Putting the Jesus Puzzle Together in 12 Easy Pieces

[Meshuga]

Below is an interesting summary as a "quick assembly" of the supposedly historical Jesus taken from Earl Doherty's website (http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/). Earl Doherty's argument is not "Jesus didn't exist, therefore Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect" but "Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect, therefore Jesus didn't exist."

For each piece of the puzzle below there is a link or a group of links with the supporting article(s).

It's pretty interesting and educational read. I would recommend the full list of the 12 pieces to this "puzzle" found at http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/puzzle1.htm.

Piece No. 1: A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE
The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus’ career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.

http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partone.htm


Piece No. 2: A MUTE RECORD WORLD WIDE
The first clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human man in recent history is made by the Roman historian Tacitus around 115 CE, but he may simply be repeating newly-developed Christian belief in an historical Jesus in the Rome of his day. Several earlier Jewish and pagan writers are notably silent. The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, published in the 90s, contains two famous references to Jesus, but these are inconclusive. The first passage, as it stands, is universally acknowledged to be a later Christian insertion, and attempts have failed to prove some form of authentic original; the second also shows signs of later Christian tampering. References to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud are garbled and come from traditions which were only recorded in the third century and later.

http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/postscpt.htm
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfset3.htm#Sean
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfset1.htm#Steven


Piece No. 3: REVEALING THE SECRET OF CHRIST
Paul and other early writers speak of the divine Son of their faith entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure; they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" (literally, "Anointed Savior" or "Savior Messiah") as a man who had lived and died in recent history. Instead, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, God has revealed the existence of his Son and the role he has played in the divine plan for salvation. These early writers talk of long-hidden secrets being disclosed for the first time to apostles like Paul, with no mention of an historical Jesus who played any part in revealing himself, thus leaving no room for a human man at the beginning of the Christian movement. Paul makes it clear that his knowledge and message about the Christ is derived from scripture under God’s inspiration.

http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/parttwo.htm
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp01.htm
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp06.htm


Piece No. 4: A SACRIFICE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM
Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of "rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:8). The Epistle to the Hebrews locates Christ’s sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (ch. 8, 9). The Ascension of Isaiah, a composite Jewish-Christian work of the late first century, describes (9:13-15) Christ’s crucifixion by Satan and his demons in the firmament (the heavenly sphere between earth and moon). Knowledge of these events was derived from visionary experiences and from scripture, which was seen as a ‘window’ onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings.

http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/parttwo.htm
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp03.htm
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp09.htm

(...)

CONCLUSION: THE ASSEMBLED PUZZLE
Modern critical scholars have been dismantling the story of Jesus, attempting to salvage from it an inspiring sage for a more rational, enlightened future, and letting go the sacrificial divine Savior of an archaic past. Some of them are edging toward the admission that Paul's Christ had nothing to do with an historical man, while positioning their new teaching Jesus as only one element in the Jewish-Hellenistic synthesis which led to Christianity. The sage, however, is an artificial construct, a misreading (then and now) of the broader sectarian expressions of the day. And the links and lines of development between the various strands which scholars have created to make their scenarios hang together are largely unsupported by the evidence. The pieces of the Jesus Puzzle will not fit together except by abandoning any expectation of encountering an historical, human face. (The image assembled here is the glorified divine Christ of medieval Byzantine worship.)

I hope, through the cumulative analysis on this site, to lead the open-minded reader to the same conclusion: that there was no historical Jesus.

To go through all the 12 pieces of the puzzle follow the link below:

http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/puzzle1.htm

[BurtWorm]

1. It's well worth it!

As are Doherty's later comments, especially his dialogues with proponents of Jesus's historicity.

:toast:

[montanto]

2. Great reading,

thanks for posting.

[tnlurker]

3. I'll read later

This looks interesting

[whistle]

4. Most interesting

[unpossibles]

5. K&R n/t

[Hoping4Change]

6. This is hardly new. It reminds of The Pagan Christ by Tom Harper

which is an interesting read and very convincing. However if you read criticisms by bibical scholars, the arguments Harper puts forward are are shot full of holes.

[More Than A Feeling]

7. What about the arguments Doherty uses?

You don't say that they are the same as Harper's, so perhaps you might address Doherty's arguments? Unless they are the same, in which case, will you favor us with sources and possibly excerpts from these biblical scholars?

[Hoping4Change]

11. I make no judgement on Dorety. I always read the critics of novel ideas.

I feel it is encumbent for anyone who is serious about learning to get all perspectives. If you want to accept anything that looks like serious scholarship at face value, that's up to you. I'm simply recommending that EVERYTHING be taken with a grain of salt, even traditional views.

[bryant69]

13. That's foolish. Looking at all sides of an argument is tiring.

It takes a lot of work. I'd advise you to find people saying things you already agree with and read up on them. That is the most efficient use of the old brainpan.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

15. Do you speak from experience?

;)

[cosmik debris]

18. NIce Shot!

Bulls Eye!

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoping4Change]

28. What a riot. I can't believe what I'm reading. Have I stepped into

an Oral Roberts universe? Critical thinking is tiring so just accept any slop that sounds okay. Unbelieveable. How is that people for thousands of years have summoned the effort to put ideas to the test. Ever heard of Socrates and his method?


"The Socratic method to evaluate an argument, asking open questions, such as the following:

What do you mean by_______________?
How did you come to that conclusion?
Why do you believe that you are right?
What is the source of your information?
What assumption has led you to that conclusion?
What happens if you are wrong?
Can you give me two sources who disagree with you and explain why?
Why is this significant?
How do I know you are telling me the truth?
What is an alternate explanation for this phenomenon?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

[bryant69]

29. Not sure how to respond to this one

Hmmm I guess I'll go get two sources who disagree with you and get them to explain why?

Bryant

[On the Road]

8. I've Read Earl Dougherty's Material

and followed a long argument he had with New Testament scholars on a historical Jesus website.

Personally, I didn't think he was treated fairly by the mainstream scholars there. There are some striking things about his observations that could change the way people view early Christianity. On the other hand, his evidence has some serious weaknesses and omissions:

1) His argument is based on Paul's letters. By his own account, Paul was not part of the original movement and did not become involved until at least 15 years later. It would be more convincing if Dougherty showed that the Ebionites, who inherited the earliest Christian movement, also had a mythological view of Jesus. On the contrary, they not only saw Jesus as a human, they believed he had normal human parents rather than being conceived by a virgin.

2) The most straightforward evidence that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person is that he had a brother (James), referred to by Paul, the New Testament, and Josephus. Attempts to show that James was not Jesus' blood brother IMO depend on nothing more more than a desire to prove the conclusion.

3) Many of Dougherty's references come from Hebrews, whose authorship and date are in serious dispute. Personally, I think there internal evidence pointing to Paul as the author, but it's not conclusive and it is a minority view.

4) His "argument from silence" is based on the assumption that if Jesus had been a real figure, the historical record would contain more references to him. That is an enormous leap of faith. Jesus' was outside the religious and political power structure and probably and would most likely have been noticed only if he had led a rebellion like Judas of Galilee otherwise come to the attention of authorities. A huge amount of material was destroyed in the Jewish revolts and the material that survived is almost all from the collaborators (the Pharisees etc) rather than the opposition.

5) At the end of the 1st century, the Emperor Domitian had Jesus' grandnephews brought before authorities as "sons of David" and potential revolutionaries, but released them as harmless and uneducated peasants.

Paul did seem to equate Jesus with a mythological heavenly figure, and his perspective on Paul's letters is very compelling. But real religious figures are frequently mythologized. That is not a strong enough reason to believe that Jesus was fictional.

[BurtWorm]

10. On the question of James "brother of the Lord"

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfset3.htm#Sean

James "the Brother of the Lord"

There is no denying that Christians for 19 centuries have taken the phrase in Galatians 1:19 as meaning "sibling of Jesus," and traditions that James the Just was a (half) brother to Jesus of Nazareth may well be solely dependent on James' designation as "ton adelphon tou kuriou", which here makes its one appearance in the New Testament epistles. But was Paul referring to a blood brother?

The term "brother" (adelphos) appears throughout Paul's letters, and was a common designation Christians gave each other. In 1 Corinthians 1:1 Sosthenes is called adelphos, as is Timothy in Colossians 1:1. Neither of them, nor the 500+ "brothers" who received a vision of the spiritual Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:6, are being designated as siblings of Jesus or anyone else. "Brothers in the Lord" (ton adelphon en kurio) appears in Philippians 1:14 (the NEB translates it "our fellow-Christians"). Surely this is the clue to the meaning of the phrase applied to James. Indications are that James was the head of a particular conventicle in Jerusalem which bore witness to the spiritual Christ, and this group may have called itself "brethren of the Lord." (Just as the term adelphos was common in Greek circles to refer to the initiates who belonged to the mystery cults.) The position of James as head of this brotherhood may have resulted in a special designation for him as the brother of the Lord. Or Paul may have used the phrase simply to identify him as one of these "brethren". Thus I cannot agree with Sean that the phrase in Galatians "does not fit any type of Community situation." Note, too, that such designations are always "of the Lord", never "of Jesus."

...

[On the Road]

16. That is Not a Very Compelling Argument

No one who reads the material without a conclusion in mind would interpret it that way (especially the Josephus reference). Brother has a straightforward meaning, and despite his references to brethren, James was repeatedly referred to as the Lord's brother in a sense no one else was. Nothing in the context of those passages suggests it was used metaphorically. All that Dougherty is arguing is that it is a possible interpretation. On a subject like this, pretty much everything is possible. What's needed is a compelling reason to favor a metaphorical interpretation over the plain and common meaning of a word used multiple times by different people.

Earl Dougherty is arguing from silence, and then when the silence is broken he is saying it doesn't count.

[BurtWorm]

17. The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't find the meaning of "brother" all that straightforward.

(The first part of this definition is also interesting to read, if your interested in contorted logic.):


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm

(2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren". The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His "brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Genesis 13:8, 14:14-16; Leviticus 10:4; 1 Chronicles 15:5-10, 23:21-22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the "brethren" of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestant exegetes. On the orthodox side two views have long been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers, influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels, considered the "brethren" of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold that they were the Lord's cousins. That they were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matthew 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His "brethren", or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression.

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the MSS. of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other "brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named four.

The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: "He knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son"; and from Luke 2:7: "And she brought forth her firstborn son". Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children. "Firstborn" (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. "Opening the womb" is there given as the equivalent of "firstborn" (prototokos). An only child was thus no less "firstborn" than the first of many. Neither do the words "he knew her not till she brought forth" imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists.

[On the Road]

20. The Catholics Have Their Own Axe to Grind

They need to find an explanation which allows for the eternal virginity of Mary. Dougherty needs to find a definition in which someone can be called the 'brother' of a mythological figure.

Without knowing the langugages, I would concede the Catholic point that the same word can be used for brother and half brother. Either one of those options still leaves Jesus as a flesh and blood person.

[BurtWorm]

22. Only if the "brethren" were flesh and blood and it were established

much better than it is in the record that the relationship was based on blood. Even if some of the "brethren" were real human beings--such as James, the leader of the Jerusalem church--it doesn't mean they were literal brothers or relatives of any kind. Take for example this bit of scripture:

"Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved brother and fellow worker, and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Philemon 1:1-3).

Are Paul and his brother writing to their other brother and sister? No. Timothy is a companion of Paul's and Philemon and Apphia were members of the church in Colassae. This is not controversial as far as I know--and I just Googled and wikipedia'd it to double check. Clearly adelphus and adelphe meant something other than "blood relative" in a mess of contexts in Paul's epistles. Why not in the instance of "James brother of the Lord" as well? Why isn't it plausible that "Brother of the Lord" is synonymous with "Brother in Christ?"

[Meshuga]

19. A historical Jesus being noticed

As far as the "argument from silence" goes, being a "Jewish Messiah" (or the "moshiach") would make Jesus a pretty big figure (and dangerous one to Rome even), I would assume, considering what it meant to be a messiah since the messiah was supposed to be a military leader who would save Jews from their oppressors. Much like Bar Kokhba, one of many failed Messiahs.

Rabbi Akiva, proclaimed Bar Kokhba as the Jewish messiah around the second Jewish revolt but Bar Kokhba did not accomplish what he had to accomplish militarily to be considered the moshiach.

I don't know if you are suggesting that the proof of a historical Jesus was lost during Jewish Revolts but this would take a HUGE leap of faith and it is a pretty lame for someone to argue that a historical Jesus probably existed but his history was wiped out during the Jewish revolts.

[kwassa]

25. the word "Messiah" has more than one usage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Priestly and kingly messiahs

The Jewish term Messiah ("anointed") traditionally referred both to the King of Israel, epitomized in David, and to the High Priest, beginning with Aaron. The two meanings are made explicit in the Hebrew Bible, where King and High Priest are both anointed, and are also symbolized in the twin pillars of the temple and their bridging arch which unified them.

so Jesus would not be necessarily seen as a military leader, but perhaps simply as a priestly messiah.

[Meshuga]

26. The original meaning of Moshiach...

...is "annoited one".

"Melech HaMoshiach" (מלך המשיח ) would be "annoited king" and "Kohen HaMoshiach" (כּהן המשיח ) would be "annoited priest". David, for example, was referred to as "Melech HaMoshiach".

The hebrew bible explicitly says that "The Moshiach" or "HaMochiach" or "HaMoshiach Ben David", not "Melech HaMoshiach" or "Kohen HaMoshiach" would be be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments, a charismatic leader, a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions.

That's the idea of "The Moshiach". Was Jesus' title "Melech HaMoshiach" or "Kohen HaMoshiach"?

I agree that since that time the word messiah took on several meanings. But the word "moshiach" is still "annoited one". That's why Jews use "moshiach" instead of "messiah" when referring to the Jewish Messiah since "Messiah" means something completely different nowadays and has several uses.

[On the Road]

27. There Were Not Only Many Prophets,

There were many insurgents who actually lead armed uprisings against the Romans, all of which were crushed. "The Egyptian," Theudas, Niger, Judas of Galilee, and Menahem were among them. Despite the fact that he never had the impact on current events, Jesus has more attestation in the 1st and 2nd centuries than any of these figures. The gospel accounts portray Jesus as building up a following in the countryside and was only on the national radar for a moment before being arrested and executed.

A figure like Jesus would not be expected to generate much press except from accounts of his followers (which Dougherty discounts) and by his followers (which Dougherty also discounts). He then proceeds to argue from silence, when there is actually a wealth of material. None of these references are unassailable, but so is everything else from this time period.

As far as documents being destroyed, almost all of surviving Judaism is based on Pharisaic tradition and from Roman collaborators. The zealots and other anti-Romans were extremely numerous, but could not express their views publicly, and generated very little material, unless you count the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's a matter of the winners writing history; it does not mean that the losers didn't exist.

To give an example, less than 350 years ago, Sabbatai Zevi claimed to be the Jewish Messiah. He accumulated such a large following throughout Europe and Turkey that the Ottomans felt compelled imprisoned him for fear of a revolt, if not an international war. After his death, he fell into almost total obscurity and most of his writings and writing about him were destroyed, being preserved only in Muslim libraries and from a small group of followers.

Dougherty has a lot to offer on Paul's view of Jesus. But he takes Paul's writings at face value, and dismisses the fact that Paul joined a movement that had existed for 15-20 years and which by all accounts regarded a real human being as their Messiah.

[struggle4progress]

31. This may be one of the disagreements that split early Christianity from Judaism:

although Judaism had traditions expecting a military messiah, the early Christians never accepted that view of the messiah.

Of course, any historical conclusions -- obtained by combining several contradictory theological views, and trying to reason logically from the combination -- are suspect.

[GeorgeGist]

9. No need to solve a puzzle...

when the premise is so obviously false.

[bryant69]

14. So, if i understand you correctly, everybody who hasn't come to yoru conclusion

is a rube, tricked by an obvious ruse?

I guess that explains why you don't need to underline which premise you believe to be obviously false.

Bryant

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Kick

so i can find it later.

[starroute]

23. There are many ways to approach this question

I'm looking at my notes on early Christianity and finding some interesting things -- though I apologize that these notes are a composite of various readings, so I can't give sources.

One note I find says that "Christian" communities were already widespread in the Roman Empire by 50 AD and were also extremely diverse -- far more so than you'd expect to find in a movement that had begun only a few decades earlier among a small number of adherents. All of these groups present a mixture of Platonism and Hellenized Judaism, with a Jewish God and a Logos-style intermediary son. All of them are mystery cults, involving a mythic drama taking place in the spiritual realm and a Jesus who was betrayed and crucified, died and was reborn. They refer to Jesus as Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, Savior, Son of God, Seed of David, or Son of Man. But there are no historical trappings, no references to incarnation, no plain old "Jesus."

It's only after 90 AD that the term "Messiah" appears and that you also get references to Jesus's sayings, miracles, and healings. By 120 AD, there start to be mentions of the virgin birth and of Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist. And finally, between 130 and 150 AD, you find all the familiar people, places, and events of the Gospel stories -- Mary, Herod, Judas, Pilate, Lazarus, Galilee, Cana, Bethlehem, Nazareth, the River Jordan -- as well as the Last Supper, the Passion, and the Tomb.

I believe that some of this is the same material Doherty presents -- but it doesn't rely as narrowly on Paul as I recall Doherty doing. For me, the most striking point is the one about the widespread and diverse nature of Christian communities as early as 50 AD. That suggests more of a spontaneous, grassroots phenomenon, appearing at many places simultaneously but sharing ideas and formulations -- like, say, Democratic Underground -- than it does a doctrine being spread by the disciples of a single teacher.

One possibility I've seen mentioned is that Christianity actually pre-dates the presumed lifetime of Jesus and that this fact was later suppressed. By this account, Christianity can be traced back to both the messianic and apocalyptic Jewish sects of the last two centuries BC and the cultists in Alexandria who were deliberately trying to create a new salvationist religion that synthesized Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, and Buddhist elements. Both those groups had flourished for many years but then seem to vanish when "real" Christianity appears -- suggesting that Christianity was just a convenient name for the final synthesis of various pre-existing messiah/savior cults.

Among other things, this could explain the great diversity of Christians around 50 AD. If they really did come from diverse origins and were only in the process of hammering out a common creed, you would expect to find the degree of variation that apparently existed.

[BurtWorm]

24. That's a very plausible scenario, certainly.

:think:

[struggle4progress]

30. Your argument that a movement could not spread rapidly in a few decades

seems incorrect to me: travel was slow and dangerous by modern standards, but not impossible.

Within a period of four or five years, Caesar conducted military campaigns across all of Western Europe and invaded Brittania several times; by the death of Augustus the empire include all of Gaulia and Hispania.

Paul himself apparently had no difficulty traveling the Mediterranean extensively.

A few dedicated, persistent and persuasive people might have credibly established a number of communities within two or three decades.