I am slowly getting through reading The Colossal Apostle by Robert Price. The book is very interesting with many radical ideas. One being that Paul’s letters were written much later than most scholars believe The quotes from Paul I can find in other writings all come from the late first or second centuries so maybe Price has a point. If anyone has read the book I would like to know your opinions. Studying Paul can be very confusing.
the earliest quotations are from the late first century, was that a mistake?
No, it was not a mistake.
The book description says:
The epistles give evidence of having been written at the end of the first century or early in the second—too late to have been Paul’s actual writings.
Thanks for clarifying, but I’m still confused why that would be evidence in favor of a late dating for Paul’s epistles.
Aside from Paul, we don’t have any Christian writings from earlier than the late first-century, so finding the first quotations of Paul in the late first-century is exactly what we would expect, since (aside from the authentic Pauline epistles themselves) we have no Christian writings earlier than the late first century where we could find such quotations.
Now, the fact he isn’t quoted until the late first century does push the terminus ante quem back a decade or three, but it is still just a lack of evidence that we shouldn’t expect to find. In other words, it is perfectly consistent with either dating
In Pauline fashion of not showing his knowledge about a Jesus from the late 20s/early 30s,
Paul also does not know about The Great Commission outlined in Mt 28: 16-20.
Paul thinks “Jesus by Vision” delegated that to him–but finds there are already Christians in Rome (prime Gentile territory).
Dating 4 or 7 Authentic Letters of Paul beyond the death of the New Testament Saul-Paul because neither Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, nor Thomas quotes him. Aw, no, the conversion of Paul is not a post-Resurrection miracle of Jesus.
Paul also does not know about The Great Commission outlined in Mt 28: 16-20.
This isn’t really related to the argument I asked about. But while we are on the topic, neither does any other NT author.
neither Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, nor Thomas quotes him.
Fine, but, first, why would they? Paul doesn’t give us any meaningful details about Jesus’s earthly ministry. Also, that argument cuts both ways–why does Paul not quote other early Christian writings?
Now, if one wanted to engage in the dangerous exercise of drawing sweeping generalizations about the development of Christianity to date things–authors get more concerned with filling in the details of Jesus’ biography as time goes on. Just look at the gospels’ treatment of his origin: the earliest doesn’t tell us anything about his life prior to his baptism and the beginning of his ministry; later canonical gospels tell us the back story of his birth and origin; after the canonical gospels we get details about how Mary and Joseph came to be born and engaged. That would suggest that Paul–who shows little knowledge of or interest in Jesus’ earthly life–is likely early.
Josephus does not quote Paul.
Paul is someone who tells people to remember Jesus by metaphorical cannnibalism which is not good news from a messiah.
Hebrew scripture says cannibalism only comes up in conversation when you are losing.
You’re under siege!
(Going forward)
1) by rebel leaders who have taken over Jerusalem and cut off the food supply
AND
2) by Titus.
Remember Jesus who told us about the Tribulation in Jerusalem including siege by rebel leaders and by Titus as the Romans put down the Jewish Revolt.
Mark dates after the death of Paul circa 64/65 CE.
Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark.
Matthew and Luke were written after Mark. The common material can come after 64/65.
So, Paul would not be quoting Q, Matthew, or Luke.
Mark dates after the death of Paul circa 64/65 CE etc.
The entire point of this whole god-damned thread is whether we can be sure of the dating of Paul and his epistles.
The issue is precisely whether we can know whether Paul (or the author of his undisputed epistles) is reliably dated.
If we accept the standard dates for Paul, there is literally nothing here to discuss.
Do try to keep up.
I’d like to apologize to the forum members at large for the indecorous post I left last evening. (My wife had earlier mixed my last G&T, apparently, rather heavy-handedly, and within an hour of leaving that post, I was clinging to the side of the bed trying not to fall off the Earth.)
Doug, it was not in response to you. I’m sorry to have sidetracked your thread.
Steefen, if one of us misunderstood the other, I apologize to you in particular for the rash and uncharitable response.
Correction:
Paul was not, only not the Apostle to the Gentiles – Rome
Paul was not the Apostle to the Gentiles – Alexandria
Paul was not the Apostle to the Gentiles – Antioch
= = =
Paul was not the founder of the church for the Gentiles – Ephesus (according to the argument of the above video)
I read RMP’s book and the earlier one by H. Detering, “Falsified Paul”. The presented arguments for the inauthenticity of Paul’s letters will remain only arguments to which there will always be a counter-argument.
We must remember that no one had access to the original letters because we all know them from the end of the 1st century from the Pauline Corpus collection containing letters after intensive editing and supplementation with letters from other writers.
We have an alternative without a solution because we only have this collection. Letters may be authentic or inauthentic. The vast majority chooses authenticity, trusting their intuition and the recommendations of their colleagues.
I argue that the letters are unauthentic primarily on the basis of Zuntz’s work from 1946, the reconstruction of which is the consensus. Well, since 100 CE we have evidence of the existence of Pauline Corpus, such as 1 Clem. Everything before 100 CE in Zuntz’s reconstruction relies on the assumption that there were some homogeneous Pauline letters turned into heterogeneous letters and placed in one volume. This process is only theoretically possible because in practice it is impossible to present a sensible solution as to how various editorial activities reach one corpus.
In my opinion, the letters are an epistolary novel intended to create a narrative about the hero Paul. Well written, but there is no shortage of such works in literature.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)