the story unhistorical.

Myself, like Barker, always ask Christian faith-followers and apologists, Where is the contemporary pagan, unbiased non-Christian testimonies of Jesus’ life and resurrection? They are silent on this because there is none. As I thoroughly cover on my page entitled Why Christianity Will Always Fail, there is no independent historical sources for Yeshua’s/Jesus’ life or resurrection:

There are at least 41 known Pagan and Jewish authors/historians during Jesus’ lifetime or within less-than 100 years of his life that aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers (Pliny the Younger & Suetonius), there is no mention of a Jesus Christ. Nor within a century of Jesus’ life do any of these authors/historians make any mention of the later disciples or apostles. They are:

Dan Barker also makes this overwhelming fact. Barker points out this:

…the Roman historian Philo-Judaeus, who lived before, during, and after the time of Jesus, does not even mention Jesus, much less his resurrection. With respect to Book 18, Chapter 3 of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, he argues that it is a Christian interpolation, and he gives six reasons why (Ibid., p. 362). Likewise, he argues that the passage in Book 20, Chapter 9 is also unreliable (Ibid., p. 363-64). Moreover, he claims that alleged references to Jesus in the books of Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion, Lucian, Tertullian, Phlegon, and Justin Martyr are equally unconvincing.
— dan barker, losing faith in faith, citations in quote above, pp. 362–364

For some event like a human being coming back from days of being dead would certainly interest non-believers, Gentile Romans and anyone inside the Roman-ruled Syro-Palestine and beyond to write about the Jewish sectarian Jesus’/Yeshua’s extraordinary defiance of death. But that never happened. There are no extant records testifying to this miraculous resurrection event. Christians then in the 1^st century CE and Christians in the 21^st century have no answer. They fabricated them. All one needs to ask these blinded faith-followers,^TM “What exactly, in comprehensive detail, happened over Easter and the day their most crucial theological doctrine was born?” Aside from the many problematic contradictions in Paul’s letters, the four Gospels, and the Book of Acts, once again, they cannot produce any independent pagan evidence to corroborate, even a whole century after purported claims by 1^st and 2^nd generation Greek Church Fathers. Nothing. Zip. We have a kangaroo court once again.

…prudent history demands that until all explanations for the origin of an outrageous tale are completely ruled out, it is irresponsible to hold to the literal, historical truth of what appears to be just another myth
— dan barker, losing faith in faith, p. 376

Dr. Michael Martin formerly of Boston University and alum of Arizona State University (B.S.), University of Arizona (M.A.), and Harvard University (PhD), another acclaimed atheist notes these five serious problems for Christianity’s claim of a historical factual resurrection:

the extent to which the author’s purpose may have influenced his reliability
the consistency or inconsistency of the NT accounts
whether the accounts are based on eyewitness testimony
the known reliability (or unreliability) of the eyewitnesses
the extent to which the event is confirmed by independent testimony

Martin’s five above points blow the Greco-Roman Christian tales of resurrection into mere fanciful myth, not reliable eyewitness testimonies.

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

In the next part of Paul, Acts, Forgeries & Marcion I will briefly go into the reliability of and facts hidden in sources about Paul’s/Saul’s letters, then Paul’s third letter to the Corinthians and the forgeries of it in Paul’s name. Some if not much of what I cover with Paul/Saul is previously covered in my 5-part series mentioned earlier, Saul the Apostate if you care to review it as well. Hope all of you can read and join in. Ark/Doug, I hope this series benefits your debate with the Christian pastor. 🙂

Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always

Saul the Apostate – Part IV

Posted on October 13, 2018 by Professor Taboo

101

Continuing from Part III

————

“Justice demands that that barbaric superstition
should be opposed;
and it is to the interest of the state
not to regard that Jewish mob
which at times breaks out in open riots… […]

At one time the Jewish people
took up arms against the Romans;
but the gods showed how little they cared for this people,
suffering it to be conquered and made tributary.”
**— Cicero, “Pro Flacco”** Ch. 28, 59 BCE

————

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

The deep permeation of Greek culture into Judaism and the Near and Middle East during late Classical Antiquity cannot be overstated. It was profound. It made its way into early Christianity and into Saul’s Stoic-Gnostic theology. But lets backup a bit first.

The centuries following Alexander the Great’s epic conquests, expansion, and planting of Hellenistic culture throughout the Near East and across the Western hemisphere saw the remarkable flourishing of philosophy, science, art, and governing. It was during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BCE) that Archimedes of Syracuse wrote the Earth-changing treatise “On Floating Bodies,” known today in physics as the Archimedes’ Principle. Then Aristarchus formulated the first recorded heliocentric theory, which of course asserted that Earth revolved around the sun. During the Hellenist period, several art forms became less mythological and more realistic, more practical. The most important thing in life, said Epicurus, was the pursuit and attainment of the individual’s pleasure and happiness, known as hedonism, while Stoic philosophy became more mainstream and accessible, including to women, unheard of in many empires around the world then and now.

Hellenism carried over well into the European Middle Ages. Hellenic Jews welcomed Greek influences, represented primarily by the Temple Sadducees. However, traditional or conservative Jews represented by the sects of Pharisees and Essenes in synagogues around the empire, saw Hellenism’s infiltration in some respects as an abomination of God’s Law and Temple. A side-by-side comparison of the two juxtaposed cultures, Mosaic Judaism and Hellenism, points out four major differences:

Alexander’s Hellenistic culture was very tolerant of native customs and beliefs. In fact, new Greco-Roman kingdoms often assimilated parts of the indigenous practices as it suited the empire’s needs. Hence, further examination of the Judaic and Hellenic cultures (distinguished above) shows when there is intolerance to flexibility, compromise, wisdom, or adaptability, one small ring or just one person flies off the handle in one or both cultures, the constant tension becomes a ticking time-bomb. Click here for a revealing Jewish rendition of how an ancient Greek and Hebraic Jew might have discussed their religions in the 1st-century CE.

Let’s return to middle-Hellenism. Enter the false rumor in 168 BCE that Seleucid king Antiochus IV was killed in Egypt. Bitter, disgruntled, and deposed High Priest Jason/Jesus rounds up a Jewish army to attack ascending High Priest Menelaus in Jerusalem. Angry that the Jews started a civil war in his kingdom, Antiochus came down harshly on the Jews executing thousands and banning the practice of their religion forcing them to worship Zeus instead. His heavy bloody hand only infuriated more Jews and thus began the Maccabean Revolt.

During these cultural clashes and shifts, brief independence under the Hasmoneans, other military conquests, defeats, exiles, dispersions into slavery, intermarriages, and mixed offspring, Jews were increasingly mixed into Hellenistic ideals that also reached into their religion, particularly Greek Stoic philosophy. For Pharisaic and Essene Jews, including two centuries later Jewish-Essene Jesus (Part II), this became a sharp schism inside Judaism. But for Saul of Tarsus and Rome in the mid-1st century CE and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and last remnants of radical Jewish resistance by the Sicarii at Masada (73 – 74 CE), it was an opportunity for both Hellenism and Saul to rewrite history. The history, not Messianic Jewish history.

Herodian Saul and Hellenism Victorious

Explicit facts about Saul’s/Paul’s family, his Jewish [sic] heritage, and educational backgrounds [sic] (Part I) as well as his involvement in Jewish Merkavah and/or Heikhalat mysticism (Intro to Part II) are masked at best. Most of what is known comes strictly from his 7 – 12(?) canonical epistles and Acts. All of these biblical texts must be read under the overwhelming shadow of the Roman-Hellenist Patristic authorities, editors, and copyists. Why? Between 70 CE and 787 CE (over 700-years!) they had complete and total control of what would become “traditional Christianity.”

Fortunately, for the modern neutral and astute reader of earliest Christianity the canonical NT (the mask) is by no means the only source to gain a more realistic, more accurate picture. It is not a fixed mask. In fact, extra, independent sources that are available (among others) come from a large corpus of Jewish scrolls written between the 4th-century BCE and 5th-century CE found just outside of Jerusalem! They are the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) from Qumran. They offer us an almost stunningly vivid background and context of Second Temple Judaism/Messianism and Sectarianism of late Classical Antiquity in the Levant and around Jerusalem. This 700-year era written about in the DSS from a non-Roman non-Patristic standpoint is an unprecedented broader look into the very soil, seeds, and roots from which earliest Jewish-Christianity sprang. The DSS are an untouched, pure Jewish-Messianic, independent lens on Hellenistic-Herodian Judaism, on Hellenistic Rome and her eventual, Imperial, Pauline Christ-cult.

Publication of Post-1957 Discovered Scrolls Withheld
The first scrolls were discovered in 1946 and ’47. More caves and scrolls were discovered in 1948 – ’49, then more still from 1950 – ’56 totaling over 980 texts from twelve (12) different caves. The first complete photographs (in infrared) of all the texts were made between 1952 – 1967 including the newly discovered scrolls and fragments post-1957. However, due to the political and religious implications of what these texts held, several of the scrolls and fragments were withheld from publication for 30-40 years by a small circle of “established scholars” or what several outsider-scholars have called “The DSS Academic Curia.” The Curia was led by French Dominican priest Roland de Vaux and consisted of just three Hebrew scholars, Józef Milik, John M. Allegro, and John Strugnell.

By 1956 problems were broiling inside the Curia and outside by historical and biblical scholars wanting access to the DSS. Allegro put the ego-driven controversy quite succinctly in his letter to de Vaux:

It’s a pity that you and your friends cannot conceive of anything written about Christianity without trying to grind some ecclesiastical or non-ecclesiastical axe.

For an outdated, brief introduction about these controversies you can go to this 1993 New York Times article, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fragile and Remarkable, specifically the 17th paragraph.

Was Saul A Herodian-Jew and Not A Pharisaic-Jew?
If the only testaments you read are the canonical Epistles of Saul/Paul and Acts of the Apostles, of course you’d simply conclude that Saul was “a Hebrew among Hebrews,” descended from the tribe of Benjamin, and educated by Gamaliel in the acclaimed Beit Hillel. But Josephus, the Pseudo-Clementines, and Epiphanius offer a compelling refraction of Saul’s Epistles and his related passages in Acts that with the three aforementioned sources tell a different background and family of Saul-Paul.

In many past blog-posts (e.g. The Incarnation of G-Man) I have made the distinction between Greco-Roman deification or Apotheosis, and Second Temple Jewish Messianism. The two adversaries can never be ignored. This clear distinction can also be appropriately applied geographically in the eastern portions of the Late-Republic to Imperial-Principate Roman Empire (c. 133 BCE – 284 CE).

From the slides above we see a macrocosm of Hellenism’s expansion and permeation of the entire Mediterranean Basin begun by the Greek Empire and then by the end of the 1st-century BCE, Rome’s version and reinvention of its allure until the eventual decline throughout the 4th and 5th-centuries CE. If you’d like to see the slides independently and enlarged, click here. Rome and her Hellenistic culture gradually swallowed up almost all Sectarian, Torah-loving (Jewish-Essene Jesus) Judaism/Messianism. This extermination of revolutionary Palestinian Messianism was completed after the fall of Masada in 74 CE when the DSS were hidden in the 12 various caves around Qumran. For almost 1,900 years the only Judaism and Christianity the world would ever know was Messiah-killing Hellenistic Judaism or Hellenistic-Roman Christianity… until 1946.

Through the Herodian dynasty (37 BCE – 44 CE) to the complete control of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea by the Roman Empire (44 – 136 CE), most traditional Law-oriented Jews in the Levant had very little patience for Hellenistic Overseas Jews and their distorted ideas and teachers of either a corrupted Temple, Torah, and Messiah(s). They were often referred to as “The Enemy” by Palestinian Jews/Messianism. Saul was clearly an “Enemy” and he knew it. Compare:

Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? — Galatians 4:16

You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the [Hellenic] world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the [Hellenic] world becomes an enemy of God. — James 4:4

It is widely accepted that Saul authored Galatians. The epistle of James has traditionally been attributed to James, the brother of Jesus, or at least pseudonymous to him. James’ audience was clearly the Palestinian Messianic followers or otherwise known as Judaeo-Christians. When comparing the two we can infer the stark differences between Overseas Judaism/Messianism and that of Palestinian Judaism/Messianism. And how badly Saul was treated in Syrian and Palestinian synagogues attests to this schism. There’s more.

Terminology like the Enemy, the Liar or Spouter of Lies, Man of Lying, Comedian of Lying (i.e. epileptic?), and some others, was strongly applied to the adversary of “The Righteous Teacher” within the Palestinian Movement and the DSS at Qumran. Saul/Paul again shows familiarity with these terms. In fact, he references them repeatedly 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 there have been told that Saul of Tarsus deceives and maligns.

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

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 to the Hellenic canonical NT and Acts of the Apostles:

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

There have been several religious-historical scholars that theorize Simon Magus (of Acts 8) and Saul of Tarsus are one in the same. Accepting this theory is not unreasonable. Consider these side-by-side teachings reported by Irenaeus in his Against Heresies I.23.3 and Saul’s in Galatians:

The two comparisons are practically identical. And thus in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1 Ch. 70, Palestinian Judaism/Messianism did not hold Hellenic Saul/Paul in any high esteem due to what he incited earlier at the Temple against James the brother of Jesus regarding “sacrifices” and how Temple worship was conducted by Herodian Priesthood, the two biggest conflicts of the time between Overseas Hellenic Judaism and Palestinian Judaism/Messianism:

While he was thus speaking, and adding more to the same effect, and while James the bishop was refuting him, he began to excite the people and to raise a tumult, so that the people might not be able to hear what was said. Therefore he began to drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been arranged with much labour, and at the same time to reproach the priests, and to enrage them with revilings and abuse, and, like a madman… […]

Then others also, seeing him, were carried away with like readiness. Then ensued a tumult on either side, of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him. — Tumult Raised by Saul, Recognitions Book 1 Ch. 70

Saul is saved from this scene by a troop of Roman soldiers, oddly enough protection Jews rarely received unless of Roman aristocracy. Read what even Episcopalian/Catholic ordained Dr. Taylor R. Marshall points out about Saul-Paul of Tarsus here. It is a remarkable read! Furthermore, in the Epiphanius traditions, e.g. Anabathmoi Jacobou or “The Ascents of Jacob,” Saul has a large entourage of Greek-Romans and Roman troops with him during his trip through Caesarea (the seat of the Herodian family by then) then on to Jerusalem to test the recent ban against Herodians and foreigners inside the Temple Mount by, most assuredly, the “zealot” tradition-minded (Jamesian?) Priesthood. This is telling. A simple Hellenist-Jew was never accorded that level of Roman pomp or protection. I ask, is it really anymore compelling why Saul’s true background was so clouded, so overlooked centuries later?

Is there more to Saul’s repulsive reception by Palestinian Judaism/Messianism? Actually there is enough to at the very least question Saul’s true origins, if not rewrite them.

Aside from the angry mob who attacks Saul while trying to enter the Temple in Acts 21:27-29, how Saul acquired his “Roman citizenship” was a very peculiar, suspicious accession. None of the original “Apostles” were ever given Roman citizenship. None of the previously ruling Maccabees were ever awarded citizenship. However, Herodian Jews did indeed receive Roman citizenry. Ironically, Saul himself 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

Dr. Robert Eisenman of Cornell, New York, and Columbia Universities closely examines this possible/probable Saul bloodline saying:

Here, he refers to his “kinsman Herodion,” i.e., “The Littlest Herod” (obviously the son of the Roman Governor Felix mentioned above and the Herodian Princess Drusilla, killed in the eruption of Vesuvius at Pompeii) — whom he introduces with an allusion to another person with a name popular among Herodians, “Aristobulus,” i.e., “the Household of Aristobulus” in Romans 16:10. The “Aristobulus” referred to here may or may not be the “Aristobulus the son of Agrippa I’s brother Herod of Chalcis” mentioned above — the husband of that Salome who plays such a key role, according to Gospel portraiture, in the death of John the Baptist — both of whom advertise themselves on the reverse of their Lesser Armenian Kingdom coinage in “Asia” what “Great Lovers of Caesar” they were! That Paul has powerful relatives of this kind in Jerusalem with a direct entree to the Roman Governor and Soldiery is made crystal clear too by Acts 23:16 which refers — following his rescue by said Troops preceding this — to the role his “nephew” (“his sister’s son”) played in this affair while declining to specifically name him!
— Eisenman, Robert. Breaking the Dead Sea Scrolls Monopoly: A New Interpretation of the Messianic Movement in Palestine

This would explain neatly and nicely why Saul/Paul was so unwelcomed in Palestinian Judaism/Messianism (e.g. Antioch, Damascus) and in Jerusalem by the real students/disciples (pillars) of Jesus who actually knew, lived with, and traveled with him in person. But as my above maps illustrate, in the end for true historicity it did not matter that Palestinian Judaism-Messianism (Jesus’ reforms and teachings) would be lost under Rome’s power and glory. The expansive swallowing effect of Hellenism all throughout the Mediterranean Basin, then adopted by the Roman Empire, and in time absorbed the Overseas (Diaspora) Judaism, Palestinian Law-oriented Judaism/Messianism — the movement begun by Jewish-Essene Jesus that failed — was a doomed minority movement. Plain and simple, becoming an uncomfortable friend to Rome, i.e. Hellenic Apotheosis and Pauline-Christ, had a much better allure than being her nagging, failing enemy.

Accordingly Saul’s Christ-cult was Embraced By Hellenic Pagans/Gentiles
Well before Saul was born and came on the scene, for about two centuries Jewish Synagogues had opened up their worship and teaching to the Gentile/Pagan world with the incorporation of Hellenistic literature and philosophy. This is attested in the Gospels (Matt. 23:15). Uncircumcised, God-fearing Gentile-Jews were already part of many synagogues and communities. This is confirmed in the Talmud. What was typically the confusion about this controversial topic was the naïvety of protecting the Torah and its study, versus the study of the seven Noachian commandments available to all people. The very fact that Saul was unaware of these distinctions — especially claiming Benjamite-Hebrew heritage! — smacks of his highly suspect (fraudulent?) origins or at least implies he is a Herodian-Jew, an outsider, mentally lost and ignorant of these established Jewish practices!

Furthermore, what would the best alternative approach for the centuries-later Hellenic Patristic Fathers to a failed Messiah, who never returns, and the related Messianic prophecies also fail? Dr. James Tabor answers this superbly with his 1997 presentation to the American Academy of Religion Annual Meeting here. This is another excellent read!

In a nutshell, Torah-loving, Law-abiding Jewish-Essene Jesus in Palestine was not teaching a diluted, distorted Judaism like was practiced by Hellenic, Herodian pseudo-Jews. When constantly rejected and persecuted by those Torah-abiding Jews in synagogues across the Empire, particularly Palestinian Messianic Jews in the Levant, Saul was forced to reinvent his TL-epileptic “divine revelations” into his own Roman-Christ, his own Roman-church, and his own Roman-Hellenic theology. With his background in mysticism and elements/themes of Gnostic Philo-philosophical strands, the Gentile-pagans (non-Jews) — who couldn’t understand the complicated, law-ridden Jewish practices and customs in the first place — were very open to his “new” religious cult. It appealed more to their Hellenic lifestyle and thinking: God’s blessings and salvation were available to everyone if the death of Christ was embraced, death to this world was embraced, and steadfast blind “faith” in these two precepts (since they were unsupportable anyway) granted one’s spiritual entrance into God’s Kingdom of Earth and Heaven.

Thereafter, pagan Pauline Christology was born and still exists today as a antiquated, never-ending complexity of diverse, dis-unified theology and distorted practices called Christianity.

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

Feel free to share your thoughts and/or questions below over this 5-part series. Kind thanks for your patience and time during this series and its demands to research, authoring, and publishing. It is appreciated. 🙂

Post script — For more details about how and why Christianity is comprehensively problematic, unravels, and collapses on numerous counts beyond its founder Saul of Tarsus, go to my page: Why Christianity Will Always Fail.

————

This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.professortaboo.com/contact-me/.

Saul the Apostate – Part III

Posted on September 28, 2018 by Professor Taboo

Continuing from Part II

————

“Do not give what is holy to dogs,
and do not throw your pearls before swine,
or they will trample them under their feet,
and turn and tear you to pieces.”
— Jesus, Matthew 7:6

————

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

Certainly a strong command to his disciples and words of warning to the crowd listening to Jesus on the Mount. To a modern reader a very ambiguous verse/sermon typical of cryptic non-Messianic Jesus, but it aligns with quasi-Sectarian Essene-Jesus. How so?

The first generation Tannaitic traditions in the Jewish Mishnah (20 BCE – 80 CE) can give some context to the language of this sermon. Three key identifiers can be correctly deciphered out of the loose Greek Matthew translation. They are dogs, pearls, and pigs or swine. In the Tannaitic Mishnah dogs represent Gentile idolaters that “when driven by hunger, tears and devours young lambs.” Pearls represent the rabbinical interpretations and discourse of the Torah, something precious and costly. Rabbis did not teach secrets of the Torah to Gentiles. And pigs/swine were always implied as the Romans as verified in Cicero’s “Divinatio in Caecilium.” Therefore, with this more unambiguous vocabulary, here is the proper Tannaitic version of Matthew 7:6:

Do not give what is holy to Gentile idolaters, and do not throw your Torah-secrets before the Romans, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Jewish-Essene Jesus further supports this new redone, unambiguous verse in Matthew 10:5-6 and 15:26. At the least, Jewish-Essene Jesus is teaching the crowd and his disciples a passive walk and love in the Torah and to never force the coming Kingdom of God (on Earth) onto Gentiles or Romans if they are not interested. This was not what Saul began teaching and it got Saul into lots of harsh trouble.

In 2 Corinthians 11:24-32 we see that Saul faced quick persecution by Jews after his “vision-revelation” and upon arriving in Damascus. More persecution from 2 Cor. 9 and Acts 16:22. Then he faced opposition from Jewish-Jesus’ immediate disciples, their disciples, and James the Brother of Jesus (Acts 15 and 21; Gal 2; James 2 vs Eph 2?). Not only is the harsh resistance inferred from the canonical NT, it is also confirmed by Eusebius’ Pamphilius, Iraneus’ Against Heresies, Origen’s Against Celcus, and Clement of Rome’s Recognitions that Saul’s early hardships were in both the Jewish and Jesus camps.

Clearly apparent is that Saul wasn’t following established Jewish proselytizing methods in the Didache adopted from the Synagogue’s “Two Ways,” nor was he following Jesus’ disciples’ methods. Saul was just doing and teaching whatever he interpreted from his own seizures, very much like modern psych-patients do during and after their episodes. Consequently, Saul was viewed as attacking, if not at minimum undermining, both Judaism and the nascent Jesus-Movement authorities, the “pillars” (Gal. 2:9). Despite there existing today more details about Saul’s many disputes with both Jews in the Synagogues and the surviving pillars and disciples of Jesus’ closest followers, we are also able to decipher a much better idea of how and why Saul became the Spouter of Lies or if not, certainly treated as an Apostate.

Saul’s Two-Pronged Hellenic Attack on Jesus’ Judaism

Whether Saul/Paul realized it or not, he fueled and fanned the fiery, growing anti-Semitism between his Hellenic Rome and Judaism. He accomplished this in at least two different ways: 1) his conflicts with the Torah, part of Jesus’ core teaching, and its expanded Essene-Jesus function within Judaism in general, and 2) antinomianism which further fueled Jewish hate, and by default undermined Jesus’ principle of mutual love.

A Necessary Reminder First
It must be remembered when reading the epistles traditionally ascribed to Saul, only seven of the 14 are agreed upon by most Christian and non-Christian scholars as genuinely Saul’s letters. Two letters/epistles are evenly disputed and four are considered pseudographic, or written later by supporters of Saul. The true author of Hebrews is now considered unknown by almost all biblical scholars. There are also some known lost epistles mentioned in other epistles. The very oldest surviving codex of epistles by Saul (Papyrus 46) covers only from Romans 5:17 through Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and ends in 1 Thess. 5:28. Papyrus 46 is from c. 200 CE, about 35-60 years after Saul’s earliest letters. From this papyrus biblical scholars know the scribe(s) made minor errors and miscalculations. What does this mean for us here?

Saul’s “genuine” letters (in gold below) and those two evenly disputed cannot be considered beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100% authentic words of Saul. Simple later “traditions” do not make a manuscript error-free. The later the copy, the higher the odds it was later tampered with or erroneously copied. Once again, the chronological order of Saul’s letters:

Notice that the letter to the Galatians could have been written around 60 CE. This is important to remember. As we continue, what will also become glaringly obvious was just how horribly the 2nd- and 3rd-century CE New Testament compilers/scribes and the Hellenist “Patristic Fathers” (and therefore all their descendant “Fathers”) turned their 4th – 5th-century canonical NT into a mishmash of nonsense; a complete cluster (tr)uck! Frankly, it’s bad and poorly constructed by men who knew too little about Sectarian Judaism/Messianism and its precise Second Temple intent. How did the Hellenistic Fathers get it all wrong?

Saul’s Conflicts & Confusion with the Torah and Judaism
While in Lycaonia of Asia Minor (Turkey), following the laws of the Torah, Saul circumcised his new disciple Timothy:

Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (Acts 16:1-3)

Not only did 1st-century Greeks/Hellenists despise the Jewish custom of circumcision, but based on Saul’s other vehement teachings against the Law/Torah (Colossians 2), was this a blatant contradiction of himself? Now suddenly this Saul-behavior seems to align with Jewish-Essene Jesus’ teaching (Matt. 5 and Luke 16)! Why now are there exceptions to what Jewish-Jesus taught and Saul taught? The Hellenistic canonical NT is completely silent.

Leave it to an 18th-century Rabbi to possibly sort out this one (of many) problematic, contradiction in the NT and with Saul. Rabbi Jacob Emden was considered one of the most acclaimed Rabbis for over three centuries. Many Rabbis considered him a Maimonides reincarnated. Here is Rabbi Emden’s clarification; my inserts [ ] and emphasis:

Christian scholars have assumed from certain passages in the Gospels that [Jesus] wished to give a new Torah to take the place of the Torah of Moses. How could [Jesus] then have said explicitly that he comes only to fulfill it? But it is as I have said earlier — that the writers of the Gospels never meant to say that the Nazarene came to abolish Judaism, but only that he came to establish a religion for the Gentiles from that time onward. Nor was it new, but actually ancient; they being the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah, or children of Noah, which were forgotten. The Apostles of the Nazarene then established them anew. However, those born as Jews, or circumcised as converts to Judaism (Ex. 12:49; one law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger) are obligated to observe all commandments of the Torah without exception. — Rabbi Yaakov Emden, “Seder Olam Rabbah Vezuta” Hamburg, 1757

However, does this 18th-century Jewish Rabbinical extrapolation solve the many other problems in Saul’s epistles? After 200, 400, 2000 years why hasn’t this confusion and/or contradiction been fixed? Christians and Christianity has always blamed the Jews for killing Jesus. Why do so many Christians over the many centuries think that to be true? The answer? It began with Saul of Tarsus:

“You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus“ (1 Thess. 2:14b-15a)

And then antisemitic hostility continued more forcefully with the Patristic Fathers:

“Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you [Jews] have slain the Just One…” — Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho” chapter 16

Blaming the Jews for Jesus’ execution was perpetuated all throughout the Crusades, the Medieval Era and into the modern era even to the Holocaust. But it started with Saul. However, it is most clear in the much later written four Gospels (Matthew 26:57-68, 27:25; Mark 15:8-15; Luke 23:3-23; John 8:31-47, 18:29-40, 19:6-15) representing the fuller Hellenistic retrograde takeover of a failed(?) Jewish Messiah (Gospel-Jesus was never clear about this title) and rewriting the legend into a successful Roman Messiah with some Greek-Gnostic mysticism (Saul) interwoven. Examples of Gnostic and Sectarian mysticism?

Saul completely revamped, reinterpreted the ritual meaning of baptism. Immersing one’s self into baths or rivers was to him no longer a rite of cleansing and regeneration as Jews and Jewish sects such as the Essenes symbolized (Jewish-Jesus as well), for Saul it was a pseudo-death to the world and transformation into a spiritual resurrection with Christ (Romans 6:1-10). For Saul, the Lord’s Supper/Last Supper was a mystical magical union in Christ’s blood and body. This mimics exactly the Mithraic ceremony in the blood and body of Mithra. Justin Martyr even wrote the ritual was identical to early Christianity’s Last Supper ritual. Of course, Martyr was very biased to his own personal beliefs. The point is that the Mithraic ritual was also magical-mystical and hinted of Hellenic Gnosticism and Jewish Mysticism.

Saul’s new teachings, sacraments and “mysteries” (1 Cor. 10:20-21; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Thess. 1:9-10; Rom. 8:28-30, 9) which brought so many hardships upon himself from both Jews and new Judaeo-Christians (Essenes too), was teaching one thing: Christ’s death. It was teaching atonement through his death and failure that put all believers perfectly right for God’s coming Kingdom of Paradise. It wasn’t righteous behavior and it wasn’t even faith in an all-forgiving, all-loving Father/God that achieved salvation. It was only Christ’s mystical judicial death. Experiencing that “death” and rebirth through a mystical and/or neurological state of mind (TL-epilepsy?) was how a Gentile became saved. The problem and confusion for Saul — a Hellenistic “mystic” — was that his path to salvation was NOT the path Jewish-Jesus taught in his real life, according to all extant sources: Gospels, non-canonical testaments, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Essenes) combined.

Saul’s Antinomianism and More Jewish Hatred
Aside from the obvious fact few people rarely want or desire to be on the losing end of an event or organization, or repeatedly associated with a defeated and crumbling existence no matter what time-period it occurs, Saul’s letters progressively over time taught (see above image) further and further demarcation, even defamatory alienation, from all things Jewish by c. 55 – 57 CE when he wrote his letter to the Romans. Several biblical scholars like S.G.F. Brandon, F.C. Baur, and Barrie A. Wilson, chronologically follow Saul’s journeys, compared and contrasted to what was reported about him in Acts decades later, and quite clearly notice (as I do) his rising, antagonizing frustration with the losing people, or team if you will. Take 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians (with regard to Jews) and compare them to Romans and Ephesians(?) — and if Galatians was actually found to be written c. 60 CE — and Galatians 3, one cannot escape Saul’s antinomianism and anger toward authoritative Jews, Rabbis, and the Torah.

Saul's Epilepsy — *Focal-fractal seizures of TLE*

Let’s not lose sight, however, of the forest because of those few trees Saul insisted on playing with — with lighter-fluid, gas cans, and matches — dramatically (mystically) coming from his “divine revelations” via TL-epilepsy. They were given only to him, and yet not first to Jesus’ closest disciples/students, or let alone any of God’s first chosen people of tiny nomadic Israel. Why the trickery? Or rather why the perpetual antinomianism necessary for the endless kinetic cycle of life, death, and evolution to which all things submit? Consider this…

Because Saul somehow deemed himself the procurator-divine-mediator for all Gentile humanity without pre-approval or preliminary discussion with any other authorities (i.e. Jerusalem Council) or proof, why and/or what made his antinomianism become popular and successful in the end? Why has any antinomian or monistic movement any better or worse than any others in the past? Was it because at that time in history (68 – 180 CE) it was the pinnacle, the most glorious days of the Hellenistic Roman Empire? Was it because of some ancient and contemporary tradition that the Latin God(s) favored the bold, victorious, and popular culture/lifestyle as Virgil poetically wrote in his Aeneid? And more apparent, the Latin God(s) did not favor losers or the constantly losing Jews. Pagan Rome held all the winning cards.

In Part IV, I will spell out how Saul — by going to the Hellenistic Roman Gentiles — in light of his challenges, antagonism, and disrespect to long-established Second Temple Judaism/Messianism and Sectarianism, was simply seeking larger psychological approval, acceptance, from his known tiny world. He wanted/needed validation for his ailment, his TL-epilepsy (revelations?), and his unconventional background in Merkavah/Heikhalat mysticism which almost all of his conventional (sane?) Jews rejected. So can one single man with TL-epilepsy dictate what sort of life was right, was best, and would be the most fulfilling presently or in the afterlife… for the entire world and all of humanity for all of time?

Until the next part, please feel free to again share your thoughts, ideas, or questions below.

————

Saul the Apostate – Part II

Posted on September 18, 2018 by Professor Taboo

Did Saul and Jesus teach two fundamentally different religions?
————

This is the question I pose to anyone who professes belief in the Christian canonical New Testament. When one closely compares Saul’s epistles and “Christ” — six epistles which are probably not authored by Saul — with the Jewish-Jesus and the Gospel-Jesus, the differences will shock many Christians. If one made a list of everything Saul denotes Jesus did, stated, and experienced from birth to death, they would indeed be shocked by just how little Saul mentions; it’s near nothing. Yet, that isn’t really the controversy. The shock is about what Jewish-Jesus and Gospel-Jesus taught about his God and His coming kingdom and whether that aligned with what Saul taught about his God and His kingdom.

Saul’s “Christ” vs. the Jewish-Jesus

As I expounded in the previous post Saul the Apostate – Intro to Part II, a necessary segue into this post, we must read the Gospels with high-def glasses and critical caution. An astute reader of the New Testament will always be cognizant of the demonstrated problems and failures of the reliability in the canonical Hellenic Gospels. This doesn’t necessarily mean we cannot decipher who the Jewish-Jesus was, the quasi-Sectarian from Galilee, or what he was preaching. As Dr. Bart Ehrman describes in a number of his blog-posts, “…there were lots and lots of sources [oral traditions], from the early days of the Christian movement, some of them coming straight out of Aramaic-speaking Palestine…“ of which “many independent [oral traditions] saying similar things about the man Jesus“ made it into (albeit partially) later Jewish and Hellenic Christian writings. Hence, when one inclusively considers without nepotism all possible sources of a Jewish-Jesus, a general, historical caricature does emerge.

In his Sermon on the Mount (Beatitudes) and later speaking to his students/disciples, generally regarded by scholars as probable words from Jewish-Gospel Jesus, he was reportedly known to teach his followers that they must reach higher Halakha righteousness and purity, as well as greater mutual love for each other deeper than the Pharisees practiced (Matthew 5:20; 18:4-5). Jesus, being an exceptional follower of the Torah, the Mosaic Law, was pulling directly from his sectarian teachings in Deut. 6:4-6 and Lev. 19:18, key components of Essene practice. Another Essene practice followed and taught by Jesus was that of the core principle of non-resistance to evil which was found exemplary in his Synagogues and the Talmud Mishnah:

Those who are insulted but do not insult, hear themselves reviled without answering, act through love and rejoice in suffering, of them the Writ saith, But they who love Him are as the sun (Judges 5:31) when he goeth forth in his might. — Shabbat 88b

Those who practiced this two-fold Mosaic concept better than the Pharisees, Jesus taught, would be saved from judgment when evil (Rome) was overthrown and the Son of Man soon returned within one or two generations, tops. In other words, approximately in 80 CE to perhaps 140 CE. That was what Jesus promised (Matt. 18:11-12, 18:8-9; Luke 13:28-29, 14:15-24) followed by such ‘an abundance of over-sized grapes and fruits for the Essenic-Mosaic righteous worthy of the greatest banquet in Paradise’ (Papias, in Irenæus, “Against Heresies,” Book V. Ch. 33—34). This was the Kingdom of God that Jewish-Gospel Jesus taught.

Was this what Saul of Tarsus preached? No.

The core, the marrow of Saul’s teachings in public and his epistles to his various 1st-century new Gentile-Jewish churches and Jewish synagogues was encapsulated in many of his passages, but very concisely in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Saul’s followers must believe through faith in “Christ’s” death for sins and his resurrection to be saved from impending judgment. Keeping the Jewish law (Halakha), he taught, would not make believers right with God. Only those who believe in “Christ’s” death and resurrection, then baptized, will join God in Paradise (1 Thess. 4; Romans 8). Here was Saul’s four essential elements of salvation: faith, Christ’s death, his resurrection, and baptism. However, because it was heavy on mystical “faith” galvanized by his TL-epilepsy visions-revelations, as discussed in the previous posts, unsurprisingly and from a neurological-psychiatric standpoint Saul’s Christ was at the expense of common sense and rational reasoning. Dr. Bart Ehrman says regarding this fundamental difference of true readiness for God’s soon to come kingdom…

Should a person follow the Jewish Law or not? Jesus thought the answer was yes — this was the core of his teaching. Paul thought the answer was no — doing so would not allow one to be saved. So that’s a stark difference, right? Quite possibly. But on the other hand, Jesus did not think that the scrupulous following of the law (as preached by the Pharisees) was what God desired; and Paul certainly did not think that people should go about breaking the law (committing adultery, or murder, or false witness, etc). So are they fundamentally different or not?

One way to answer the question: what did a person need to do to be saved? For Jesus, it was repenting and keeping the law as God instructed (with the love commandments). But Paul does not say much about repentance and thought that keeping the law would decidedly not bring salvation. What mattered was [Christ’s] death and resurrection, something that the historical Jesus almost certainly did not talk about. — The Bart Ehrman Blog, March 2016, “Do Paul and Jesus Represent Fundamentally Different Religions,” accessed September 16, 2018

Another stark difference between the two men’s teachings was who was the Son of Man, who was the Messiah—that is the Messiah of Second Temple Judaism/Sectarianism. The Jewish-Gospel Jesus was either cryptic about who it was — due to Rome’s well-known policies against rebel kings — or denied it and spoke as if it was not himself. Saul, on the other hand, unequivocally teaches Christ was the Son of Man and Messiah. For me, in light of my two previous posts and these further comparisons, the two men are clearly in fundamental opposition. Saul’s Christ was not what Jesus the Galilean taught.

Saul’s Two-Pronged Hellenic Attack on Jesus’ Judaism

Whether Saul/Paul realized it or not, he fueled and fanned the fiery, growing anti-Semitism between his Hellenic Rome and Judaism. He accomplished this in at least two different ways: 1) his conflicts with the Torah, part of Jesus’ core teaching, and its expanded Essene function within Judaism in general, and 2) antinomianism which further fueled Jewish hate, and by default undermined Jesus’ principle of mutual love. The details and support for these two combined Saul attacks will come in Part III of Saul the Apostate.

From a few different passages in Saul’s epistles we are able to find an intrinsic animosity toward the Torah and mainstream Judaism of which Jesus was not advocating. These I will address in the next post. But the one specific passage that drives the wedge deep between the two opposed religions was found here with my inserts [ ] and emphasis to help clarify:

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to [Torah] decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use) — in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, [to be without any doubt!] the appearance of wisdom in a self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. — Colossians 2:20-23

This is further evidence of a different Kingdom of God than what Jewish-Gospel Jesus was teaching. Jewish-Jesus would not have preached this and Saul’s animosity for fellow Jews does not align with Jesus’ great commandment of two Golden Rules: the unbounded love for God and each other. ‘The Law [the Torah] and the Prophets’ Jesus taught ‘hinge on these two principles.‘ No wonder the Jewish-Jesus disciples/apostles had serious belligerent problems with Saul (e.g. Acts 15:39a and Galatians 2:11-21). The conflict and confusion between the two fundamentally different Kingdoms of God and their principal doctrines of impending judgment-readiness, exacerbated by the failure or mis-identification of Jewish-Jesus as the Messiah was the dual spark to a 400-year and counting, unstoppable schism. What? Yes.

After Saul’s death and all of the disciples’/apostles’ deaths, and more so the deaths of the first generation “Patristic Fathers,” or earliest Church Fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Marcion of Sinope, what Jewish-Jesus promised had not happened. What followed was the 3rd and 4th generation Hellenist Roman Fathers retro-fitted, revamped, rewritten, and reinterpreted Jewish-Gospel Jesus’ ~~failed~~ kingdom into Saul’s anti-Semitic Christ-kingdom, a spiritual awakening or rebirth not of this Earth, but of TL-epileptic mysticism and visions.

In the next post I will examine four particular passages in Saul’s epistles that were tampered with or reframed by the later Church Fathers to spiritualize Jesus’ death and Saul’s Christ. Also how Saul enamored the Hellenist Gentiles to his new-fangled “die in order to live” spiritualized mysticism perceived during his epileptic seizures.

Until Part III, please feel free to share your thoughts, ideas, or questions below.

————