outhouse

There hasnt been a decent arguement against the dating of Paul. So far this post has been inane and useless.

I like Carriers view supplied below.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html


The earliest known Christian writings are the epistles of Paul, composed between 48 and 58 A.D.


The first Christian text that did not become canonized but was respected as authentic is the first epistle of Clement of Rome, reasonably dated to 95 A.D. (M 40), and contained in many ancient Bibles and frequently read and regarded as scripture in many churches (M 187-8). This is relevant because even at this late date two things are observed: Clement never refers to any Gospel, but frequently refers to various epistles of Paul.

Toto

I dispute your opinion of this thread.

That is not Carrier's personal view. He states at the beginning of that article,

This is a summary of the consensus of scholars on the formation of the New Testament, drawn from Bruce Metzger's far more detailed survey of the subject, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Clarendon, 1987).

outhouse

Carrier wrote it. It is his summary drawn from Bruce.

But I have condensed the material of Metzger's 300+ pages to less than 30 pages, added some of my own observations, and emphasized those facts most relevant to secularists and seekers.


Then try and dispute Clement dated at 95 CE




As I asked you earlier, please provide credible sources for a mythical Paul.


This is Biblical Criticism and History, not "mythology and conspiracy" 101.

MrMacSon

Likewise, the onus is on you to provide a substantive counter-argument ...

outhouse - please provide credible sources for an authentic historical Paul.

Toto

I don't think you get this internet debate thing. If you think these dates are cut and dried and can't be questioned, you don't know enough about the topic to be posting here.

Start with EarlyChristianWritings.com, which gives the "Estimated Range of Dating: 80-140 A.D."

The link there to Detering's article is broken - it should be

1 Clement and the Ignatiana in Dutch Radical Criticism

Although even a date of 95 for 1 Clement hardly proves that the Pauline epistles are genuine.

I am not arguing for a mythical Paul. :huh:

outhouse

dating for Paul has been established a long time now. There is no credible counter to Paul living and writing as stated.

One can question and put all this under critisicm and add to what is known. Claiming for second century Paul is a fruitless pursuit to which no credible evidence has EVER been provided.


Even if we take Clement out to 140 CE, he knew about Paul. This knowledge of Paul did not happen overnight.


We know all the Pauline Epistles are not genuine, but 7 are not really in question.

outhouse

Its called Scholarships. They are credible.

outhouse

Ill make the same claim towards you.

you don't know enough about the topic to be posting here.

MrMacSon

1. traditional "dating for Paul" is mostly based on a tradition of bare-assertion. Please explain why that should be trusted.

2. Some of the arguments in this thread do counter the traditional view.

3. Some of the arguments in this thread do provide credible arguments for the Pauline documents being written on the 2nd century

4. The fact that many "scholars" (that support the traditional view of the early dates of the Pauline writings) do not question the authenticity of any of the epistles is a 'red flag'.

Moreover, some of the so-called "undisputed [Pauline] epistles" are disputed -


That is merely bare 'appeal to authority' and 'appeal to tradition'.

It is appropriate to provide actual arguments, especially in a forum such as this.

outhouse

It is a appeal to responsible research. So far this thread has completely avoided such, following a conspiracy minded attempt through ignorance to unseat 99.9999 % of all proffessors knowledge on the subject.