Porphyry:
The entire point of this whole god-damned thread is whether we can be sure of the dating of Paul and his epistles.
If we can, there’s nothing to discuss.
Do try to keep up.
Steefen:
Remember, Paul’s integrity is a problem: he cannot be trusted.
Second, Paul exploits the pious. Third, I do not trust his “Jesus by Vision.”
Fourth, I do not trust the biblical Jesus. That composite character of historical fiction was a false prophet. All who professed Jewish Apocalypticism were in error.
Jesus was not a real individual and neither was Paul.
Porphyry:
Steefen, if one of us misunderstood the other, I apologize to you in particular for the rash and uncharitable response.
Steefen:
Okay. Thank you.
You said Paul could have quoted Mark and Q but he didn’t.
I said, accepting the dating of Paul’s death, Paul could not have quoted Mark and Q because it is not settled that Mark and Q existed before 64/65 CE–without getting into the dating of the authentic letters which would put the existence of Mark and Q before the dating of various letters.
You said Paul could have quoted Mark and Q but he didn’t.
I said, accepting the dating of Paul’s death, Paul could not have quoted Mark and Q because it is not settled that Mark and Q existed before 64/65 CE–without getting into the dating of the authentic letters which would put the existence of Mark and Q before the dating of various letters.
I took it for granted that when talking about who Paul quoted, we meant by “Paul” the author of the undisputed letters, the only literary remains we have under the name of Paul (whether that was actually the historical Paul or Marcion or some altogether unknown forger)–much as we would speak of “who Matthew quoted” meaning “who was quoted in the gospel that comes down to us in Matthew’s name”.
The point that I was trying to make is that if we have two authors who don’t quote each other (say, whoever wrote the letters under the name of Paul and whoever wrote the gospel that is known to us as Mark’s), and neither quoted the other, the fact that one didn’t quote the other doesn’t settle the issue of priority.
That Mark doesn’t quote Paul doesn’t prove that Paul’s Epistles weren’t written when Mark wrote any more than the fact Paul’s Epistles don’t quote Mark’s gospel proves that Mark wasn’t written when Paul’s Epistles were being composed.
The argument cuts both ways, and so settles nothing.
I first heard of Robert Price through his writings about fantasy literature. It was only much later that I found out he had NT scholarly credentials. When I read Price I remember a comment by C S Lewis about his friend Charles Williams. Lewis said Williams put things in his fantasy writings that he should have left in his theology, and put things in his theology that should have left in his fantasy writings.
To settle the dust on this issue I discovered this online which helps to clarify dating Paul
History Of Paul Without The Use of Acts
1. In Gal. 1:19, Paul directly claims to know James, brother of Jesus, who we know from Josephus’ Antiquities 20.9.1 to have lived until in the mid-1st century
2. In 2 Cor. 11:32, Paul claims to have been arrested in Damascus while King Aretas was in charge. This is, of course, King Aretas IV – and he died in 40 AD
3. In Rom. 16:23, Paul mentions greeting Erastus, treasurer of the city of Corinth. Erastus is known from an inscription outside of Paul, also dating to the mid-1st century
4. In Phil. 4:22, Paul refers to people belonging to “Caesar’s household”. The emperors belonging to the household of Caesar in the Roman empire dynasty came to an end in 68 AD
5. In Rom. 15:19, Paul says he was preaching in Illyricum – a province that was dissolved in 80 AD
The point lost on most of the mythicists is that the same criteria used on considerations of NT related historicity are used on all such questions in ancient history. Except for very powerful famous figures like kings and emperors for whom we have archeological artifacts, all we have are either writings by or about people. If we’re really fortunate we have both. If someone is going to deny Paul’s historicity then they need to be consistent. There’s nothing wrong with skepticism but why so selective?
Doug 8915 12,
The five pieces of information you provided in Comment #24 are valuable.
1. James was a popular figure.
2. Historical fiction can show knowledge of the past.
3. 1 and 2 can be applied here as well.
4. What happened in 68 AD?
Answer: Nero died June 9, 68 CE. Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus was a Roman emperor and the final emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
5. Paul could not have been preaching in Illyricum after AD 80; and, historical fiction can show knowledge of the past.
Doug, Paul does not know much of the Jesus of the Gospels because they had not yet been written.
The Gospel writers do not show they knew anything about Paul because Paul is in the New Testament plot after Jesus leaves Earth (the Ascension). Jesus is only a composite character of historical fiction. Paul’s existence is dependent on the existence of Jesus.
The Gospel writers could have created Jesus from the Books of Enoch and a Paul figure who was exploiting the pious with his insistence on a Jewish apocalyptic figure. Jesus, composite character of historical fiction, was created after Titus became aware that the rebel leaders were in the Temple of Jerusalem and in order to put down the revolt, the Roman army would have to take the war inside the Temple which would likely (and did) destroy the Temple.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)