ApostateAbe

It is a misunderstanding as far as I can tell. The other early sources don't mention Paul but they do make clear the time period. The time period of the settings of both the gospels and the authentic Pauline epistles are clear. Maybe you think the time period of the authentic Pauline epistles are questionable? Do you happen to know when Earl Doherty thinks they were written?

Sheshbazzar

There are no such things as 'authentic Pauline epistles'. All of them are church forgeries produced no earlier than 150 CE.

ApostateAbe

OK. Is there a prominent mythicist author who believes that? I think it may be a good idea to have a supplementary article on the dating of the gospels and epistles. Do you think it is likely that someone in the church forged a sharp conflict between Paul and Cephas in the epistle to the Galatians despite an account of the same meeting concluding with agreement in the book of Acts?

Toto

You think that the time periods of the allegedly authentic Pauline gospels are clear? What is this based on? There are no markers in the epistles that allow you to date them. The mainstream scholars only date Paul based on Acts - but all the best recent scholarship has undermined Acts as the basis for any dating at all.

It sounds like you haven't read or understood Doherty's argument. You are trying to read the gospels and the epistles together, instead of evaluating each separately as they were written, in parallel universes.

Paul talks about a crucifixion, but does not date it. He might very well be referring to a crucifixion 100 years earlier, or in the time of Alexander_Jannaeus, or in some other dimension of time and space. He speaks of an appearance, but - even if that passage is not a later interpolation - it could refer to an appearance of a spirit who was crucified 100 years before, or 2000 years. He never mentions Pilate or any other unambiguous marker.

Doherty happens to think that the Pauline epistles were written around the time that mainstream academia dates them - the mid first century - and he dates the gospels only slightly later than most mainstream academics.

More radical scholars date all the NT to the second century.

Toto

Robert M. Price follows the Dutch Radicals in holding that all of the Pauline epistles are inauthentic. But not all mythicists follow that, and it is not foundational to mythicism.

Detering (IIRC) believes that Galatians was forged, probably before Acts became canonical.

If you think that the dating of the gospels and epistles is a suitable subject for a wiki, you do not realize the complexity and the uncertainty in the whole area, even in mainstream academia.

ApostateAbe

Thanks, I thought that may have been what you have in mind. Do you happen to know who is the most prominent of these radical scholars? Edit: never mind, per the ninja post.

Toto

The level of your questions indicates that you have no business writing this wiki.

I am not going to feed you information, except to show how confused you are.

GakuseiDon

I give the dates Doherty provides (with the page numbers) in my review of his J:NGNM here:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...view2.html#2.4

Doherty believes that Paul died in the 60s CE, so probably wrote mid First Century CE.

aa5874

This is NOT a matter of Faith. We are NOT at Sunday School. Faith in Paul without evidence is worthless on BC&H.

Please IDENTIFY a corroborative source in the Very Bible that claimed Paul wrote letters to Churches between c 50-60 CE??

There is NO writer in the very Canon. None--ZERO--NOBODY.

Who arbitrarily invented those dates?? Why??

In the BIBLE Saul/Paul Delivered letters written by the Jerusalem Church. See Acts 15

It is clear that Scholars have INVENTED the dates for the Pauline writings WITHOUT a shred of evidence.

aa5874

The Pope also Believes the Bible is a source of history for Jesus, the disciples and Paul..

Now, even the very Church writers claimed Paul was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written. See Church History 6.25 and Commentary on Matthew X

Even an Apologetic writer claimed Paul wrote the Epistles were composed AFTER Revelation by John. See the Muratorian Canon.

If Paul was ALIVE AFTER gLuke and Revelation were composed then he most likely did NOT die c 60 CE.

Doherty himself argues that the Pauline writings were manipulated and still accepts the Pauline writings as early WITHOUT corroboration.

This is completely unacceptable.

It is incomprehensible that very admitted questionable sources are relied on for the same Pauline writings.

There is absolutely no credible corroboration for the PAULINE letters up to c 59-62 CE or during the time of FESTUS, procurator of Judea.