Dubourg's presumed inferred chronology of the texts...

[Giuseppe]

If I understand well Dubourg's point, since he doesn't talk explicitly about chronology of texts, I may infer the following chronology in his reconstructed scenario:

• a first phase where only Christ is considered, the name "Jesus" is absent (Odes of Solomon, Hermas)

• first Christian texts where Jesus is the OT Joshua tout court, still without a fixed life on earth or in heaven (the so-called sound of silence). Invention, quasi in the same time, of Saul/Paul as a new character, midrashically derived from OT Saul. (= original Epistles)

• first Hebrew Gospel. Invention of an entire life for Jesus, now fully distinct from his midrashical prototype Joshua.

• translation of the first Hebrew Gospel in our 4 and plus gospels in Greek, with relative loss of original gematrical meaning. Jesus is considered historical, now.

• Corruption of the epistles and of the gospels, 1, 2, 3, 4 times, Celsus docet. Place Marcion and the anti-Marcionites here. All poor historicists.

If this is the case, the Jesus for example of Judah 5,

Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Joshua at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

...is the more original Jesus, because he

• ...is a Jesus where the idea of Paul was already found in nuce (king Saul is the first "anointed" after the OT Joshua)

• ...even being without still a new life, in heaven or on earth.

[Giuseppe]

Which means:

that the old mythicist paradigm, well resumed by Carrier/Doherty, was correct:

• in assuming that Jesus is Joshua 2.0 (or better, 3.0)

• in detecting the sound of silence in the epistles about a life of Jesus different from the life of Joshua

that it was wrong:

• in assuming the historicity of Paul the Apostle

• in assuming that the identity Saul = Paul comes out only after the late Acts of Paul or Acts of Apostles

• in assuming a crucifixion of Jesus in outer space

• in assuming a first Gospel in Greek.

• in assuming that pseudo-Paul was only a 2° century CE product.

And especially wrong:

• in assuming hallucinations at the origin of the cult.

[Giuseppe]

A good quote:

The basic problem Wrede is getting at, but which he cannot solve, is that Christianity, in its actual historical origins, cannot have had two founders, who knew nothing about each other, and whose ideas have no connection with each other apart from the generic milieu of apocalyptic Judaism. No plausible explanation of a cause-effect relationship from Jesus to Paul, or from Paul to Jesus has even been achieve in historical criticism. The gospel preached by Jesus and the gospel preached by Paul, even if they don’t contradict each other, do not match. The New Testament packaged these two men separately, the one in a “tetra-euangelion” (the 4-Gospel book), the other in a wildly diverse and patchwork collection of epistles. The only similarity in the packaging is that neither for Jesus nor for Paul is there a single authoritative portrait. Each has multiple portraits, which contradict one another on many points.

In "historical criticism" yes, no relation at all has been reached between Paul and Jesus.

However, in the midrash, Saul/Paul is contained entirely in nuce inside the Joshua/Jesus, just as it follows from the nature of a triangle that it has three sides.