Loading...In this nutshell series on the books of the New Testament, I’ve been discussing, in part, when each of Paul’s letters were written, and some readers have wanted to know, well, how we know? What kind of evidence do scholars look for?
It seems like that ought to be an easy question to answer, a real softball. But it’s not; it’s a tough one, a hard curve.
As I’ve pointed out (and I guess is rather obvious) different scholars have different likes and dislikes within their own fields. Most New Testament scholars, for example, do not enjoy doing textual criticism – the reconstruction of the oldest attainable form of the text based on our surviving manuscripts. In fact, most are not trained in it and want nothing to do with it. When I started in my career, on the other hand, that was the one thing I was completely passionate about. Different strokes for different folks. There are some scholars who want nothing to do with the Synoptic Problem, and others who have worked on it for thirty years. And there are scholars who simply cannot get very interested in establishing a chronology of Paul’s life and letters, and others who want to do almost nothing else.
I’m afraid when it comes to Paul, I’ve always been in the former camp. I just never have been drawn into the long, protracted, and complex debates about when Paul was where and with whom, and when he wrote this letter in relation to that letter (was in in June, 51 CE or April, 52 CE? – and so on). I’m not against this kind of scholarship in the least. It is absolutely important and necessary. It just doesn’t float my boat. I have friends and colleagues, however, who puzzle over such things endlessly, and there are a number of full books written on the topic.
That being said – how DO scholars who do this kind of thing go about doing it? Here I’ll give the essentials. Basically it works like this:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Bart – I read that there is a 3-year span at the end of Paul’s writing career where there are no documents. There are also memorials to him in Spain and references to his desire to go there. Do you see in credibity to the idea that he made it to Spain?
He certainly meant to go there. But he is more likely not to have made it. The memorials there are based on legends. (He certainly hadn’t been there before his final surviving letter, Romans, since he talks about going and hasn’t even been to Rome yet)
What do you think is going on with the passage about Aretas in 2 Corinthians and what, if anything, can that tell us about Paul’s biography and the chronology of his life?
It tells us that Paul escaped Damascus some time during the time Aretas was king of Nabatea, but since that was nearly 50 years, 9 BCE – 40 CE it doesn’t give us much help beyond what we already knew.
What is the earliest reference to Paul’s death, and is it considered reliable?
95 CE or so, in 1 Clement 5.5-7. It indicates that he was martyred, and that seems plausible. It also says that he went to the “limits of the West” (i.e. Spain) and bore witness “to rulers” but that all seems implausible. The letter was written by the church in Rome and the author may have gotten his ideas from Paul’s letter to the Romans, still kept in the church, where he talks about planning to take his mission to Spain.
I’m not obsessed with Pauline chronology but after reading your book The Triumph of Christianity I became interested in Paul’s conversion. In all of the chronologies I’ve seen it strikes me that there doesn’t seem to be enough time between the crucifixion and Paul’s conversion to accommodate all that must have happened. You need time for the disciples to recover from the trauma of the crucifixion and to generally accept the reality of the resurrection. They had to establish some sort of sustainable community in Jerusalem. The movement had to spread far and wide enough to come to a diaspora Jew like Paul’s attention. He then conducted some kind of persecution that lasted for an indeterminate period of time. All this before his conversion. Is it reasonable to suppose that Paul could have converted within only three years of the crucifixion?
I think three years is enough. If Paul was in Damascus at the time, which seems plausible given what he says in Galatians 1, then all it would take is for followers of Jesus to come up from Jerusalem and make waves in synagogues there. I don’t think we have to imagine tons of churches with hundreds of people yet
Dr Ehrman, what is the earliest letter of Paul’s that we have? By this I mean extant manuscript copy that can be accurately dated. I’m curious how this might compare with our earliest Gospel fragments. Thank you.
I believe it is P46, with portions of a number of Paul’s letters. It dates to around 200 CE, so about thesame time as some of the earliest copies of the Gospels (e.g., P66 and P75); P52 has long been thought the oldest fragment of any nt book from the first half ofthe first century (portions of John 18 and 19), but the date is debated.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree with Boring’s statement on 1 Cor. 15:6?
“Paul’s point is that the resurrection is not some twilight zone, never-never-land event in the mythical past, but an event in recent history to which many of his own generation could testify.”
– M. Eugene Boring in The People’s New Testament Commentary
I’d say that is certainly one of his points.
I have long wondered. Paul is said to have traveled to Egypt between his conversion and his mission. I see signs of allegory in his writings. Is it possible, or even likely, that he went to study at the feet of Philo?
I don’t know of any traditions of Paul going to Egypt.
How important is the dating of Galatians as far as its interpretation?
Not very.
Do you think any of Jesus top twelve disciples witnessed his crucifixion?
If not, how did later Christians know that Jesus had a crown of thorns and a sign above him saying “king of the Jews”?
No, I don’t. And they would not have known about a crown of thorns, but they may have knowng the charge.
Then how historically reliable is the claim that Jesus had a crown of thorns and a sign saying, “king of the Jews”?
There are very good reasons for thinking “king of the jews” was the charge leveled against Jesus. There’s not any supporting evidence for a literaly crown of thorns.
Thanks for the update. Yes, king of the Jews was probably the charge leveled against Jesus, but does that mean there was a sign affixed to his cross saying “king of the Jews”? If it was commonplace for crucifixion victims to have a sign affixed to their crosses stating their alleged crime(s) then it’s reasonable to suppose the historical Jesus actually had such a sign affixed to his cross. Otherwise, it seems to be something that developed during an oral tradition or something that Mark made up for his gospel account. Between the two possibilities of a sign or no sign, I’m not sure which one you think is more probable. But from your reply, it seems that you don’t think the historical Jesus actually had a crown of thorns during, or before, his crucifixion. So, I’m trying to figure out if scholars think the historical Jesus probably had a sign affixed to his cross or not and if the historical Jesus probably wore a crown of thorns or not and I need your help to know what scholars think is most probable on these two issues. Thanks in advance for the help.
It doesn’t necessarily mean there had to be a sign. John has it independently of Mark, so that would suggest maybe so. But I don’t think there were any followers of Jesus there to report, so I don’t think we know.
I never realized how close in time Paul’s final visit to Jerusalem was to the execution of James. Makes you wonder if the two events were somehow related.
Dr Ehrman: how long was a year during Jesus’ time or St Paul?
Ai says not 365 days & there was a leap month.
sure changes my orientation
I keep forgetting how they did calendars — it was a bit complicated. But it’s not like we do.