For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Confused Ape]

Ah...Clement of Rome!

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/beginni...lementrome

Sorry, but I'm not accepting Kenneth Humphreys' opinion about the dating of the First Epistle Of Clement. Here's his university degrees.

Kenneth Humphreys holds a Master's degree from the University of Essex in history and social sciences, a post-graduate pedagogic certificate from the University of Leicester, and a higher national certificate in business studies.

Religion, and in particular the claims of Christianity, have been a life-long interest.

Please find analyses by scholars who have the right qualifications to judge how old this text really is. I honestly don't mind if they disagree with each other because their opinions will be interesting to read.

His saying that Clement never existed is irrelevant to the text itself, anyway, because somebody wrote it even if it wasn't Clement.

Recall the timing though. Marcion allegedly is writing c 144. Justin is writing a mere 16 years (more or less) later.

No, Justin's knowledge of Marcion may have been of another perhaps even rival group.

I had a go at finding an article or book explaining why Justin never mentioned Paul. Paul And The Second Century devotes Chapter 6 to discussing the arguments of someone called Skarsaune who seems to think that Justin quoted Paul. The chapter ends on page 125 with the conclusion that the answer is unknown.

I then did a search for the author, Dr. Michael F Bird, and found Interview with Michael Bird on Having a Fresh Encounter with Paul

The other reason we should read Paul is because he was the first great “missionary theologian” of the church. Most of Paul’s theology (biblical and practical theologies I should say) was done on his feet, on the move, in some cases while on the run, while on the mission field.

This isn't very helpful because we need the opinion of a qualified scholar who doesn't think that Paul existed.

In either case, Ape, you must contrast it with the OFFICIAL STORY. That Paul was this virtual founding figure in the first century AD who single-handedly brought xtianity to the gentiles.... except no one seems to know about him until much later.

So why don't you have a go at finding a text which qualified scholars have judged to be the first ever authentic mention of Paul. We're not looking for when the official story was fully fledged anyway, just when the basic tradition of Paul could have got started.

I managed to find Tertullian's Against Marcion. It looks like Tertullian believed that Paul had existed and wrote epistles because he's tediously going on about how Marcion had tampered with the texts. This quote reveals something very interesting, though.

CHAP.XVII.--THE EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS. THE PROPER DESIGNATION IS TO THE EPHESIANS.

We have it on the true tradition of the Church, that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans.

Epistle To The Ephesians

The Epistle to the Ephesians, often shortened to Ephesians, is the tenth book of the New Testament. Its authorship has traditionally been credited to Paul, but it is considered by some scholars to be Deutero-pauline, that is, written in Paul's name by a later author strongly influenced by Paul's thought.[1][2][3][4] Bible scholar Raymond E. Brown asserts that about 80% of critical scholarship judges that Paul did not write Ephesians,[5] while Perrin and Duling[6] say that of six authoritative scholarly references, "four of the six decide for pseudonymity, and the other two (PCB and JBC) recognize the difficulties in maintaining Pauline authorship. Indeed, the difficulties are insurmountable."

Looks like Marcion and Tertullian were fooled by a fake letter.

but you'd think some tough sailors 2000 years ago could have been able to get his boat inland a mile or two, or just swim the thing if it tipped. Not panic with "OH MY GOD! THERE'S A WAVE! [splish]".

It must have been a miraculously bad storm that day just so Jesus could show he really was the Son of God.

In the year 2000, the tourist bureau installed a plexiglass walkway just under the water so you could get photos of yourself doing the "Jesus walk".

An interesting tourist attraction.

My guess is that he was close to shore already, stood on a nearby rock and said "Hey crybabies, get out of the damn boat!"

Or maybe the story was written by somebody who was used to storms in the Mediterranean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHdqqOGYMi8

[Minimalist]

You know, the church has had 1600 years to concoct this story and plenty of writers along the way to swear to the lies they tell. You are not going find information disparaging religious horseshit on Isuckedjesuscock.com. It isn't what they do.

Humphreys, unlike the church phonies, lists his sources which include
Maxwell Staniforth, a prolific translator of Early Christian writings among others.

You are dangerously close to the bullshit routine that xtians always pull.

They state that "scholars agree jesus existed" and then when someone says "bullshit" they say "well, REAL scholars agree........"

It quickly becomes the No True Scotsman argument.

[EGross]

Remember, to a desert people a "Sea" is any body of water big enough to hold a boat!

The reality, though, is that, short of getting on a Tardis, the truth about Paul is never going to rear it's ugly head unless we find some sort of "Dear Diary, I suckered them again...", which would be in the Vatican vaults anyhow!

[Confused Ape]

Humphreys, unlike the church phonies, lists his sources which include
Maxwell Staniforth, a prolific translator of Early Christian writings among others.

I had a look for Staniforth's book and managed to find an Amazon book search which includes the section on the First Epistle Click on the option to search the book and keep scrolling down until you get to Clement of Rome. Copying for pasting isn't allowed so I'll have to paraphrase a few bits and you can check for yourself. The introduction is probably by Andrew Louth but I'll just say Staniforth for clarity.

Staniforth thought the letter is authentic and Clement really was the fourth Bishop of Rome. He said that nothing else is known about him other than he wrote this letter. He didin't challenge the AD 96 date and thought that the 'recent misfortunes' could have referred to persecution during Domitian's reign. He also thought it unlikely that Clement was confused with Flavius Clemens.

Humphreys provides a list of books but he gives no indication which bits of information came from which book. Here's the kind of thing I mean from his Clement section.

Nothing is known of the life or death of "Saint" Clement (often grandly, if anachronistically, styled either first, second, third or fourth 'pope'!).

The confusion is further compounded by the common assumption that Clement's reference to the "recent misfortunes" of the Roman Church relates to a supposed persecution instigated by Domitian. But this "persecution" is bogus and Clement actually makes no mention of martyrdom even when it refers to the deaths of Peter and Paul.

Why isn't there a [1] after this and a list of references at the end of the page with a note [1] such as Book X by Author Y Page#123? I'll make a guess that he's criticising what Staniforth said but it would have been helpful if he'd said so. After all, people might buy Staniforth's book because Humphreys includes it in his sources only to find out that Humphreys doesn't agree with it.

The only reference Humphreys provides for anything at all in his information about Clement comes in the brief mention about career rivalry in the church - it says which verse. This leads to the conclusion which I've bolded.

It attributes to the Apostles themselves foreknowledge of career rivalry among Christians – who consequently institute "Apostolic succession" to maintain the peace of the Church (Clement 44). This alone suggests a 2nd century date.

This gives me the impression that he copied it straight out of one of his books but he doesn't say which book again. All we can deduce is that it wasn't Staniforth's because Staniforth doesn't say that career rivalry suggests a 2nd century date. An established 2nd century date would be extremely useful for our discussion about when the Paul tradition could have started because Paul is mentioned twice in the text. I suppose I could check to see if Amazon has a 'search book' service for the other six books in Humphreys' list but, right now, I can't be bothered. If you've read them all you can tell me which book it is.

The epistle, important as it is in the gathering up of papal authority, says nothing of an historical Jesus. Its fancies include reference to the "500-year-old phoenix bird".

Staniforth said that the epistle draws on a series of exempla (which are references used to make a point) so I checked what this was all about in in the context of the text. Early Christian Writings - J.B. Lightfoot. Here is the full quote leading up to the phoenix. (I'll put it in hide tags)

---

1Clem 24:1
Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually
showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He
made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from
the dead.

1Clem 24:2
Let us behold, dearly beloved, the resurrection which happeneth at
its proper season.

1Clem 24:3
Day and night show unto us the resurrection. The night falleth
asleep, and day ariseth; the day departeth, and night cometh on.

1Clem 24:4
Let us mark the fruits, how and in what manner the sowing taketh
place.

1Clem 24:5
The sower goeth forth and casteth into the earth each of the
seeds; and these falling into the earth dry and bare decay: then out
of their decay the mightiness of the Master's providence raiseth them
up, and from being one they increase manifold and bear fruit.

1Clem 25:1
Let us consider the marvelous sign which is seen in the regions of
the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia.

---

Whoever wrote this text wasn't concerned with saying anything about an historical Jesus. He was telling people to look at nature for examples of resurrection and made the mistake of believing in the legend of the phoenix. Agriculture as a symbol of death and resurrection isn't unusual and it's still used today in the pagan chant We All Come From The Goddess

Corn and grain, Corn and grain
All that falls shall rise again

Back to Clement.

"Clement" (or, rather, the coterie of pseudonymous fraudsters) authored further nonsense throughout the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries, notably the Clementine Recognitions.

The Clementine Recognitions/Homilies/Pseudo Clementine Literature are known as a 'romance' and a lot of it is about Peter versus Simon the Magician. The Clementine writers had an agenda but nobody is sure what it was now although there are some interesting theories. Yes, it's nonsense if you think it's supposedly reporting historical events but, as an allegory, it could refer to the fight between Christian factions for dominance.

There are only two extant Greek texts of 1 Clement. The oldest is in Codex Alexandrinus, which dates to the 5th century.

What point is Humphreys trying to make here? Earlier on he said that career rivalry suggests a 2nd century date for the text. Is he now suggesting that it wasn't actually written until the 5th century or the 5th century version could be significantly different to the original version because it was altered along the way?

You are dangerously close to the bullshit routine that xtians always pull.

My bullshit routine happens to be -

1: Wanting someone to provide proper references so we don't have to guess which books various bits of information come from.

2: Wanting someone to who lists Staniforth as a source to actually read what Staniforth said about nature being included in the exempla. Nobody who reads this epistle would be expecting it to refer to an historical Jesus so why did Humphreys bother to point out that it doesn't refer to an historical Jesus?

3: Wanting someone to explain what point he's trying to make instead of just throwing in bits of information at random.

Humphreys' site could be a useful starting point for things if he gave proper references but it's a pain having to spend ages doing google searches to track down something of interest.

[Confused Ape]

It wouldn't let me do another edit to my post so I'm having to write another one.

Kenneth Humphreys says this in his list of sources -

Maxwell Staniforth, Early Christian Writings (Penguin, 1978)

We have to assume that he really means Early Christian Writings:The Apostolic Fathers because that's the only title available anywhere.

According to the Penguin Books information on the amazon 'search book', the original publication by Maxwell Staniforth alone was 1968 (not 1978) and it was reprinted with new editorial material by Andrew Louth in 1987. Further information about this edition says Revised translation. Introductions and new editorial material by Andrew Louth.

I finally managed to find the 1968 version in the Google Play books but the search function is very limited and only shows a few lines at a time if it decides to recognise a word. After a lot of fiddling around I managed to get enough samples to gather (as best I could) that Staniforth was very certain that the text is AD 96 while Louth edited his original introduction to indicate that the allusions to the 'recent misfortunes' could be about Domitian's persecutions. The bit about Flavius Clemens appears to have been pruned down a bit because Louth mightn't have thought it worth mentioning Flavius's relatives when it was unlikely that he was Bishop Clement.

Aaaaarrrgggghhh!!!! Anyway, if you want a copy of the book Humphreys used as a reference you can try tracking down a second hand copy or buy it on Google Play. I'm not going through all that for the other books in his source list.

[Minimalist]

but it's a pain having to spend ages doing google searches to track down something of interest.

We can't always get what we want, can we? I think it is obvious that Humphreys used Staniforth's translation - one of the latest available, it seems, of these documents - to find what they said. This is a reasonable place to start and as long as Staniforth's translation is accurate, and no one has said it isn't, it does not matter that he was a parish priest himself.

But as you can see here

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/clemrome.php

CLEMENS ROMANUS, one of the most celebrated names of Christian antiquity, but so overgrown with myths, that it has become next to impossible to lay bare the historical facts which it represents

With respect to the identity of his person, Irenæus (l.c.) makes him a pupil of an apostle; and Origen (In Joann. 1, 29), Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III. 15), Epiphanius (Hær., XXVII. 6), and Jerome (De Vir. III.) identify him with the Clement mentioned by Paul (Phil. iv. 3), making him a special pupil of Paul. This supposition Chrysostom carries still further (Comm. in 1 Tim.), speaking of Clement as the steady companion of Paul on all his travels; while the Clementine literature, in harmony with its Judeo-Christian character, brings him in the closest connection with Peter, and makes him his most intimate pupil. These two traditions have been combined in many various ways, all more or less artificial.

Early xtian writers do not seem capable of agreeing on this person's biography and they are a lot closer in time to the events than we are. As noted, they have tried to homogenize the discrepancies in much the same way as xtians take the contradictions in their gospels and try to ram them into one story. It does not work.

You know, once you get past the idea that these early church writers were telling real history it is not so hard to see that all of this might easily have been concocted to present a coherent message. "Peter and Paul" went to Rome and were martyred, so the story goes. But the only place the story is mentioned is in Clemens and even he doesn't really say they were martyred. But then we have xtians making Clement a disciple of both peter and paul! This is a classic circular argument. We have only two much later manuscripts. There is no historical evidence of any such person as Clement of Rome Just like jesus, peter, paul, and the rest of the holy horseshit. It is far more likely to be fiction than any semblance of reality.

All of this feeds into the later dispute by which Rome emerged as the center of xtianity rather than Alexandria or Constantinople but there is no escaping the historical realities as we know them.

1- there is no contemporary evidence of a xtian presence in Rome during the first century in the written record.
2- there is no physical evidence of xtians in the first century, for example, the earliest xtian catacombs date from the 2d century while there are first century jewish catacombs.
3- Greco-Roman writers do begin to mention xtians during the 2d century.

I fully understand that scholars, particularly religious scholars, give church "tradition" merit but such traditions are based on air.

[EGross]

No Peter? No Paul? No Mary? Oh No!

I like the Matthew story too, where he ran away from Israel, preached among the gentiles, and a princess died, so he resurrected her from the dead and she decided to pledge her virginity to Jesus! Now that pissed off a local prince who wanted to marry her in order to inherit the throne, so he had Matthew wacked, according to the legend. And there is probably some empty grave someplace with his name on it "Matthew - Death by Virginity".

[Anomalocaris]

"Matthew - Death by Virginity".

If only the members of the catholic clergy really would resign themselves to evolutionary death by virginity.

[Confused Ape]

We can't always get what we want, can we? I think it is obvious that Humphreys used Staniforth's translation - one of the latest available, it seems, of these documents - to find what they said. This is a reasonable place to start and as long as Staniforth's translation is accurate, and no one has said it isn't, it does not matter that he was a parish priest himself.

So why didn't Humphreys write a note saying that he used this translation but Staniforth's introduction should be disregarded because it says Clement existed and the epistle is dated AD 96?

But as you can see here

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/clemrome.php

So which book did Humphreys get his own information from? I did a search for the authors in his list and none of them are included as sources for the article. The article writer does say which pages were referred to in books which have to be bought and provides links to interesting articles etc. I used the links to find more opinions on the dating of the text but they all said AD 96/97 or possibly even earlier.

You know, once you get past the idea that these early church writers were telling real history it is not so hard to see that all of this might easily have been concocted to present a coherent message.

Please read the following quote of mine from Post #374 properly. I first quoted from Humphreys where he said -

It attributes to the Apostles themselves foreknowledge of career rivalry among Christians – who consequently institute "Apostolic succession" to maintain the peace of the Church (Clement 44). This alone suggests a 2nd century date.

I then said

An established 2nd century date would be extremely useful for our discussion about when the Paul tradition could have started because Paul is mentioned twice in the text.

Talking about when the Paul tradition started isn't the same thing at all as saying that Paul actually existed. Whether Clement existed or not is completely irrelevant here as well. All that matters is that somebody wrote the epistle sometime. When was Paul first invented?

The way Humphreys refers to the 2nd century makes it sound as if this date for the text is highly significant but which part of the 2nd century is he on about? After all, a century is 100 years. A note to say which book he got this from along with an explanation of why the 2nd century is significant would have been helpful.

I've been looking around for information about when in the 2nd century the epistle could date from and found that Early Christian Writers transcribed an essay about dating and manuscripts by Kirsopp Lake in The Apostolic Fathers (Lake was a professor of ecclesiastical history)

The date of I. Clement is fixed by the following considerations. It appears from chapter 5 to be later than the persecution in the time of Nero, and from chapters 42-44 it is clear that the age of the apostles is regarded as past. It can therefore scarcely be older than 75-80 A.D. On the other hand chapter 44 speaks of presbyters who were appointed by the apostles and were still alive, and there is no trace of any of the controversies or persecutions of the second century. It is therefore probably not much later than 100 A.D. If it be assumed that chapter 1, which speaks of trouble and perhaps of persecution, refers to the time of Domitian, it can probably be dated as c. 96 A.D.; but we know very little of the alleged persecution in the time of Domitian, and it would not be prudent to decide that the epistle cannot be another ten or fifteen years later. It is safest to say that it must be dated between 75 and 110 A.D.; but within these limits there is a general agreement among critics to regard as most probable the last decade of the first century.

Is AD 110 sufficiently into the 2nd century to be particularly significant? Is the puzzle over the actual dates due to bits and pieces being altered over time? Kirsopp lists the Codex Alexandrinus dated 5th century as the earliest copy which is minus a page. Maybe Paul wasn't mentioned in the original work and the references to him were added at a later date so they were found in the 5th century manuscript. Is this the kind of point that Humphreys had in mind? If so, why didn't say so in his article?

All of this feeds into the later dispute by which Rome emerged as the center of xtianity rather than Alexandria or Constantinople but there is no escaping the historical realities as we know them.

Which is where the Pseudo Clementine Literature seems to come in. It's called pseudo because everyone knows that Clement didn't write this novelised account of the animosity between Peter and Simon the Magician. There are umpteen ideas around for it being an allegory about a particular version of Christianity represented by Peter versus another version of Christianity represented by Simon the Magician. Some ideas take the approach that Peter represents the original Jewish Christianity while Simon the Magician represents Pauline Christianity which wasn't universally popular eg Ebionites. Other ideas take the approach that Simon represented Gnosticism which was regarded as a heresy. (It's conspiracy theory territory and great fun.)

Tertullian had heard of Paul because he complained that Marcion had edited the epistles to suit his own purpose. This indicates that Paul had been invented by the 2nd century and somebody had been busy writing letters which everyone believed had been sent by Paul.

Once you get past the idea that this discussion is about whether Clement and Paul actually existed you might be able to turn up some useful information about when Paul was first invented.

---

No Peter? No Paul? No Mary? Oh No!

I can prove that Peter, Paul and Mary existed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wik2uc69WbU

And there is probably some empty grave someplace with his name on it "Matthew - Death by Virginity".

[Confused Ape]

But as you can see here

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/clemrome.php

I've now been through the article you linked to about Clement to see if it says that Clement never existed so couldn't have written the First Epistle. (I thought that the list of sources referred to the article but they're just for further information - it was getting late for me when I did that last post.) The article goes along with the generally accepted view that he did exist and doesn't deny that he wrote the letter. At the bottom of the article is -

G. Uhlhorn, "CLEMENS ROMANUS," Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd edn., Vol. 1. Toronto, New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1894. pp.492-494.

There is no historical evidence of any such person as Clement of Rome Just like jesus, peter, paul, and the rest of the holy horseshit. It is far more likely to be fiction than any semblance of reality.

You're entitled to hold a personal opinion that Clement probably didn't exist but, if you want to provide conclusive proof that he didn't exist, it's likely that you'll need to look for something which was written later than the end of the 19th century. I doubt that you'll find anything on sites like Early Church Org UK though, which describes it's purpose as -

To make high quality theological material available throughout the world, thus providing Bible teachers and pastors with the resources they need to spread the Gospel in their countries.

So, if Clement really did exist, the myths and legends about him have no relevance to the authorship and dating of the First Epistle. If he didn't exist it doesn't alter the fact that somebody wrote the First Epistle at the end 1st century/early 2nd century. As for my own opinion, I take the attitude that he might have existed - I can't say for certain that he did or didn't because I wasn't there at the time.

PS: I'm persevering with Humphreys' site but his information does get very confusing.

Christianity Without Jesus.. He writes as if Paul really existed and this page appears to have been posted 10.10.11 if that's meant to be the date.

An early Jewish Gnostic was the Samaritan "Simon the Magus"

Probably the most successful student of Simon was the apostle Paul, who would concoct a new, Jewish-oriented version of the ancient mystery cult tradition of dying and rising gods.

However, quoted by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians is a hymn, perhaps one which originated with the Essenes,

Paul himself passed on to heaven – or maybe just died .

St Paul the Apostle – Could it all be a fabrication? Here is a series of articles which give very good arguments that Paul didn't exist. Christian Mystics Of Knowledge is 14.11.11

The Samaritan "Simon the Magus" was an early Jewish Gnostic who inspired both the mystical "Kabala" (a refinement of Pythagorean "magic" numbers) and later Christian Gnostics – Basilides, Saturninus, Carpocrates among them. Later Catholic writers demonized the poor guy. He may actually be the figure on whom the apostle Paul is based!

I'm still trying to puzzle out how Paul can be based on Simon the Magus at the same time as being Simon The Magus's most successful student.