FAQ

A: That's an immensely good question and, like all questions into events of this time, we won't ever know for sure - too much time has passed and too many people with too much to lose have had their hands on what little written evidence exists. However, let's assume that Judas was dead -had been for a good 30 years - and that Paul came to know of him. If he was preaching falsehoods about him, particularly that he was pro-Roman in ways he most assuredly was not, and if, in addition, he was preaching anti-Hebrew propaganda, drawing the Hebrew diaspora around the eastern Mediterranean away from their faith towards one which held many of the same advantages for its followers as the old one (a single god, a sense of constant judgement - no, I don't know why that's a good thing, either, but some people seem to want it), a sense of being 'chosen' and having a long history of one's god leaving written records to be argued over and re-interpreted in every new age… Paul's new religion contained all of those without any of the difficult disadvantages of the Hebrew religion - namely the restrictions on table laws and circumcision. The former meant that men and women could eat with their neighbours and the latter that the men would not be stigmatised in the gymnasia and public baths. In a land where a great deal of the trade negotiations were conducted in the baths, circumcision was a particularly onerous requirement. There were surgical procedure available to reverse it, which must have been fairly eye-watering, but if it existed, and details are available now, we have to assume it was in use.

So- Paul's new version specifically overturned the table laws and requirements for circumcision and it must have taken off to some degree. We can't tell exactly how much because there's been so much re-writing of history that it's hard to read between the lines, but if Acts and Paul's attested letters (that is, those actually written by him, not written a century or two later in his name) are anything to go by, we can be clear that he loathed the men of the Jerusalem assembly and reserved a particular hatred for James and Cephas (who may have been Simon Peter, although there's only one sentence linking the two and it may have been added later). That they loathed him in his turn is obvious from Acts - they would have killed him if the Romans hadn't sent in the better part of a legion to get him out - called by his cousin 'Herodion' whose name means, 'little Herod'.

If you've got this far and want some serious alternative reading, try "James the Brother of Christ' by Robert Eisenman. It's not light reading by any means, but it's a fascinating and highly detailed description of the rancour evident between Paul and James. And if you read that and have time, stamina and interest, read his next book, 'The New Testament Code' which will, if nothing else, convince you that the supposed ossuaries of Jesus' family are fakes.