Couchoud on Talitha/Tabitha Kum

[Giuseppe]

Acts 9:36-42New International Version (NIV)

36 In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (in Greek her name is Dorcas); she was always doing good and helping the poor. 37 About that time she became sick and died, and her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room. 38 Lydda was near Joppa; so when the disciples heard that Peter was in Lydda, they sent two men to him and urged him, “Please come at once!”

39 Peter went with them, and when he arrived he was taken upstairs to the room. All the widows stood around him, crying and showing him the robes and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was still with them.

40 Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. 41 He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called for the believers, especially the widows, and presented her to them alive. 42 This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord.

According to Couchoud in a his minor work ("The Jesus Mystery"), there was a historical core behind the Peter's healing of Tabitha.

Why?

Because "Tabitha kum" ("Tabitha, get up") would become the "Talitha Kum" of the Gospel Jesus: the historical healing made by a historical Peter became an allegorical healing made by an invented Jesus.

Always according to Couchoud, the death of Stephan is historical. And it was allegorized by the betrayal by Peter of the Gospel Jesus, since it would explain why, according to Acts, Peter remained in Jerusalem even after the death of Stephan by hand of the Jewish leaders.

I don't know if Couchoud was entirely wrong about Acts (being Acts only mere 100% invention and propaganda). Or if he was right, since he did doubt seriously only about the historicity of Jesus, as only the story of the latter was preceded by one like Paul (with all that it means for a Mythicist).

[Giuseppe]

The "facts" could be the following ones:

Stephan existed and was persecuted by the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem because he wanted to follow the Christ of Paul.

If Peter wanted to continue his presence in Jerusalem, he had to abandon Paul.

Stephan or Paul (or both) were allegorized by a Gospel Jesus condemned by the priests.

It seems that we may "save" a historical core behind the death of Stephan only if we assume that the real persecutors were not the not-Christian Jews, but the Jewish-Christian followers of the Pillars, while the real victims were the followers of Paul.

Could the Judaizers appeal to the Romans against the Paulines?

Couchoud talks about the possibility that the conflict between anti-Christian Jews and Christian Jews in Rome moved Claudius to expel all the Jews from Rome. My personal question (and not of Couchoud): Could Claudius be precursor of the Gospel Pilate in his taking a so drastic decision?

[Giuseppe]

The same Paul could be cast in a "Roman citizen" so to remove the voices (and the suspect) that he was defamed by Judaizers who appealed usually to Roman authorities (Claudius?) against Paul & followers of Paul.

[Giuseppe]

Something as: how can you believe that Paul was a con man acting against both Jewish & Roman traditions, when himself was a Roman AND a Jew?

[Giuseppe]

In Romans Paul talks about the submission to Roman authorities. Evidently he knew that some PAULINE Christians became so libertine and radical in antinomian beahvior that they disturbed the Roman authorities (or they did risk so).

The Judaizers would have profited of this concrete risk and exposed Paul against the Romans.

Josephus was one who alerted the Romans against the deceit of renegade Jews in Rome.

Therefore it is extremely plausible that Paul faced an analogous fate: the Judaizers were able to put Rome against Paul.

Just as the first euhemerizer of Jesus was able to put Pilate against the invented Jesus.