Main Site | Join Robin Hood Coop | Projects | Events | Blog | Media | Forums | Mailing List | Twitter | Facebook

Paul quoted gospels a lot, unlike biblical scholars claim

In internet people ask questions “Does Paul quote Jesus anywhere”, “Why Paul does not quote gospels” etc. Well he quoted them lot: “Paul s use of the synoptic Jesus tradition” Heinz Hiesterman 2016 (pdf file), “Biblical and non-biblical quotes in the sermons and epistles of Paul” John Tvednes, “Paul s witness to the historical integrity of the gospels” Richard L. Anderson, Aletheia Bible College “Paul s quotations from the gospels: statistics”, from same webpage “Paul s quotations from the gospels: analysis and implications”, “Paul s use of the gospels”. D. M. Stanley “Pauline allusions to sayings of Jesus”.
There are also books about the same subject matter: “Paul s parallels: an echoes synopsis” Patricia Elyse Terrell, “Pauline parallels” Walter T. Wilson.
But there is no need to read those (expensive) books because there are bible study / cross reference tools like Biblehub and Openbible in the internet. So everybody can search gospel quotes from letters of Paul or from other new testament texts himself/herself, there is no need to ask from anybody, nor there is need to believe what biblical scholars want you to believe, you can find it out yourself.
I used Biblehub, although Openbible seems to be simpler and clearer. From Biblehub I watched first “english standard version” of bible verse and then “cross references” and “treasury of the scripture” sections, they are all in the same page so easy to see.
This is my list of gospel quotes from Epistle to Romans, small “q” in bible verse means that there is almost direct word-for-word quote in this verse where nobody expect direct quote to be.
Rom 1:3/Matt 1:1, Rom 1:13/John 4:36, Rom 1:10/Mark 8:38, Rom 1:19-21/John 3:19-21, Rom 1:28-32/Luke 47-49, qRom 2:1/ Luke 6:37, Rom 2:3/ Luke 12:14, Rom 2:6/ Matt 16:27, Rom 2:7/ Luke 21:19, Rom 2:8-10/ John 18-21, Rom 2:16/ John 5:22-29, Rom 2:21/ Matt 23:3, Rom 3:8/ Matt 5:11, Rom 4:20,24-25/ Mark 16:16, Rom 5:1/ John 20:31, Rom 5:12/ John 4:16, Rom 5:7/ John 15:13, Rom 5:8/ John 3:16, Rom 5:10/ John 20:31, Rom 6:8/ John 14:18-19, Rom 6:10/ Luke 20:38, Rom 6:14/ John 1:17, qRom 8:5/ John 3:6, Rom 8:10-11/ john 11:25-26, Rom 8:11/ John 5:21, Rom 8:12/ Matt 6:12, Rom 8:14/ John 1:12, Rom 8:15/ Mark 14:36, Rom 8:15-16/ John 1:12, Luke 20:36, Rom 8:21/ Mark 16:15, Rom 8:23/ Luke 21:28, Rom 8:28-30/ John 17:18-22, Rom 8:33/ Luke 18:7, Rom 8:34/ Mark 16:19, Rom 9:26/ Matt 16:16, Rom 10:6/ John 13:3, Rom 10:9/ Matt 10:32, Luke 12:8, Rom 10:10/ John 12:38, qRom 11:17/ John 15:1-8, Rom 12:10/ John 13:34-35, Rom 12:14/ Matt 5:44, Luke 6:28, Rom 12:17-21/ Matt 5:39-48, Luke 6:27-39.
This far I got, Romans chapter 12 this far, and rest of the new testament is still to be searched what gospel quotes there is to be found.

There is debate how early gospels were written, but there is early gospel evidence: “First century papyrus reveals gospel of Matthew!”. Unfortunately this news text cannot be read completely anymore, but in “read full story” section, which was possible to read only few years ago before netpage went offline was that this fragment of gospel of Matthew was dated to about 50 AD. Then there is gospel of Mark fragment in dead sea scrolls, 7Q5, from netpage endtimesdarknessdescending wordpress com “Death sea scroll of gospel of Mark”, from netpage uccronline it “Early date of Mark s gospel what dead sea scrolls say?”, from netpage british-israel ca “Mark was probably written around 50 AD”, “7Q4 and 7Q5: cave 7 of Qumran dead sea manuscripts, are they fragments of the gospel of Mark and 1 Timothy”, “Greek Qumran fragment 7Q5, possibilities and impossibilities”.
Then the claim that gospels were written anonymous writers, four names of the writers were added later centuries. It may came to surprise, but no “anonymous” gospels have ever been found, never, although there are thousands of gospel manuscripts and fragments, which is directly opposite what bible scholars claim and what universities and schools etc. teach. From netpage timothypauljones com “Who wrote the gospels?”
Who then wrote the gospels? Google “gospel of Matthew money”, results like “How mentions of money in Matthew s gospel confirm Matthean authorship”. Google “gospel of Luke medical terminology”, for example ministrymagazine org “Medical terminology in Luke”. Luke used more medical terms than Hippocrates. From netpage unitedchurchofsoro org “Who wrote the gospel of Mark?”. About book of Acts: “84 reasons why we knew Luke was a travelling companion and eyewitness of the miraculous life of apostle Paul”. Wayne Jackson: "Luke s accuracy - some “unfinished business”. From netpage truthbomb blogspot com: “59 confirmed or historically probable facts in the gospel of John”, from grin com netpage “The authorship of John s gospel”, from netpage reasonsforjesus com “Why everyone should believe the apostle John wrote wrote the last gospel”.
Also there are semitisms found in all four gospels and book of Acts. If gospel stories were oral tradition that were told from generation to another in latin and greek, there would be no semitic language in their stories. Also whole idea that gospels were 100 years or so only oral tradition would not stand light of day, do you remember what some important person, like Trump or other, said in his speech and do you remember that long speech almost word-for-word accuracy? And then you tell this long speech to some other person and now he must remember it also as complete word-for-word accuracy etc. If gospels would have been oral tradition, they would have splintered to hundreds different versions because different people remember given speech and stories differently. So gospel in Rome is then different than same gospel in Egypt or Ethiopia. Sheer knowledge of psychology and memory makes impossible this theory of 100 years of oral tradition.
Logia or word list was writing method in antique times when speeches of famous people were written down in “word list”. Papias mentions logia. The original aramaic gospel of Matthew, gospel of the Twelve or gospel of Seventy, in christian tradition was that disciples of Jesus collected his sayings and acts in the writing called gospel of Twelve or Seventy (12 and 70 disciples, the gospel was the same, only called different name, perhaps also what Papias calls “hebrew gospel of Matthew”) afterwards gnostics use the name “gospel of the Twelve” in much later gnostic writing. Papias s “hebrew gospel of Matthew” was already lost during Papias s time (because of persecution of christians), although greek translation that contains part of big aramaic gospel that contained material from which all four gospels were made, or the greek gospel of Matthew is translation of aramaic gospel of Matthew that contain only material what is in gospel of Matthew, and other aramaic texts become other three greek gospels. Or at least this is my theory. Papias collected sayings of Jesus in book series, that was lost too because Papias not only collected sayings of Jesus from four gospels, he collected also texts from gnostic writings and was heavily criticized by church fathers for that (only one gnostic gospel is known at that time, gospel of Egyptians, and one verse that Papias cites that later went to gnostic gospel of Philip about 200 AD, but this verse may have been in gospel of Egyptians originally). Someone, I think he was Mohammed Lamsiah, I don t remember sure, made aramaic reconstruction of gospel of Mark, and in his reconstruction gospel of Mark is fluent aramaic text, but it was translated crudely to greek by someone who did not talk or write greek as native language (John Mark) and for example verses end and begin in different places in aramaic reconstruction and greek gospel, so according to him text is divided to verses incorrectly when compared to aramaic reconstruction.
Also it is claimed that longer ending of Mark, Mark 16:9-20, is “missing” from the bible. It is not missing in the oldest reliable texts, although bible scholars claim so (I mean oldest reliable texts, when scholars say it is missing in some manuscript, they don t say what else is missing in that same manuscript). However Mark 16:9-20 is all over the place in the new testament and writings of apostolic fathers. It certainly is not missing in the new testament, it is quoted widely (list): Mark 16:15/ Col 1:23, Mark 16:16/Rom 10:9-14, 2.Thess 1:8, 2:12, Mark 16:17/ 1.Cor 12:10, 12:28, 12:30, Mark 16:18/ James 5:14-15, Mark 16:19/ 1. Peter 3:22, Hebrews 1:3, 8:1, 10:12-13, 12:2, Rom 8:34, Col 3:1, Acts 2:33, 7:55-56, Ephesians 1:20-22, Mark 16:20/ Acts 14:3. So longer ending of Mark is quoted in epistle to Romans, 1. Corinthians, Colossians, 2. Thessalonians, Ephesians, Acts, 1. Peter, James, and epistle to Hebrews.
About star of Bethlehem, three roman pagan historians mentioned star of Bethlehem / jewish messiah prophecy (Suetonius was one of them?), but I lost the netpage. Always is noted how pagan roman historians wrote about Jesus in his adulthood , but often is not noted that some of them also recorded the star of Bethlehem or “signs in the sky” and that stellar event prophesied jewish messiah. They were pagan romans and perhaps against christianity but they recorded the events anyway because they were historians. I also lost netpage where read that some (british?) traveler or explorer met druze tribe (?) that were interested in astronomy, they called themselves “followers of planets (?)” (or stars) and that they were the “wise men” (magi) of the bible. The druze star (mena) is symbol of druze faith but also symbol of star of Bethlehem. Also I lost netpage about Taxila in Pakistan and some Tamil prince from India who according to old indian tradition were the magi.
There is connection of life stories of Buddha and Jesus, there are clear similarities. But why? The surviving first written examples of gospels date about 180 - 300 AD (I think). The oldest biography of Buddha was written couple hundred years after Jesus, but it survives much, much later time in first known copy, and that biography is incomplete, complete biography or different biographies and stories of Buddha were written much later and in surviving written form appear after 1000 AD, I think. There was (and still is) ancient christianity in India, during the times of apostle Thomas. Not also during those times, when manichaeism come to India and China stories of Jesus spread. It would be logical that story of magi in Taxila and Tamil prince with them in tradition in Tamil lands, would have chosen Buddha or hindu holy man as the central character to where magi travelled, those would be much more close to local hindu/buddhist culture, not “foreign” Jesus. That however those stories involve Jesus is mark that in India in ancient times was knowledge of Jesus. When time passed, before or after 1000 AD, stories of Jesus, not only story of star of Bethlehem (in Taxila and Tamil lands), become part of mythology and become part of life story of Buddha.
Another thing about the gospels is that gospel of Luke contains much more eyewitness accounts of women than other gospels. Google gospel of Luke female eyewitness. The reason is probably that in jewish culture women were not allowed to testify or their testify was not “legal” (according to jewish men). Because Luke wrote third gospel he used much material from gospels of Matthew and Mark, and then, in order to make gospel of Luke different from those two gospels, he turned to eyewitness stories of women because those two jewish gospels did not pay attention to women, maybe those two did not use material from women because in jewish culture women were considered untrusty. Luke was greek gentile, so he used those eyewitness stories of women left unused by two other gospels. That is the reason why there are so many things that happen to women or women bear witness to things. Also Luke mentions names of women, in jewish culture women s name was not worth of mention in written documents if woman was not very important, that s why we don t know names of sisters of Jesus, they were sisters of the son of God but they were female so no jew cared to know their names.
Another thing in Luke is that his gospel & Acts has lot of miracles, about 20-35 according to different counts. Many of those miracles happen after Jesus, and are performed by Paul or Peter. The story Ananias and Sapphira is one example, later commentary written about it by John Chrysostom. In some bible research book that I read in finnish language I read that Ananias and Sapphira did not die, and that Peter was against such a story. I don t remember how the writer come such a conclusion, did he used basis of his analysis the commentary of Chrysostom, and somehow he ended his text analysis in such conclusion, or had he some other source about story of Ananias and Sapphira and Peter. I really don t remember, and I do not find that book anymore because I don t remember its writer nor name of the book. If that writer used some other source than Chrysostom s commentary, that is probably some obscure text, because no one has ever found other than Chrysostom s commentary about the death of Ananias and Sapphira? Or have other church fathers made comments about death of Ananias and Sapphira? Perhaps it was some other church father, some other canonical church commentary / text, or something in apocryphal acts, apocryphal gospels etc. concerning Peter? I don t know. There is story of Tabitha coming back to life also in Acts, few pages from Ananias & Sapphira. Also in finnish language I read a theory that this story could be parable of Jesus bringing young girl back to life, young girl is talita and Tabitha is name meaning same (gazelle). Matthew and John were eyewitnesses, Mark was not but Peter was and Mark wrote according to Peter. Luke was greek gentile and not jewish, and he wrote according to Paul, who was not eyewitness either. Otherwise except high amount of miracles Luke is very accurate historian. There is aramaic base material in each gospel, those aramaic texts were written very early, and their greek translations were probably very early too, except perhaps gospel of John (but it has aramaic base too). If there are added “wonders” (or not) in Luke s gospel & Acts they may not came from Luke, but from later times, because Luke wrote directly to greek (using aramaic base material) and he was greek gentile, perhaps because of this his writings become less authorative than jewish-christian gospels (other three), and become more “wonderous” through times. These are just my thoughts and my speculation, nothing more, I don t know if any of this makes any sense, and are those scholars that claim those things about stories of Ananias and Sapphira and Tabitha wrong or right. And how christology affected the greek gospel of John, I don t know, I am not a theologian, but base material of gospel of John is quoted in epistles of Paul.
Another miracle: there is in Qumran fragments fragment 4Q therapeia. It is classified as scrap paper of scribe. But how can such writing be included in holy scriptures? It is written in two languages in extreme hurry. It describes healing of persons, one (roman?) man with leg injury (?) and another is healing (of woman?) using word that mean mental illness, or “dumbness”, or “drowsiness”, or nausea. The words “to Caephas” are mentioned in the beginning, some claim it means Cephas (Peter) but probably he is high priest Kaifas (Caiphas). This fragment is from time of Jesus. My theory is that this text is originally report written to Kaifas about healing, and later on someone “illegally” copied this report in extreme hurry, copying as fastest he could, he had time to write only few words, he translated it to his language while reading the text and write copy of it but was not fast enough so original language words were left also, that s why it is bilingual text. This “illegal” fast copy of report to Kaifas is the text included in holy texts of Qumran. Why report of healing that was informed to Kaifas was so important that it must be among holy religious texts? If it was report about healing that Jesus did, and it is direct eyewitness story, written during very time as it happened and reported to Kaifas. In bible is healing that fits with 4Q therapeia, I think, the one that is from Matthew 8:5 onward, from Luke 7:1 onward and from John 4:43 onward. There is a roman man who cannot walk and is healed, and then woman heals from high fever (drowsiness / nausea mentioned in 4Q therapeia?), then people that have mental illness and physical illness heal. This is just my theory, it is possible that 4Q therapeia has nothing to do with Kaifas and Jesus, but why it is included among holy scriptures in Qumran is mystery, if it really just is scribal writing scrap.

In previous post was about gospel of Luke and Acts and miracles. But problem with the amount of miracles found is not with the gospel of Luke, it is with the book of Acts. Gospel of Luke goes along with other gospels, and is also accurate with historical details, written by “Luke the historian”. Gospel of Luke also is pretty much like all other three gospels. The problem is not with gospel of Luke, it is with book of Acts.The book of Acts is also accurate with historical details, but it has large number of miracles. It almost seems, according to Acts, that Paul competes with Jesus how many miracles he does. The miracles appear in the events after Jesus is gone. Can reason for this large miracle amount be the way book of Acts was treated by greeks? Because book of Acts is not a gospel, it basically is just travelogue of Paul s travels, and is a record of Paul s travels more than “holy book” in traditional sense, so contemporaries perhaps not treated it as a holy book. It is also written by greek gentile, so other greeks who read it considered it as “our own has written it”, and it lacked “jewish authority” of the gospel texts, perhaps in greek people s minds. Because it was travelogue written by greek person with no particular “holy” recognition except than reporting Paul s travels, greek copyists in later times perhaps treaded it as any regular writing, not like a holy book, and added something of their own to the text. There is of course no evidence that something has been added to book of Acts or not, and probably no evidence ever appears that something has been added to the book of Acts.
Also: “Jesus and Paul in the dead sea scrolls!”
From netpage truthinmydays com “According to what scripture? Examining Paul s references in 1. Corinthians 15:3-4”.
From netpage purebibleforum com “Modern and current scholars who accept the pre-70 dating for gospels and often the full new testament”.
John A. Robinson dates gospel of Matthew 40 AD, Mark 45 AD, Luke 57 AD, and John 40-65 AD. John Wenham dates times of gospels Matthew 40 AD, Mark 45 AD, Luke 54 AD. In colophons of gospels in f35 manuscript series, Matthew is 40-41 AD, Mark 42-43 AD, Luke 47-48 AD and John 64-65 AD, depending of later dates counted when Jesus died, 30 AD or slightly later, and because years were counted as ruling years of roman emperors and their day of becoming emperor, year was split in two when counted in modern years if emperor s first day of reign was in a day that was in the middle of the modern chronology year. There is also other colophons in new testament texts: from netpage nttextualcriticism blogspot com: “James Snapp Jr. on the colophons of Mark s ending”, from netpage floydnolenministries com “The gospel colophons”.
There are netpages for cross references in bible, but also netpage for gross references between new testament texts and apostolic fathers is needed. Then it would be possible for everybody to see how much early church fathers quoted new testament. Limiting cross references between new testament and apostolic fathers is enough, because apostolic fathers were the first to quote new testament texts and most important, if dating of new testament texts is needed. There is also plenty of cross references between new testament texts in new testament itself, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Hebrews and letters of John and Revelation quote gospels, and those writers not only quote gospels, they also quote each other s writings in new testament, so quotes go zigzagging through new testament from one writer to another. But netpage where everyone could make cross reference search between new testament texts and apostolic fathers is needed, eCatena is not so good for making comprehensive and complete searches in apostolic fathers. There is software sold like Logos Apostolic Fathers but it must be paid, and in book “Apostolic father third edition” by Michael Holmes perhaps includes this material, but book must be bought also. Can anyone make comprehensive cross reference netpage that has new testament and apostolic fathers? No cross references to old testament or some other than apostolic fathers is needed (well if there are sources that date about150 AD and earlier that are not apostolic fathers and contain quotes from new testament they can be included).
About 4Q Therapeia (4Q341): the only translation of this text in internet is now James H. Charlesworth book, but it is flawed I think, I read that someone who published this 4Q 341 text had crazy idea of ancient healing ritual, and he translated (or transformed) the text according to this. But the real text of 4Q therapeia was in internet couple of years ago, without alterations and additions that this person had made with 4Q 341 translation. So the Charlesworth book translation of 4Q therapeia is perhaps severely altered from original text, it has added words and totally wrong translations etc. and is not the 4Q 341 translation that I saw several years ago that was as close as possible to original text. I based my writing of previous post on this earlier accurate version of text that seems nowhere to be found anymore, on my memory how I remember the text to be.
I have found two translations of this text in the internet, one that follows John M. Allegro s translation and another of J. Neveh. Both of them fill empty spaces of text with words of their own invention, and in Allegro- type translation there are words and even whole sentences that are not in the text first place, as I remember, and transform text to something really strange thing that was not in the text that I read in internet. Allegro had crazy idea about this text and he seems to forcibly altered and rewritten the text to suit his ideas. Then is J. Neveh translation that fills the empty spaces with words that transform text to some kind of gibberish. But I read some years ago in some netpage translation that did not filled empty places with imagined words, and that text in the net also gave meaning of each word that are in the 4Q341 text to the reader, so that reader can make his own translation based on that. Both John Allegro and J. Neveh s “translations” (or transformations) have severely altered the original text to something radically different that it is not. I based wild theory that 4Q341 possibly has something to do with Matthew 8:5-16 etc. to that text translation (that not filled empty spaces with imagined words, and also gave translated meaning of words that text has so that reader can decide what those words or text as a whole means) which I saw years ago. But it is just far-out theory of mine and so it is almost certainly probable that 4Q341 is just writing exercise and nothing more, and this 4Q341 and gospel connection has nothing to do with reality, it is such a far-out theory, and it never cannot be proven anyway. This my theory has less to do with reality and facts than any of my theories. But I think it is better than John M. Allegro s theory that was really crazy.
Then there are 4Q246 Son of God / Aramaic apocalypse text and 4Q285 Pierced messiah text. Both are dated before Christ. But essenes who wrote those texts were extremely conservative, and isolated themselves from outside society. However paleography expects them to follow “latest fashion” in the written text, how texts are written, and those text are dated using this paleography method. But how can people who are extremely conservative and isolated themselves from other society follow latest fashion? It is like the monks in Abbey of Monte Cassino go to Milan Fashion Week to buy things of latest fashion once a year and then live again year in their monk chambers with conservative and isolation lifestyle, until is time to go to Milan Fashion Week once again. If those texts are dated before 30 AD, reason might be that they are dated to be too old because essenes used old writing style in their texts, that did not follow “latest fashion”. There are dating parameters in paleography, sometimes hundred years or 150 years or so from newest estimated date to oldest estimated date, but if community that writes those texts is extremely conservative and isolationist, it can produce written text that is younger than the youngest date limit setting in paleography in those type of texts, because this community is isolated itself from other society and prefers “old ways”, including style of written text. If text looks paleographically older than it really is then it is also classified as older text in paleography. If 4Q246 and 4Q285 would be from year 30 AD it is possible that both texts are eyewitness to Jesus. But again this is just wild theory of mine, nothing more. There are total 7 fragments of “slain Messiah text” but the other five are perhaps simple too old paleographically that that they can be considered to be written 30 AD or so, even if “old ways” in written text is used.
Some time ago some old old testament text was collected interpreted when small pieces of text were collected through computer analysis which compiled the text from little pieces. Analysis of fibers of text material (direction of fibers) was used, and text assembled using this fibre analysis. Why cannot similar method be used with “scrap” texts found in Qumran and Nag Hammadi? There are some short pieces of texts that cannot be identified what texts they are and where do they belong. This fibre analysis / computer assembly may help perhaps.
Also often is found blank papyrus scraps etc. with no visible text or only few words visible. But new photographic techniques have been invented, multispectral imaging etc., and sometimes they reveal text in blank papyrus etc. Those methods can also be used in Qumran and Nag Hammadi texts etc.
Both fibre analysis and multispectral imaging etc. techniques can be combined so that blank papyrus scraps may reveal written text and then that text is assembled with other texts using computerized text assembly etc.
Often in bible research “hapax logomenon” and other counting of words techniques are used. The problem is that in order to have statistical signifigance 10 000 words minimum must be used to have statistically at least some kind of acceptable positive result, to have really good statistical evidence more than 10 000 words must be used (several tens of thousands of words perhaps? I am not a mathematician) For example word search is used to prove that Paul did not wrote epistle to Ephesians. But Ephesians has about 2400 words (in english), that is only 24% from minimum of 10 000 words required. 2. Thessalonikians has 800 words, Titus 660 and Philemon 330 about. So they are even more afar from required 10 000 limit. Also word counting is used in “evidence” that longer ending of Mark does not belong to bible, but longer ending of Mark has only few hundred words. In no way can few hundred words can be used as statistical material when at least 10 000 minimum is needed. This mathematicians find perhaps as long as about 100 years ago or more. However even in modern bible research word counting methods are used, although they are scientifically useless (unless you have over 10 000 word to use) and when used in those small amount of words, for sure produce errant results. This statistical fact has been known for 100 years or so, but still up to this day books and studies are being published that use different word counting methods. If word counting is used in bible studies, it makes those scientific studies false and unusable. Or then you really have 10 000 words or more to use, and even 10 000 words is just minimum to have at least some kind of result, even 10 000 words is not enough to have proof that can be used as strong evidence, it remains sort of weak evidence still, much more than 10 000 words is needed to have strong evidence, I think. So word counting is useless and all scientific results below 10 000 word limit cannot be used as evidence, making all scientific results that have this method useless. Actually word counting below 10 000 word limit is same thing as “bible code”, bible code uses large statistical material to have “proof” of something that is just result of large amount of letters in written text. Word counting, hapax logomenon etc. is again “bible code” -type statistical fallacy, this time it uses small amount of words that lead to wrong results, when much larger amount of words are needed. Both bible code and word counting, hapax logomenon etc. are actually just the same thing, they find “proof” that is not there. But when bible code is not used anymore when its statistical mathematical basis was found, bible scholars use word counting still up to this day make “proofs” and “evidences” based on it, although it has been known as errant method as bible code during past 100 years. Why? Every scientific result based on word counting from less than 10 000 word material is false and wrong. And in almost every bible research book is “evidence” and “proof” based on word counting. All those “scientific results” are false. They are as false as books who promote “bible code” and how bible code can predict future and contain all information of the world in the bible itself etc. So bible research books using word counting have as much scientific value that is in those sensational bible code books that are sold in bookstores.
Also: Ivan Panin bible numerics. No one has refuted Panin s bible numerics, so instead of waisting their time using word counting in their studies bible researches could have studied Ivan Panin s bible numerics and make scientific studies about that, they would been more scientifically plausible too.
Also: from netpage bible org /series/ “New testament: introductions and outlines”.
Also stylistic and theological arguments are used to divide what epistles Paul wrote and did not wrote. But there is one big problem: each one of those bible researchers say they use only scientific analysis methods in their writings. Some of those scholars find that only 7 epistles of Paul are real, some find that 8 of them are real, some that 9 of them are real, and some that 10 of them are real. And some scholars that only 5 of them are what Paul really wrote, some that only 4, and some that only one, and some that none is written by Paul. On other hand some claim that 11 them are real, or 12, and finally that all 13 are written by Paul. Strange thing about this mess is that when for example scholar has opinion that Paul wrote for example 8 letters, he find results that Paul really wrote 8 letters. Then some other scholar who has opinion that Paul wrote 7 letters, uses same methods based on same stylistic and theology proofs, finds that Paul indeed wrote 7 letters all others are false. Then some other scholar who thinks that Paul wrote 10 letters, finds in his study that Paul indeed wrote 10 letters. Then some liberal scholar claims that Paul actually wrote only 5 letters, and some really liberal that Paul actually wrote just one. Then some conservative scholar finds out that Paul wrote all 13 letters attributed to him. So all these people used stylistic and theological and writing style analyzing scientific methods. How then they all have different results. And if they used methods that all are scientific and true, how is possible that liberal scholar finds that only 5 letters are true, when conservative scholar finds, using same scientific methods, that Paul wrote all 13 letters. And isn t it strange how scholars always have results that support their own view, liberal scholar finds that only 4-5 letters are from Paul, and conservative that all 13 are from Paul. If they use same scientific methods, why not even sometimes scholars have result that is not exactly they beforehand expected the result to be, for example conservative scholar when making text analysis that only 5 of Paul s letters are true and and liberal scholar who is making study to proof that only 1 or none of Paul letters are true suddenly finds to his horror that all of Paul s letters are written by Paul, when he uses his scientific methods. Truth is that none of those “scientific studies” are true scientific, scholars simply use their own preoccupations what they think are “true” letters of Paul and then wrote “scientific study” or book proclaiming that, bypassing all other evidence that goes against their preoccupations and accepting only those facts that suit them. If there is disputed matter that must be solved and then group of scientists gather around to solve the puzzle, but each of the scientists have their own opinion, and then when they make their “scientific study” they find their own opinion to be right that they have even before they began their study, they never, none of them, find during their study that their preoccupation is wrong, among this large group of scientists. That means that they are not actually making scientific study at all, but rhetorical pamphlet to persuade others to follow their opinion, and use “scientific methods” for that. Debate over Pauline letters is good example of “scientific” (or less than scientific) nature of biblical studies.
Study of pauline epistles has effectively debunked itself, it is not possible in scientific research that when large number of scientists study some matter they have different results, and every scientist finds just the same result that is his own personal opinion. So all of that massive amount of scholarship written about pauline letters have no real scientific meaning, when in debated matter several solutions are find and every scientist finds that result which he hopes to find, it is not science. So all this pauline letters - study has lost is scientific meaning. Those studies can be read as rhetorical pamphlets, not as science, although they have scientific notation, “scientific methods” used etc.
There is also computer based methods, for example Pieter Kroonberg “Pauline epistles stylometry: authorship of…” and “Study of Pauline epistles in the new testament using machine learning”. But then is problems with man-machine interaction, for example parameter settings, how computer operator can “guide” program using parameter settings so that results what he wants can be made. Are those computer programs tested using for example other religious literature whose writers are known, what kind of results those computer programs have using those texts? So 13 texts that have about same word length that pauline letters have. This test must be done perhaps hundred times, so 100 writers of religious texts are needed and each of them 13 texts selected whose word length is somewhat similar to pauline epistles. No parameter settings changed from pauline epistles analysis. What are results then? When 100 writers of those texts are known, does computer guess right that those 13 texts are written by same person, or will it divide them to similar way that it divides pauline epistles? Because there are 100 writers who each have 13 texts this test can be done 100 times.

In previous post I wrote that pauline letters study has lost its meaning, it is not lost its meaning, I didn t want to criticize pauline studies but those studies that try to divide pauline letters to “real” letters and “deutero-pauline letters”. The problem is that if same methods are used that are used to divide pauline letters to true and not-true letters, for example writings of C. S. Lewis can be divided in true and “deutero-lewisian” writings. And dividing 2. Corinthias to two, three or more parts etc. Studies of letters of Paul is serious scientific study, but trying to divide letters to true and not true canon is bit futile. There are not enough stylistic or other differences to justify separation. Almost any writing whose writer is known can be separated to different classes using those stylistic or theological “differences”. And Paul used amanuensis (scribe), although he in Galtainas wrote himself, in “big letters” because he did not speak or write greek as native tongue (but aramaic), and he had some sort of eyesight problem also. So those computer programs that are used to analyze epistles of Paul should use as test material those writings that are written using scribes, because different scribes have different writing styles. Also machine learning is used in computer text analysis, and it uses training, and of course computer is trained by human. So human can manipulate the computer selecting what material is used in machine learning training. Man-machine interaction must be removed completely or almost completely from those text analysis using computer - studies. Also test material (100 writers who used scribes with 13 writings each) should be chosen by computer, using random number generator to choose the candidates, not chosen by humans. What kind of results those computer programs that are used to study epistles of Paul have when they are studying some other texts that are also written by scribe in about 20 year time interval?
And why some epistles should not be real because Paul did not visited those places mentioned in the epistles. Roman empire had excellent road network and postal service, “Cursus publicus”, or Paul used his own couriers to carry letters, it is no need him to personally visit those places where he send the letters. City of Rome was center of greco-latin christianity, Paul heard in his travels or when in Rome situation of christians in other places and send letters to them without ever visiting them. People came to visit him and he responded to their stories what was happening elsewhere and then he wrote epistle if it was necessary and courier or Cursus publicus carried it.
Netpage bible org “New testament: introductions and outlines”. From netpage cambridge org “The pauline epistles and synoptic gospels: pattern of the parallells”. From netpage crossexamined org “Did Paul write all thirteen letters attributed to him?”. Herbert Neal Massey “Synoptic and pauline parallels in the epistle of James”.
It seems that most “evidence” supporting that Paul did not wrote some epistles is based on word counting (hapax logomena etc.). But 1. Timothy has 1590 words (in english, not in latin or greek), 2. Timothy 1240, 2.Thessalonians 820 and Titus only 660. But 10 000 words is needed for having some kind of plausible result, word counting cannot be used in those texts, and surely it is not “evidence” if those texts are used.
In “Son of God text” (4Q246), is in translation mentioned comet as sign of messiah. But the same word meant “new star” or something that has not been in the sky before, like nova or supernova, or comet. If essenes were extremely traditional and kept “old ways” and isolated themselves from society, in their writings they probably did not follow “latest fashion” of their day, so their writings were also written old-fashioned style including handwriting style. So texts 4Q246 and 4Q285 “Pierced messiah” perhaps can be from 30 AD about. Or then not, this is just my theory.
Eusebius wrote that gospel of Matthew was written 39-40 AD and Mark 43-44 AD.
There is also some sort of consensus among at least liberal bible scholars that Paul wrote only 7 letters. But what real evidence this have that can be absolutely proofed? Those same methods that 7 letter theory has can be used to prove that Paul wrote all 13 letters or that Paul wrote only 1 letter, depending of scholar s own opinion. So 7 letter scholarly consensus is based on just that, scholarly consensus, not to some hard evidence. If same kind of methods can be used do divide almost any writer s text to “real” and “not real” categories although it is known that only one writer wrote them. What this kind of analysis produces from example works of Julius Caesar or Cicero? Or Tolstoy or Henry James? Or any writer? The scholarly consensus of 7 letters of Paul is just that. Can 5 million Elvis fans be wrong? Some like Elvis and some not.
Other: “The book of Acts as setting of hellenistic history”.
From netpage cogwriter com “Polycarp s letter to the philippians with new testament scriptural annotations”. From netpage etimasthe com “Clement of Rome s new testament”. Also Biblehub Library has 1.Clement with cross references.
In second post in this message chain is list of quotes from longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) in the new testament. This is two extra quotes: Mark 16:18 / Acts 4:30, Mark 16:19 / Hebrews 2:4.
Mark 16:15 / Col. 1:23 is one of those rare cases in epistles of Paul when there is (almost) direct word-ford-word quote from gospels is in the epistles of Paul.
The so called liberal scholars of bible studies have written many books and studies past 30 years. If there is clear evidence against their far-fetching theories they simple ignore all evidence that is against their opinion. For example if John D. Crosnan s “Jesus and the cross” is considered acceptable scientific work then Philip K. Dick s “The exegesis” and “Valis” should be also in university library bookshelf. In fact those two books if they had scientific notation and published in some scientific publication series, are in par with most of liberal bible scholars work. So students of bible studies could then study “The exegesis” as curriculum, it is no way crazier than modern bible scholarship.
When liberal bible scholarship rejected all evidence that is against their theories, it of course makes possible to write all kind of theories, but when strong evidence against some theory is simply ignored or bypassed, result is fantasy fiction, biblical neverland, or sort of biblical Narnia, that exists only in the minds of bible scholars. Somehow liberal bible scholarship disconnect itself from reality about 20 years ago and has written high-flying fantasy ever since.

When I wrote in previous post that bible scholarship disconnect from reality, I did not meant all bible scholars, I meant liberal bible scholars like Bart Ehrman and John D. Crossan. There are two forms of new bible research, one is “third quest” and another is this very liberal bible scholarship. Books like “The cross that spoke” etc., they are nearing fantasy fiction with their “scientific” studies. It may be that “Cross that spoke” is considered serious scientific work, but it and Philip K. Dick s “Exegesis” has many things in common. Another is fantasy fiction, another is scientific book. So because there is in liberal bible scholarship “anything goes” - attitude what then prevents “Exegesis” to be included in university collections? This vanishing line between fantasy and science has been in liberal bible scholarship past 20-30 years. Liberal bible scholarship, unlike other historiography, often ignores all hard evidence and facts that are against their high-flying theories. It is then easy to write scientific book or study if all evidence against it is simply ignored and bypassed. But bad thing about this kind of science is that when facts and evidence are ignored, result is not history anymore, it is fantasy. This I meant that liberal bible scholarship has disconnect itself from reality about 20 years ago, and that result of such scientific studies is then sort of neverland, biblical Narnia. What if other scientists will follow this kind of “I don t mind about the evidence against this I write what I like”- doctrine? For example if some historian is displeased that Union won the USA civil war and wants write new history where Confederation won the war, he writes this kind of study and then gives it to publication to some scientific publication series. When editor of publishing house argues that this scientific study where Confederation won the war is against all known historical evidence, that historian answers: “I don t care about the facts, I just write what I like, Bart Ehrman and John D. Crossan do it all time, why can t I do it too?” This is perhaps birth of new kind of (pseudo)science, which abandons the principles of how all scientific studies are being made . Is ultra-liberal bible scholarship pseudoscience?
About scholarly consensus and pauline epistles; consensus among scientists is approached when there is undisputed facts that can be verified. But the case of pauline epistles is that if some scientist has personal opinion about which of the letters are real letters of Paul, he finds scientific evidence that supports his own view, and it varies between 1 to 13 letters that are considered “real”, according to writers own opinion. If undisputed fact is not found, then scholarly consensus is just consensus that is not based on hard evidence. So when scholars claim that it is fact that Paul wrote only 7 letters and they teach it in schools and universities, they are wrong, until time when undisputed facts about how many letters Paul is found.
In previous posts was about story of Ananias and Sapphira, and church fathers. The text I was searching was Augustine s “Against Adimantus” / “Contra Adimantum”. Ananias & Sapphira are mentioned in it. In netpage earlychristianwritings is Acts of Peter and there is M. R. James translation, there is mentioned in “Gardener s daughter” section Augustine and his writing “Against Adimantus” and one sentence from that. Is it hidden criticism about the story of Ananias & Sapphira, although in Augustine s text criticism is against manicheans? This Augustine mentioning Ananias & Sapphira I read from one book in finnish language, I don t remember author nor book title. Also there is book by Jacob Albert van den Berg about Augistine s Against Adimantus. The epistle of Titus mentioned in M. R. James translation is apocryphal work and not the epistle to Titus in the bible.
There is also Agapius and his “Universal History”, in it is list of Agapius, list of early christians and early christian converts. Agapius Universal History is in netpage ccel org in readable form. This list of Agapius I found from netpage in finnish language, I again don t remember author nor webpage.
About longer ending of Mark and Eusebius: John William Burgon: “The last twelve verses of Mark” at ccel org netpage. The Eusebius “Against Marinus” text is available at James A. Kelhoffer: “The witness of Eusebieus Ad Marinum” 2019. So it is dialogue between Eusebius and “Marinus”, where Marinus is literary device like in almost all ancient dialogue writings. The surviving AD Marinum text is heavily abridged and shortened. In it Eusebius states that not all manuscripts include longer ending, then that if someone (Marinus) wants to write gospel harmony, he would say that longer ending is missing most of texts and most accurate copies. So it is Marinus who says that in that abridged dialogue. Eusebius says that he is against that. Somehow in all antique writings about longer ending of Mark it is always the case of how to write gospel harmony, and which ending should gospel harmony be, Mark or Matthew. This how to write gospel harmony thing is in all those early church fathers text that simply quote Eusebius, only Victor of Antioch not only makes direct quotes from Eusebius but adds that most accurate copies of gospel of Mark have longer ending. It is even possible that longer ending of Mark was not added later time to Mark s gospel, it was removed from gospel, because early christians were concerned about gospel harmony, and the Eusebius text is just that, how gospels could be harmonized. Interesting thing is that Tatian who wrote first ever gospel harmony used longer ending of Mark, not ending of Matthew etc. that was gospel harmonies from then on. There is evidence in early bibles that some attempts were done to harmonize gospels. There is book “Scribal harmonization in the synoptic gospels” by Cambry Pardee. Maybe that was the reason why longer ending of Mark is not in two early manuscripts. In Codex Vaticanus is empty space where longer ending should be, is reason again gospel harmonization? Pagan romans attacked christianity pointing inconsistencies in bible, that four gospels did not always have 100% similarity in events, and because of this early “biblical criticism” pressure that pagan romans had, christians tried to make gospel harmonies and harmonize the gospels. Eusebius s Ad Marinum and other texts that quote it in later times are all about how how to write gospel harmony. So unlike some bible scholar claim that the longer ending of Mark is added and therefore corruption of the text, it on the contrary shows that original text survived gospel harmonization attempts and that christians had the original text survived and despite it was unpleasing to have ending of gospel that was different than in other gospels. Also that all four gospels have inconsistencies is the proof that text is not corrupted. The bible scholars point to little different things that are different to one gospel to another. Instead of making gospels unreliable, they are proof that text really has not changed, when those unpleasant differences in text still exist and they were not “corrected”, despite the fact that romans used those differencies as a weapon against christians (like modern liberal bible scholars). And christians themselves made half-hearted attempts to make gospel harmonies because of that pressure. But modern times have done what ancient romans did not manage to do with all their fury against christians - longer ending of Mark is now completely removed, wiped out, it is no longer even in brackets, in some of the new translations of the bible.
But it is probable that reason for ending missing is manuscript damage, manuscripts missing longer ending have something missing in the beginning of Mark s gospel too, so scroll was damaged at both ends. That I read again in some finnish language book. However also was in circulation at same time manuscripts where gospel text was complete.
Graig Evans has made studies about new testament manuscripts. For example Amy K. Hall: “Original new testament manuscripts could have been copied for centuries”.
The 1.Clement letter is available at earlychristianwritings com netpage, in the last of the list of translations is “The first epistle of Clement” which has a link to netpage that has 1.Clement with cross references. 1.Clement may be very early text so that s why cross references that reveal quotes from new testament are useful. Netpage etimasthe com has also apostolic fathers and cross references to new testament, and many other netpages have similar material too. But on complete list of apostolic fathers and cross references to new testament is needed. There is Logos Apostolic Fathers Software but it must be bought. the eCatena netpage is not so suitable to search cross references between new testament and apostolic fathers, because list is not complete. There was netpage "The Canon and how much did early christians refer to the new testament " in biblequery org netpage but original netpage of that cross reference list is offline (but was still online couple of years ago), that was interesting list of all apostolic fathers and their new testament quotes.

The Universal History by Agapius mentioned in previous post is available at tertullian org netpage, including part 2 of the text which in quite early in text has list of Agapius, list of early christians and philosopher called Ursinus who wrote about Jesus.
For example Bart Ehrman has written that writings of Justin Martyr has not even single quote from gospels, instead it has 100 quotes from gnostic gospels. This is against all evidence. This is example how is possible to write scientific study that ignores all evidence against it, simply ignoring and bypassing everything that is against this theory. It is then possible to present every kind of theory imaginable and publish it as scientific study. Bad thing about this kind of “science” is that result is fantasy fiction. It replaces known scientific evidence material with imaginary things written by author, result is scientific virtual reality, neverland, biblical Narnia that exists only in those books of liberal bible scholarship, not in real historiography. Actually Justin Martyr quoted gospels about 268 times.
Some even question that Jesus was historical person, although for example bible scholar Timo Eskola says that rejecting historicity of Jesus is “exegetical suicide”, after so-called third quest from 1990s onwards has changed bible studies. However many liberal bible scholars still are doing it.
One way to determine how good are biblical research studies is to replace words “Jesus” or “Paul” or “Peter” with some other person known from history, for example Julius Caesar, emperor Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero, Tacitus, or simply anyone will do, not only those who lived in time of Jesus. Napoleon, George Washington, king James, Bismarck, Churchill etc. will do. Now then every time when you changed the name of “Jesus” to “Churchill” for example, imagine that this text is actually historical account of Churchill, not Jesus. Using this method you often find out how grotesque methods and irrational logic biblical studies use, that are not used in any other historical research that studies history of famous people. Those conclusions that bible scholars are using are sometimes totally absurd, really reductio ad absurdum. And they present this absurd thing as fact, and try to persuade you to accept really absurd things as truths, they use all their scholar power to put this absurd message through. I call this “Monty Python -moment”, like John Cleese as school headmaster straight-to-face proclaims really absurd things while being totally serious. For example in finnish language book “Paavali elämä ja kirjeet” (Paul: life and letters) emeritus professor Lars Aejmelaeus writes that Paul must be mentally ill when he wrote or 2.Corinthians or otherwise 2.Corinthians are two separate texts written separately. This theory that 2.Cor is two separate text is known theory, but claim that Paul must be mentally ill if he wrote 2.Cor as single text, is one of those absurd moments in bible research books. And he proclaims this as a fact and a thing that reader must accept. But he is perhaps only person in the world who has the view that Paul must be mentally ill if he wrote 2.Cor as single text. However he makes this opinion a simple fact that must be accepted.
Method of changing names in bible research books to some other persons than biblical in your mind when you read those books or studies can be used in different cases. For example Napoleon Seminar - scientists judge the writings and speeches of Napoleon by dropping balls of different color that symbol different opinions, are speeches and writings of Napoleon true or false. Methodology used is that if writing or saying of Napoleon appears only in one source, it is probably not real. If Napoleon talks or writes something about things that are according to rules and behavior of french society during those times, it is probably just a folk legend and not real saying / writing of Napoleon. Only sayings and writings of Napoleon that are against typical behaviour and sayings of Napoleon can be considered true sayings of his. Also if Napoleon says or writes about some matter and other writers have earlier written something about the same subject matter, it is not real saying of Napoleon. Also sayings and writings of Napoleon has been invented by other persons. Result: only 5% of Napoleon s writings and sayings are true, other 95% is invented forgery. This is “Jesus Seminar” actually. Bart Ehrman and John Crossan were members of Jesus Seminar, among other liberal bible scholars. Jacob Neusner has said that Jesus Seminar is the greatest scientific hoax since Piltdown man.
About longer ending of Mark: from netpage lavistachurchofchrist org “Jim Snapps authenticity of Mark 16:9-20”, and in this netpage is link to even more detailed study of longer ending of Mark. And John Tors: Mark 16:9-20. “Pericope adulterae” or adultery story in John s gospel is possible removed from gospel during later times, not added, because that story was considered too insulting (woman is not killed because of adultery). Also longer ending of Mark, it was possibly removed because gospel harmony was tried. From netpage mindrenewers com “The “Pericope adulterae” and the oldest manuscripts”.
There are two other message chains in Robin Hood Coop Discourse netpage connected to these matters: “Apostle Paul quoted gospels a lot and knew them, and the case of longer ending of Mark”, and “The star of Bethlehem”.

If liberal bible scholars are right when they make claims about who Jesus is and that almost all of the stories of his life in the gospels are legends, and that gospels are wrong about every fact that happened to Jesus are legends, how is it then possible that archeology and history research has proven that the gospels are right since 1800s when liberal bible scholarship emerged, to modern days up to 2020s? When liberal bible scholars began pointing “mistakes” in gospels in the 1800s, claiming that those stories are legends invented long afterwards, and that those gospels are filled with erroneous places, names and incidents, how it is possible that archeological research proved those claims to be wrong already in the 1800s / early 1900s. When modern liberal bible scholars have made new claims about mistakes in the gospels, about Nazareth, Bethlehem, “missing” synagogues, missing pool of Siloam etc., how then archeology has proved again and again since past 100 years and more those claims not be true? If the claims of liberal bible scholars about Jesus etc. should be true, how it is then possible that archeology and history research has proven claims in the books of liberal bible scholars to be wrong one after another when it comes to historical places and events. If Liberal bible scholars are right would then claims they make in their books should be proven true also in archeology and history research? But when their claims are inspected, archeology and history research and historical evidence provided by archeology etc. during past 100 years and more has proven that conservative bible scholars are right in their own claims about historicity and gospels and liberal scholars wrong. Despite the fact that liberal bible scholarship s ideas have been turned down by archeological evidence again and again during century or more, that has not stopped liberal bible scholars. For example about book of Acts and William Ramsay and Colin Hemer etc. How it is possible that during 100 years and more liberal bible scholars have massive amount of wrong information in their books when that information is compared to archeological and history research evidence? Those archeological and other findings began in the 1800s and continue up to this day in 2020s that again and again prove theories of liberal bible scholars wrong. Is this massive error rate sign of something? If history scholarship more than 100 years gives erroneous information in their theories that archeology proves wrong after those theories are published, is there something wrong about the methodology how those theories are done? There are possibly hundreds or thousands of wrong claims made by liberal bible scholars in their books since early 1800s that archeology and modern history research has proved wrong. If liberal bible scholars find one “wrong” detail (in their view), even at slightest detail, in some conservative bible scholar s work or conservative view about christianity, they make it a big news and at loud voice make everybody to hear what they have “found”. But they are particularly silent about their massive amount of erroneous theories that archeology and history research has proved wrong during over 100 year period when liberal bible scholarship has been written. Someone should made collection where is collected all those erroneous theories since beginning of liberal bible scholarship and then archeological etc. evidence that proves them wrong. It would be almost endless list of wrong theories, but when those liberal scholars claim “errors” in conservative bible scholarship, would it be just fair to point out their own history of massive amount of wrong theories. And how it is that when archeological evidence is found it almost exclusively points out that conservative bible scholars are right about history and liberal scholars wrong? Is that archeological evidence clear sign of which side of this debate about Jesus is right?
Someone should really make detailed list about all theories that has been proved wrong by archeology etc. and explanation what archeology etc. has bring out about those theories.
Favorite theory among liberal scholars is “evidence of silence”, if someone does not write or say something, it does not exist. Is the massive amount of archeological evidence against “evidence of silence” argumentation across the years in the books of liberal bible scholars proof that evidence of silence is wrong method to prove or disapprove anything.
Another favorite method of liberal bible scholars is word counting, but it again proves nothing if there is not at least 10 000 words, word counting is actually just “bible code” method, it proves nothing, and this has been known about 100 years, if there is no 10 000 words to examine. But of course liberal bible scholars use it, because it, like bible codes, proves something something that “is not there”, like bible code can be used to prove death of John F: Kennedy etc. from text of the bible. Word counting is similar method like bible code, but it is used in scientific studies up to this day, despite the fact that is as “plausible” as bible code and this fact has been known for years.
Then there is “analysis” based on writing style and theology, used in letters of Paul. Again those are subjective matters and open to interpreter s own preoccupations, to put it another way, everybody sees what wants to see in text and then can make scientific proofs about his preoccupations. Only computer analysis can perhaps solve questions about writing style etc., but problem is that computer is always programmed by human, so chance of manipulation by man-machine interface is so great that unless man-machine interaction is removed there exists possibility that computer is “guided” towards result that human wants.
Those three methods, word counting, “evidence of silence” and analysis based on writing style are the methods that liberal bible scholars use. Why? Because using those methods they always have the result what they want. Evidence of silence and word counting is not evidence at all, and text analysis based on style etc., needs computer not human and even computers programmed by humans are unreliable in that task.
It is easy task then some liberal bible scholar to refute some conservative view, all he has to do is make arguments based on “evidence of silence”, and count words, and if that does not help, use arguments based on writing style in some text etc. They work every time because they are not scientific methods that bring undisputed scientific facts. In fact liberal bible scholars use those three methods to refute facts that are made using solid scientific reasoning, to put this another way, erroneous and non-scientific methods are being used to overturn known facts that are based on historical evidence. This magician s trick how methods that cannot be used to prove anything is used to disapprove with known facts of history has fooled many university students that read those bible research books, and they believe what well-known professors who use those rhetorical tricks in their books say. Such phenomenon does not exist outside bible studies, for example studies about Julius Caesar, history of antiquity etc., to put it another way, in studies of real history, not the virtual reality history that liberal bible research books are filled with. Sometimes modern bible research even comes close to some kind of fairytale-type thing (John D. Crossan etc.), like “is this Philip K. Dick s book or serious scientific study”. Fairytale is still a fairytale even if it has scientific notation and published by some academic press. Those bible scholars often use orwellian newspeak (war is peace, truth is lie etc.), they reveal the “truth” behind centuries of invented stories and “lies” of christianity and what conservative scholarship has been writing. And what they have created? Mythology of their own.
About that name switching technique, how to change names of Jesus, Peter or Paul to some other person, Julius Caesar; Tiberius, Claudius, Marcus Aurelius, Mark Anthony, Cicero etc., or some other like Napoleon, Churchill, George Washington, king James, Bismarck etc. If you change the name of some study of Julius Caesar to Peter or Paul, and imagine for example that “Gallic Wars” is account of Peter or Paul, nothing much actually changes, the reasoning and logic of the text seems to be okay even after name switching, not much of “Monty Python moments” when reasoning and logic of text seems to change to some absurd, although it is a bit strange to read “Gallic Wars” as adventures of Peter or Paul for example, if they would have been roman army generals, but the text seems to be average about okay. It is also possible to change Julius Caesar to Winston Churchill and then Gallic Wars is Churchill s adventure in his youth during Boer war for example. Nothing much changes, logic and reasoning is the same, about okay too. But when you change in bible research book names of Jesus, Peter or Paul to Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Bismarck, George Washington or Churchill, and imagine that this book or scientific study is about those persons, not Jesus, Peter or Paul, something happens. At some times text just becomes absurd, logic and reasoning strange, like you are reading some absurd Monty Python sketch, or the one is the parrot living or dead. In conservative bible scholarship there are Monty Python moments, but not often, maybe because they wrote “dull” scholarship and do not make far-out theories. But when you switch to some liberal scholar s book, there is dozens of absurd Monty Python moments. Common sense and logic seems just to fly away from window and text becomes absurd thing, reductio ad absurdum. It happens because when you replace in your mind “Jesus”, “Peter” or “Paul” to “George Washington” for example, your mind automatically does reality check, you demand that this text about Jesus is guided using same logic and reasoning what you demand about text written about George Washington. Washington did not rise from the grave, but the reality check is about the inner logic of the scientific text, not what happens in the narrative.
Instead of story about saint Peter, narrative (story) can be about Peter the Great or even Peter Rabbit the case is not the narrative of the story, but how the inner logic/analysis of the events of the story in the scientific study/book goes along with the story that is told. It can be any story, even TV series like Dallas and Dynasty have written scientific studies made about them, and there is studies of Donald Duck comics in the academia, not in history research but social anthropology perhaps and cultural studies. Every picture tells a story Rod Stewart has said.
In this case we study gospel stories, and the changing of the name -trick is used to inspect how good is the scientific methodology that is used in those gospel studies. The joke is not that story becomes bit absurd and funny to read when “Jesus” is changed to “Julius Caesar” for example, the real joke is that this name change makes your mind to do automatic fact check and it reveals possible logical pitfalls in the scientific analysis that the text has if this text is scientific study or -book. At least it works for me. So does this scientific text transform the narrative (story) to something absurd and illogical? Sometimes theories presented in those books and studies become truly absurd after name switch, and you begin see behind text, those rhetorical tricks that those writers use. They try hard to persuade you to give up common sense and everyday logic so that you can accept their wild theories. But you do automatic fact check when you change the name of the person of the religious story to some other person. And when the “scientific” writing becomes truly absurd you know that something is wrong with text. If you don t change names the same text seems to be acceptable, because those writers bury the true meaning of the text that is sometimes truly illogical behind mask of eloquent wordplays and rhetoric, they use words like “now you can see that”, “now it is clear that”, “we can now be sure that” etc. although inner logic behind text can be increasingly faulty. They also present “evidence” that is not evidence when you analyze it. But changing name to Bugs Bunny for example is not good thing, anthropomorphic creature is not substitute for human, so when name of famous men (Jesus, Paul, Peter) are changed they must be other famous men like Julius Caesar, emperor Augustus, Churchill, Napoleon, Bismarck etc.
For example internet can be used to check what is that thing and what evidence there is when bible scholars say that “now it is clear that” and “it is a fact that”, and “there is consensus among bible scholars that” (what evidence this consensus is based? Is it plausible or is it just a theory?). When bible scholars claim that something is fact it is possible to check it out using internet. Often it is just wasted time because in most cases it really is just well known fact and there is nothing wrong about that, but sometimes this so called fact is not so clear is there really enough evidence to support it or it is just a theory based on scholarly consensus. Also often information where you can search is the fact true or not is behind paywall or at least in some netpage which requires signing in.
I don t know what happens to scientific study about Mary Magdalene if the name is changed to Marilyn Monroe for example, but at least to me this name changing technique has been helpful and I have found how some of the bible scholars works are good and some are bad, and this name changing has helped me to do the divide. At least for me, I don t know how it works if other people are using same technique or does it work at all with other people.
About Qumran texts: they were written in aramaic/hebrew but also greek texts were in Qumran caves. Those greek texts were outside from essene society, essenes just stored them probably. So aramaic/hebrew texts were written perhaps with “old fashioned style” and modern greek texts that were stored in Qumran with modern style, because essenes probably did not wrote them anyway but just store them, or read too, if they knew greek language.
About Buddha and Jesus, their stories have such common features, that they cannot be just similarities, actually the life of Buddha can be more or less “reconstructed” using stories of Jesus, and vice versa. So what happened? Life stories of Buddha were collected in written form some centuries after Jesus, but they survive in written text, if early small fragments are not counted, much later in time, perhaps near 1000 AD or later? Or much later? Comprehensive life stories of Buddha. In that time buddhism was under influence of christianity and manicheanism and islam. There happened change in buddhist doctrine when eschatology appeared in buddhism after 1000 AD, the idea of coming messianic Buddha that appears during end of times, Maitreya. The name Maitreya even resembles the word messiah. There even exists religious trinity doctrine in buddhism (!), “Mahayana buddhist triad”. Mahayana is later buddhist sect than early buddhist schools of thought and considered “unoriginal” among buddhist purists. And Nichiren buddhism sects that are popular in Japan, one buddhist sect in Japan declares that coming messianic Buddha that appears during end of times is Jesus. “The little known legend of Jesus in Japan”. “Manichean painting of Buddha Jesus”. Incarnations of Buddha are called “Infinite light” and “illuminator” which may be manichean influence. In China Mani was called “Buddha of light”. So which influenced what, stories of Jesus or stories of Buddha? Stories of Jesus influenced to Buddha s life story and also religious doctrine was changed so that new messianic doctrine that was missing in early buddhism was added that followed christian doctrines. Stories about Buddha s life have survived in written form much later in time than gospels, perhaps 1000 year time gap or even more? Complete or almost complete stories of Buddha s life.
That name changing technique which can be used in scientific texts of historical people, it works in Wikipedia articles also, and it can be any famous men, not only from antique times or other old times, also Roosevelt, Eisenhower or Trump will do etc. For example wiki article “Suetonius on christians”, in section “Interpretation”, like this: Edwin M. Yamaguchi states that a growing number of scholars have accepted the argument that the “Trump” mentioned in Suetonius was some other political agitator called Trump and not Donald Trump, that Trump was a common name and that person has no association with trumpsters.

Interesting concept in buddhism is “buddhist triad” that appears in many buddhist sects. This “Trikaya” or “three bodies” priniciple is “supreme state of absolute knowledge”, “heavenly mode” (spirit), and “earthly mode, Buddha as appeared on earth, earthly king”. This is christian trinity, God, Holy Spirit and Christ. Messiah- Buddha, Maitreya, is sometimes part of buddhist triad. Word Maitreya means friendly, in islam word Wali (friend of Allah) is used to describe saints of islam and also prophets like Mohammed and Jesus. Word Maitreya resembles words Mahdi and Messiah, and also concept is similar.
And just google “Buddha Jesus sutras”. The question which religion influenced which is best based comparing surviving written documents of each religion. Buddhist written texts about Buddha s life stories have surviving (complete or almost complete) extant copies in much later time than gospels. Same goes for religious doctrinal themes, those buddhist doctrines resembling christianity are from later buddhist sects than original buddhism. “The centuries-old dialogue between buddhism and christianity”. Western scholars are skeptical about what amount of Buddha s sayings really come from verbal and written tradition from historical Buddha itself and what is later addition. Western studies of buddhism has found small amount of texts in early suras that possibly comes from historical Buddha, vast amount of other buddhist texts were added later. So not only buddhist texts have survived in almost complete copies from much later time than gospels, also those texts contain only very small amount of sayings of historical Buddha itself, vast canon of buddhist texts are later addition, and large amount of later buddhist sects than original buddhism appeared after christianity and those buddhist sects wrote their own texts. The Pali canon, first buddhist texts were actually written after 400 AD about according to western scholars, and may or may not contain very small amount of sayings of historical Buddha. Pali canon in written surviving form (complete or almost complete) is from after 1700 AD. So comparing gospels and buddhist texts about Buddha and his life story and sayings and then parallels to Jesus is pretty pointless when there is more than 1400 year time gap of surviving texts. So in textual history christianity influenced buddhism, life story of Buddha and buddhist texts.
About atheism: “Godless grifters: how the new atheists merged with the far right”, “New atheism and the emergence of alt-right”, “Atheism and alt-right - conservapedia”, “The atheist alt-right connection”, “Rehashing the new atheist to fascist pipeline”. "Atheist myth: “no one has ever killed in the name of atheism”. And even “Atheists against atheism”. And googling “atheist right wing”.

The chance that Buddha s life and sayings have influenced Jesus s life story and sayings is simply improbable because large corpus of buddhist texts have survived mainly from 1700 AD onward, they are 300 year old or less. And from 1700 AD even christian missionaries from England may have influenced buddhism, not only old christianity in India. Comparing texts that are 300 year old or younger and then 1700 - 1800 year old and claiming that those 300 year old texts have influenced texts that are 1400 year older, is simply too far. But christianity has influenced buddhism. Some of those concepts, buddhist triad is carved in stone in early times (but still half thousand years after Jesus and several hundred years after trinity become doctrine in christianity), and also virgin birth of Buddha is mentioned by church father Jerome sometime between 380 - 420 AD. But virgin Mary worshipping was in christianity from early on, and in India was christianity from almost from the beginning. So more probable is that christianity influenced buddhism in this thing too.
Buddhist also wrote lots of texts during 300 - 500 AD. First most of buddhist Pali canon was written and at same time other sects than original buddhism wrote their own texts too. So there was lot of religious text writing happening in 300 - 500 AD in buddhism. In modern digital times is word “content provider” used. When those buddhist wrote their texts, they need content what to write about. In India of course was hindu philosophy which buddhism constantly debated against, buddhism was like a protest religion that was against hinduism like islam is protest religion against christianity and judaism. But those buddhist writers were “content providers” of their time, they needed lots of material to write about. Perhaps that s why they turned to christian doctrines and stories, not only hindu ones. The massive amount of buddhist texts increased in coming centuries and after 1000 AD even more. So when Jerome noted virgin birth of Buddha sometimes around 380 - 420 AD that story might be only 50 - 100 years old, because lots of buddhist texts were written then.

The 1.Clement epistle may come from very early, 60s AD, because Clement uses composite quotations from gospels (netpages etimasthe com and pursuingveritas com). Those may be composite quotations or Clement uses original long text that all four gospels used. So it is perhaps this long aramaic gospel text that Clement is referencing, not separate gospels that were extracted from this one large gospel text. So this text survided at least until Clement wrote his letter. But Clement was perhaps greek so not so good theory, or there was someone who read aloud this text and while reading translated this text to greek. If Polycarp used same text he perhaps simply quoted Clement or used Papia s “Sayings of Jesus” text. So it is possible that Clement was that person which Paul mentioned in new testament. But this is just wild theory.
About Papias: he collected sayings of Jesus but wanted to be completist and “never throw anything away” so he collected all texts that he could find not separating first gnostic texts (there was just one gnostic gospel text, gospel of Egyptians, at those days, that is known, and that text was very new when Papias wrote Sayings of Jesus text). But because Papias was such a completist who did not discard anything it was the reason, ironically, that text not survived. So because Papias was so careful and he wanted to make his Jesus sayings text as complete as possible for future generations, without throwing anything away, no matter what those texts he had contained, it eventually become the reason why his “Jesus sayings” text was not copied, although it was copied to perhaps until 400 AD or so, because he included gnostic texts in those writings too. It is known that church fathers heavily criticized Papias for inclusion of gnostic texts.
About the Talpiot tomb case, the “Jesus family tomb” found in 1980. The tomb was open to people come and go before archeologists arrived, and even after that other people went in and out of tomb quite freely, and when ossuaries were taken out of tomb, they were in a place where people again passed them by and had access to ossuaries without much control, and one ossuary either disappeared or was stolen. The tomb was also visited before it was opened, according to archeologists during antique times but all that is known is that tomb was visited before it was opened 1980. “Evidence: the Talpiot tombs: again and again and again!” confirmedword blogspot com. "The tree tombs of Jesus: Which is the real one? biblicalarcheologyreport com 2019. This case is linked to “James ossuary” and “Jehoash inscription” cases and antique dealer Oded Golan. Golan had 44 charges about forgery and illegal antique dealing, the forgery was not proofed according to Israel court but illegal trade was. The “Jehoash inscription” that Israel court ruled cannot be proofed as forgery, it has during examination found to be containing wrong words and phrases than real historical artifacts of the era so Jehoash inscription is not from antiquity. James ossuary claimed to be from Talpiot tomb was in Golan s custody from 1976 and Talpiot tomb opened 1980, and he said that James ossuary was from Silwan not Talpiot, also during laboratory examination ossuary was found to have been in soil in Silwan area, not in Talpiot. Also although Israel court judged that it and Jehoash inscription cannot be proofed to be forgery, they cannot be judged to be real either. There was another chemical examination but that was not verified in any scientific magazine and sample was too small size to have any reliable result and that kind of analysis that was used cannot actually prove anything according to one comment, and analysis was paid by Simcha Jacobovici who has made sensational claims about Talpiot tomb before. So if antique dealer who was in illegal antique trade has not one, but two groundbreaking super rare and super valuable artifacts, that is not best proof of authenticity of those artifacts.
Talpiot tomb ossuaries are also more than strange, 6 of them have writing, but in 4 different languages, aramaic, hebrew, greek and even form of latin. Latin in jewish grave? And greek. There is greek text (female) rabbi Mary (Magdalene) which is most suspicious of all. The word “Jesus” is so distorted that it cannot be said is it Jesus or some other word. Also the “cross” mark in ossuaries is not cross but “X” mark that was used to point ossuary at right direction in tomb, and according to one information ossuary of Jesus and some other ossuaries were empty and did not contain bones. The “Joseph” ossuary was claimed to be father of Jesus but when this proved ridiculous claim (he was not buried in Jerusalem) it was changed to brother of Jesus. Scientists have made statistical studies of names in Jerusalem in those times etc., but all of that is futile if those name markings in ossuaries are forgeries. Not only if name markings are forged, but what about if the whole thing is a setup? The widow of one of two archeologists that studied the tomb has made statements in public that are clearly a misinformation. Why she has done that? That is clearly a bad sign in scientific case if some who is involved, in form of another, spreads willingly wrong information about the thing. The favorite theory is that some people had access to ossuaries and made markings in them, but what if the whole Talpiot tomb case is set up. Who done it, and for what reason?
Earlier was the “Secret gospel of Mark” - case, when Morton Smith in 1973 revealed text he had found, although it seems that this fraud is based to old James Hunter novel “Mystery of Mar Saba”, Morton Smith s gospel text even quotes word-for-word Helena Blavatsky s texts, for example “Stanzas of Dzyan” etc. Then 7 years later Talpiot tomb case, what would have been inspiration for such forgery? This is list: “Jesus died in Kashmir” Faber-Kaiser 1977, “Jesus hypotheses” Vittorio Messori 1977, “Lost gospel of Jesus” Gene Savoy 1978, “The search for the tomb of Jesus” McBirnie 1975/78, “Jesus the magician” Morton Smith (again) 1978, “The true founder of Christianity” Max Rieser 1979, “Debate about Christ” 1979 Don Cupitt. Also fiction had Jesus themed books 1979: “The Jesus incident” Frank Herbert 1979, “Jesus on Mars” Philip Jose Farmer 1979. Also in film and TV Jesus was in fashion: “Jesus of Nazareth” TV series 1977, produced by jewish film producer, huge success, and “Jesus the film” 1979. It is four things that are probably behind inspiration of the Talpiot tomb case, the “Jesus film” 1979 which was made by jewish film producer, with lots of jewish actors and cast, and filmed in Israel. The film was financial disappointment at first but then become huge success. Another thing was “The Talmud of Jmmanuel”, published in book form 1978, nowdays forgotten german forgery where was claimed that tomb of Jesus was found, and not only the tomb of Jesus, but “Talmud” of Jesus was found too, the secret real gospel of Jesus. Third is “The search for the tomb of Jesus” book. Fourth is “International conference on the deliverance of Jesus from the cross” 1978 that was published in book form too. Those four things may have triggered the Talpiot tomb forgeries, but as can be seen Jesus was all over the place in bookstores in 1978-1979, concerning the fact that it was seventies then, not much published books about Jesus then that is published now, and those sensationalist books where Jesus went to India etc. made headlines in 1978-79. And Jesus was in TV screens and cinemas too. So that is perhaps the reason why 1980 was the time of Talpiot tomb. In years 1978-1979 was published more sensational books about Jesus than perhaps ever before. Talpiot tomb ossuaries catalogy was published 1994, 14 years after the opening of tomb, why? In 1993 was published bestseller book by Paul L. Maier, bible scholar, “A Skeleton in God s closet”, fictional novel how skeleton of Jesus is found, and that brings collapse to christianity . In 1996, 16 years after tomb opening, report of Talpiot tomb is published, and James Tabor released his book “The Jesus dynasty”.

The question was Jesus disciples or Jesus himself illiterate is being debated. It seems that archeological evidence is regularly dismissed in this debate. For example “Were Jesus s disciples illiterate peasants?” from netpage apoleticsguy com, and from netpage freerepublic com “Literacy in the time of Jesus - could his words have been recorded in his lifetime?”. For some odd reason it is difficult to find those two most interesting netpages about the subject when googling, although google shows dozens of all kind of other netpages about Jesus and literacy rate among jews. Jesus told “read” 60 times in gospels when he was questioned in the gospels, and evidence in surviving manuscripts and notes from those times show that jewish girls not even were taught to write, they were given greek lessons too (essenes wrote that girls should not be taught greek in essene community, so outside essene community to jewish girls were taught greek). In the time of revolt against romans about 70 AD it was instructed that jewish children should not study greek anymore. If children studied foreign language they surely studied aramaic too. And archeology has found all kinds of scrap papers written by ordinary people, and some show fluent writing, some are more clumsily written, and some have only simply mark, so those could not write. But the rate of those that could write is much higher than just 1,5-3% of population which is claimed to be jewish literacy rate. Also: “Literacy in the time of Jesus” from netpage: sites google com. “Schools, education and literacy of jews in synagogues” in netpage bible ca. And “The biblical gospels were all originally anonymous? How historically plausible is that?”. But still is released book that claim Jesus was illiterate, “Jesus literacy” by Chris Keith, there is constructed complicated sosio-economic theory about Jesus who was completely or half illterate. The “evidence” comes from apocryphal Infancy gospel of Thomas, which is bit hilarious from scientific study, because already from 1800s / 1700s or even middle ages was found that apocryphal gospels have no value if historical Jesus is studied. But modern liberal bible research, Bart Ehrman and John D. Crossan etc. use apocryphal gospels, gnostic writings etc. fairytales constantly, to prove their “scientific” studies. It is a bit sad that that so called liberal bible research has degenerated so badly that they must use gnostic writings and other apocrypha. But it is all they have. Not even in middle ages, when Erasmus etc. old bible researchers made bible studies even they discarded gnostic writings and apocrypha as useless. So modern bible research, with all modern knowledge, computers, databases etc. has degenerated to something so bad that it picks up evidence from those writings, so that modern liberal bible research has degenerated to back in time 2000 years. Then this “evidence” is used to “prove” elaborate theories and mind games that seems to make sense if you are willing to lose your common sense and everyday logic. So when archeology shows that not only jewish boys but girls too were taught to write and read, and also foreign language too, and for example essenes who were not rich people or oligarchs of their society taught their children to read. It is commonly claimed that only small amount of priviliged persons had possibility to go to school. All this archeological evidence about how people who were laymen did read and write is ignored in studies that are based, instead of that evidence what really was in those times and what archeology has shown, about Infancy gospel of Thomas etc. historical nonsense. Modern bible research yeah.
There is so called acta literature, acts of apostles, that has some tradition from history, but interweaved with legends, and some parts of acta literature has some valuable information, but it is buried inside legends. Outside acta literature not much valuable exists, and for example using gnostic writings or Infancy gospel of Thomas etc. to “prove” that four gospels are wrong is absurd, reductio ad absurdum. But modern liberal bible scholarship uses it constantly. Even in antique times was known that gnostic writings etc. are fairytales. Only people in the world who don t seem to understand this almost 2000 year old fact are modern liberal bible scholars.
That apostles had greek names: their names were greco-romanised when gospels were translated to greek. Saul become Paul, Levi become Matthew, Simon become Peter. Apostles did not have greek names originally.
“Jerusalem burial cave reveals: names, testimonies of first christians” 1998. At least such things like ossuaries with name female rabbi Mary (Magdalene) was not found there nor was those tombs linked with antique dealer doing illegal antique trade. So those tombs and ossuaries in 1998 article are truly from antique times.

This post is about Buddha and Jesus. There are many netpages where are parallels between sayings of Jesus and Buddha, and a book by Marcus J. Borg. Those parallels can be coincidental, same kind of teachings produce same kind of texts. But is there any influence between those texts? Did writers of those texts, gospels and buddhist texts, know the other text when they wrote their own text?
Firstly, buddhist scripture canon is vast, it was produced in time scale of thousand years or more from about 0 AD onwards. Before that buddhist teachings were only oral tradition during almost 500 years. Western scientists focus on some early buddhist texts, that western scholars think contain real teachings of Buddha that have orally transmitted to generation to another and finally written down. There are also written early buddhist texts that have survived (Wikipedia article), but even those are near 0 AD or centuries after. Now when comparing parallels between Jesus and Buddha, it must be known which is the earliest written surviving manuscript that contain those Buddha s words, which century and decade it is (if it can be traced as accurately as approx. decade(s)). Early buddhist texts are survived in fragments, the part of the text that contain those words that are parallels between Jesus and Buddha must be found, and then compare time of manuscripts between Jesus s and Buddha s sayings. Earliest pali text (pali language text, not the Pali canon?) is from 5th century AD, small gold plate with writing in it. But the early canon of buddhist texts was translated to other languages also.
Also comparisons between Socrates and Buddha, you can just google “Socrates and Buddha” or “Buddha and Socrates”. But there are no netpages that have parallel sayings of Socrates and Buddha, although also they have parallel sayings. Also their life stories have similarities, Socrates in his head heard “voice of god” since his childhood, this voice refused the tell its identity to Socrates although Socrates asked who this voice inside him was. After Socrates was “enlightened” in philosophy and knew the philosophical truths, this “voice of god” inside him forced Socrates to begin public preaching although Socrates was reluctant to go for public preaching and did not want to, but the voice of god inside him ordered he to do so. Buddha when he was enlightened was reluctant to go public preaching, he did not want to, but then supreme god Brahma appeared to Buddha and pleaded Buddha to start public preaching, which Buddha then did. Also the deaths of Buddha and Socrates have similarities, they died in the hands of their enemies, poisoned. So not only in philosophy, life stories have similarities too. There was area of “greco-buddhism” in Afghanistan, so it is possible that not only buddhism approached west, it is possible that hellenistic philosophy went towards east. Has anyone studied possible greek philosophy in buddhism?
There is also massive amount of similarities between life stories of Buddha and Jesus, the only major difference between Jesus and Buddha biographies is that Buddha did not die on the cross. But that would perhaps gone too far (or too close as might say) in similarities, so it is not included. I even read that when Buddha was born, group of “wise men” from other countries that travelled from far away visited infant buddha and brought him presents and honoured little Buddha that was just born, like wise men/magi in the bible.
If there is influence between traditions, which way it goes, from Buddha to Jesus or from Jesus to Buddha? The time of surviving manuscripts that contain those stories of Buddha is late, perhaps around 1000 AD or later, (much later), I don t know. If there are parallels between Jesus s and Buddha s life and sayings, the lateness of surviving buddhist manuscripts makes impossible to make any claims based on evidence that Buddha influenced Jesus. Also buddhist canon, teachings of Buddha, was ever-expanding writing project that continued perhaps over 1000 years from about 0 AD onwards, so it is no wonder that possible similarities began appear between buddhist and christian writings. From early on christianity arrived in India.
There is Indian folk story that tamil prince was traveling with the wise men / magi who visited infant Jesus. Because this is Indian folk story, and probably in hindu environment, why should some tamil pronce, hindu, go for a trip to faraway palestine, foreign land, outside India, for a christian mission? It would be more logical that this tamil prince should travel to meet some local hindu sage, holy man, not to foreign lands. Or at least he should go to meet just born Buddha, to honour him, not faraway Jesus that has nothing to do with indian culture. Also in Pakistan in Taxila is folk legend that wise men / magi went through Taxila on their way to Palestine. Why in animistic pagan Taxila, or was it hindu or buddhist region, should they go to Palestine for a christian mission? They should too have gone to meet Buddha, not Jesus, or some hindu holy man, not some foreigner with alien religion. This shows the way which influence went, there where christian influence in India, it was from west to east direction which way the dialogue between religions went when folk legends are studied.
There certainly was some knowledge of buddhism in the middle east in about 0 AD and in Egypt also. In archive org is text by Albert J. Edmunds, “Buddhist texts quoted as scripture” 1906. There is two verses in the gospel of John, 7:38 and 12:34. The latter, John 12:34 and word “eternity” mentioned in that verse, and because word “eternity” is in that verse, it somehow is connected to buddhism. This is really far-out theory and not worth taken seriously. In Edmunds s text is that John 12:34 possible uses aramaic bible s Isaiah 9:7 as inspiration. But the verse of of John 7:38, is it from the “twin miracle” of Buddha? First must be known in which era twin miracle is recorded in time. According to Edmunds text it was in the statues of Great Stupa in Sri Lanka, but this is based on archeology study of the late 1800s, and actual statues are missing so they are not anymore there, and the Great Stupa was rebuild many times since it was first build, many times rebuild and renovated, so in what era those statues appeared, what statues were there originally if any, and what was added later in Great Stupa, and the stupa was rebuild and renovated many times, and actual statues are missing anyway, and how reliable is this late 1800s archeology theory. In Wikipedia is carving in stone in “Twin miracle” article that is between 100 - 200 AD, in that time was twin miracle in buddhist folklore. It was forbidden to write that Buddha performed miracles in official buddhist canon, so those miracle stories of Buddha are “apocryphal”. So it is possible that twin miracle story appeared after time of Jesus in buddhist folklore.
The John 7:38 has many explanations, mainly that Isaiah 12:3 was the “scripture” referenced, for example Joel Marcus 1998 “Rivers of living water from Jesus s belly”. There is also references to Isaiah 32:15, 35:6, 44:3, 55:1, 58:11 in John 7:38-39. “Living water” appears in old testament also, Jeremiah 2:13, 17:13, Song of Solomon 4:15, and in gospel of John in other places, for example John 4:10-11. In netpage preceptaustin org John 7:38 Commentary is more.
But what I found is that Zachariach 14:8 suits too, not only Isaiah 12:3 as source. In syriac John 7:38 there is “scriptures” in place of word “scripture”, so John 7:38 can refer to many scriptures in old testament. Zachariach 14:8 is about Jerusalem, and Jerusalem as a city has feminine noun, Jerusalem is called “she” or “her”, Jerusalem as a woman in old testament scripture. Because Jerusalem from where living water flow is called as human being, “she” instead of “it”, and Jesus refers to old testament scripture, but there is now new covenant, not old, and Jesus is new covenant, when old testament Zachariah 14:8 tells about blessings of old covenant that Jerusalem gives, now when Jesus is new covenant those blessings come from him. Jerusalem was called like human being, as a person, woman, “she” in old testament. The aramaic word used is “belly, womb” from where the water flows in John 7:38 in aramaic bible, so it fits together with Zachariach 14:8. This is just my theory, biblical experts favor Isaiah 12:3 as source. Also suscopts org “What scripture was Jesus referring to in John 7:38”.
From Edmund s text: “Three stories in the christian apocryphal gospels are also found in buddhist apocryphal gospel, Lalita Vistala”… “Tathatago is religious equivalent to Christ”. Exactly. "In Sutta Nipato, Maha Vaggo, Nalata-Suttam is that “The heavenly hosts rejoicing, delighted, and Sakko the leader and angels, white-stolen, seizing their robes, and praising. Did Asito the hermit see noonday rest (he asks the angels why they rejoice, and they answer) the Buddha to be, the best matchless jewel, is born in for wealth and welfare in the world of men, in the town of the Sakyas, in the region of Lumbusi, therefore are we joyful and exceeding glad”. “The parallel is further carried out in the narrative: the hermit, like the shepherds, goes to pay reverence to the newborn saviour”. Can it be any clearer? According to Edmunds this is from gospels. It is from gospels. But this text is not from time before Jesus, it is after, perhaps 1000 years after Jesus or so, I am not expert of buddhist texts. Also from Edmunds: “Ceylon chronicles contain many absurdities…the Avadanas are semi-canonical, they were only admitted into the Pali canon by one school of reciters”.
Also Devadatta, buddhist Judas, has in his story parallells to story of Judas in bible? From netpage gotquestions org “How did Judas die?”. In the book of Acts, Judas s body ruptures, he fells down in the field and dies, the buddhist Judas Devadatta dies when he becomes sick, and then earth swallows him.
From netpage bibleprobe com : “Buddha prophesized about the coming Jesus”. In Cambodia is buddhist scripture where Buddha tells about Jesus. This “prophecy” is late addition to buddhist canon like all stories that connect christianity to buddhism, it is not from about 500 BC as writer of this net article claims, more probably the time when this is written is after 1500 AD or so, I am not an expert of buddhist texts, but this “ancient prophecy” is not so ancient.
Buddhist texts are not so old, majority of text manuscripts in vast buddhist canon come from about 1700 AD or are younger than that, I have read, because weather conditions in southeast asia don t preserve manuscripts well.
So when Edmunds wrote his study in 1906, those “ancient texts” which he used may be only few hundred years old.
The twin miracle article in Wikipedia has pictures of early statues of twin miracle dated between second and third century AD, but in Wikimedia commons are same statues and they are dated to third century AD or from 200 AD to 300 AD. So if those statues have approx. age from second to fourth century, that leaves 200 AD as median age of estimated date of manufacture of those early statues of twin miracle, about 200 years after Jesus.
When are earliest statues or stone carvings of buddhist triad, buddhist trinity, carved in stone? This is christian concept so that brings some timescale to seek out christian influence in buddhism. Or buddhist triad mentioned in manuscript fragments.

In previous post was mentioned indian folk stories about three wise men / magi who travelled to see young Jesus, and in indian folklore are tales that tamil prince was with them, and that they travelled through Taxila on the way to Palestine. Those are indian folk stories, magi did not go through Taxila, nor tamil prince was with them, but those stories point out that there was some interest of christianity in old India, although christianity there was like in modern days, marginal religion.
But those stories are connected to the story of star of Bethlehem, is this some indication that star of Bethlehem was seen in India also? That people of India, hindus or animistic pagans, chose that part of Jesus s story, the star of Bethelehem and magi, to be part of their folklore, does that show that star of Bethlehem was some significance to them? It was seen in India? And then there is taoism, in the legendary history of taoism it begin when there was restlessness in china among common people because they saw signs (somewhere) that “new era has now begun”, and then came in the court of emperor Ai (“emperor August”) a holy man, called “celestial master” who had within him a holy book, “Celestial book of peace”. This was legendary beginning of taoist religion. But this same story was told many times again later in taoist history, about three or four times in later centuries celestial master or holy man and book of celestial peace appears so it is the same story written back in time again and again. Those stories appear in taoist history which was written after 500 AD. Taoism as a religion emerged only at the 5th/6th century AD, and they wrote themselves a history, first taoist history is from after 500 AD. Interesting about this story is that “signs” that made chinese people restless appeared just few years before 0 AD, just like star of Bethlehem appeared few years before 0 AD. And in India too stories connected to star of Bethlehem are in local folklore. Was star of Bethlehem global event? Supernova or nova, something bright in the sky that people cannot pass unnoticed. In the west roman empire censored official astronomy chronicles that have dates in the time of star of Bethlehem, about 10 BC to some decades after, so that official astronomical records have no star of Bethlehem observed, but it is in korean and chinese astronomy records, or something like that, I don t remember.
The “celestial master” and “Celestial book of peace” may point towards celestial event in the night sky in China in few years before 0 AD, and the “era of the sign” in China in those days that made people restless. Also three roman historians noticed that near 0 AD was restlessness in Arabia, because people saw “signs in the sky”, and some kind of prophecy of king/messiah appeared, and one roman historian mentions that “always superstitious arabs saw it too” (the sign in the sky). Those historians wrote about history around 0 AD and lived during those times (?) so all three were almost certainly pagans, not christians. But I don t remember names of those three, and internet is not much help in this case.
About christianity and buddhism: in internet is lot of netpages how buddhism influenced christianity and life story of Jesus. Evidence of this is from buddhist scriptures. But those parts of those scriptures that are quoted, are parallel sayings that may have simple no direct connection, they are just parallel sayings that were made without knowledge of the other text. And then is the age of the buddhist texts, meaning the age of the earliest surviving manuscript passages where those buddhist similarities to christianity appear. Those surviving manuscripts are so young, over 500 years younger, or about 1000 years or even more younger in most cases than oldest surviving gospel manuscripts. And then those buddhist manuscripts are used in such polemic like “how buddhist influenced christianity”, and “Jesus is Buddha” in internet. Proper order should be “how christianity influenced buddhism” and “Buddha is Jesus”. There was knowledge of buddhism in middle east in time of Jesus, but it must be proven that it had some influence to christianity. Based on manuscript evidence it is quite impossible, because buddhist manuscripts are so young. However, it is quite clear, based on manuscript evidence, that christianity has influenced buddhist writings, largely in the life story of Buddha. Those are in “buddhist gospels” of Buddha s life and mainly in “apocryphal gospels of Buddha”, as western writers label them.
And then those scriptures where buddhism is influenced by christianity, are used to “prove” that christianity borrowed from buddhism. That is circular logic.
But also Socrates and Buddha, their life stories, Socrates was accused being atheist, against greek pagan gods, and because of this he was convicted to death and he had to take poison cup. Buddha was against pagan hindu gods, buddhism is even said to be “world s only atheist religion”, although it only forbids to make any speculation about the existence of God, because human beings cannot understand such high being like God anyway, and any speculation of God s will or purpose is futile and strictly forbidden in buddhism. In buddhist scriptures is how Buddha meets two hindu priests on the road, and Buddha began ruthless mockery against hinduism and their pagan gods. This story is not from historical Buddha but written after the age of historical Buddha, but it reveals what was the attitude of buddhists against pagan hindu gods and hindu religion. So in life story of Buddha, hindu poisoned Buddha because Buddha was against pagan gods, and Buddha died. Both Socrates and Buddha died because they were against pagan gods of their society and they were considered “atheists” in their time, so both must die then, poisoned. Although Socrates in his head heard “voice of god” that guided him, when Socrates asked what that voice was, that voice refused to answer, Socrates speculated that perhaps it was the greek god Pan, but he said that he did not knew what was that voice inside him. He told this to Plato or to someone, I don t remember.
And when they both were in their death beds they both gave heir last philosophical treatise, their coda of thought. This makes me think is this one and same story. And the stories how they both first refused and were reluctant to begin public preaching when they become “enlightened”, in the case of Socrates enlightened of philosophy, but then they both received “message from above” that ordered both of them to begin public peaching, in the case of Socrates preaching philosophy.
The history of mahayana buddhism. This “pure land” buddhism was first meditation technique, serene and pastoral. But at later times it had eschatology, stories of end of the world, and coming buddhist messiah that appear at the end of the times. The violent story of chaos at the end of the world and coming messiah, and the serene “pure land” buddhism meditation, show the evolution of this buddhist sect, it began as peaceful meditation technique but then developed story similar to christian eschatology, messiah and all. This shows how buddhism took parts of christianity within itself. Surviving manuscripts of Mahayana eschatology are young, younger than “pure land” meditation texts.
There is hindu text Bhavishya Purana, both Jesus and Mohammed are mentioned in it. Also in some tibetian (?) buddhist text has Mohammed, in it Mohammed after his death have become “avatar” that fights against pagan hindu gods in heaven, like some heavenly army general. I read that from somewhere. And Jesus is also mentioned in some other buddhist texts, not only in that Cambodian text that was in previous post, I think, I am not sure.
There is netpage jesusbuddha com and text “The Christian Lintner (CLT) theory of buddhist…” This is old “bible code” thing. “Bible code” is that in text (it can be any text, not just religious text) has “secret messages” that can be decoded. But it is just statistical mathematics, only large enough text material is needed and then “secret messages” can be “decoded” from it. But this is statistical mathematics, if amount of text is large enough all kinds of “numerology” tricks can be done with the text, but they are just tricks, everyone can invent “secret messages” in some text and then “decode” them, but it is not because secret messages are in that text, those secret messages are writer s invention. And that netpage succumbs into numerology. Also manuscript evidence of those buddhist texts compared to gospels comes after the time of gospels, those buddhist texts appear in manuscript form, that contain those verses compared, centuries after gospels, so in that way too this kind of numerology thing is futile.
There are “Jesus sutras”, link between christianity, buddhism and taoism. That is one way how christianity influenced both buddhism and taoism. In taoism end of times prophecy, taoist messiah, and influence from book of Revelation has been noted.