John the Baptist

[Vicki Q]

I hardly need tell you that these are generally dated a couple of decades before the Synoptics.

Yes, but that is the story which is in dispute.

The xtian writer Justin Martyr writing to the emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 knows nothing about any "paul" or any named gospels. Xtian writers denounce Marcion - whom Justin did know about - and tell us that Marcion's canon included a single gospel and 10 letters of Paul.

<snip>

But Tertullian lived after Justin - he was born in 160 and did his heavy writing in the late2d/3d century - and it is clear that the tale had time to evolve by then.

Perhaps the later perpetrators of xtianity decided that Marcion had to go but "Paul's" drivel was salvageable for their purposes?

Your extensive knowledge of the Church Fathers is clear...

However the Christological game was over long before their grandparents wondered what to spend the evening doing. It's pretty clear that when Paul wrote, his analysis of Christ as the immanence of God was well established (the lack of introduction or explanation, the casual statements of a massive theological theory, the close working relationship with the leading disciples...)

Although it's a side issue, I really have to question that any weight that can be put on an argument from silence WRT Justin Martyr. Further, we've lost most of his writings. In addition, there is a good case for thinking he did use Paul (and the Gospels). Finally, Marcionism is really obviously a C2 variation from mainstream Xianity.

Now it is possible to come up with all sorts of wonderful theories about what might have happened, if one is comfortable with ignoring the actual evidence. We have a coherent and consistent line of thought demonstrated in the multiple documentation of the Early Church, and really not a lot beyond speculation going in any different direction.
That which is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.

Paul's “drivel”? Boring, too often impenetrable and completely lacking in humour I would accept. Whether you agree with him or not, he had a first rate analytical mind that analysed the implications of what had happened, and was able to do remarkable cutting edge thinking. He might have been totally and absolutely wrong, but if so he did it with intellectual brilliance.