http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives ... ment-22913
I wonder if the author(s) of the Pauline epistles were not already thinking like Origen did later, in that they had to phrase the epistles in such a vague, mystical, allusive fashion so that the inner circle of converts (“apostles”) would understand the allegorical nature of the entire Christian ritual and liturgy, but the listening (and possibly reading) outer circle needed something more tangible and simple. It’s remarkable that someone could write thousands of words about the crucifixion of Christ and yet not make clear exactly when that happened. I’m not convinced that the authors even thought of it as a recent death (AD 30s). One of the potentially biggest differences between the epistles and the gospels is that “Paul” had no access to Josephus’s works, since they were not written yet, but the gospel writers have both Josephus AND the epistles as “sources.” And through these sources and the LXX they determine that Jesus died under Pilate, and the whole historicity project becomes urgent
This hypothesis would make the same "Mark" not less innocent than Paul, insofar Paul himself knew that he was enigmatic to his ignorant listeners, while "Mark" was giving only the his interpretation (one of a thousands possible) of the "event" Christ.
QUESTION: was Paul so sinister?