MrMacSon

Nobody really knows when the synoptic gospels were either first produced in draft form, or when they were finalised.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says

add - given the link below to Docetism - the Gnostics and the Synoptics likely developed concurrently, or the Gnostics first.


aa5874 has given plenty of valid arguments that the Pauline documents were mid-late 2nd century.



Good question. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives some pointers to some key people -

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm

mountainman

At this post, in response to your question

I provided a name of a docetist gnostic author ..... Leucius Charinus.

You made no response to this name.


You could start by looking at the gnostic acts supposedly authored by Leucius Charinus.



The docetists may have been the term applied by the orthodoxy to people who refused to confess that Jesus was an historical figure and had "appeared in the flesh". See the letters of John describing this anti-Christian opinion.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874

The earliest known stories of Jesus and Pauline letters are from the 2nd century or later and the Pauline writer claimed he persecuted the Churches in Christ.

1. The story of Jesus predate the Pauline letters.

2. Acts of the Apostles was composed before the Pauline letters.

3. 2nd century Celsus wrote nothing against the Pauline letters in True Discourse according to Origen in "Against Celsus".

4. Multiple 2nd century Apologetic writers knew nothing at all of the Pauline revealed Gospel and the Pauline Corpus.

ApostateAbe

MrMacson, it is important to make a distinction between the drafting of the individual gospels (when they were first written) and the formation of the canon (compilation into a set of holy scriptures). The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are widely thought to be written before 90 CE, owing to the existence of the imminent apocalyptic prophecies of Jesus found within them without apology, in contrast to the gospels of John and Thomas and other later Christian writings.

Robert Tulip

One good informative book that people may care to read containing compelling evidence on the spiritual nature of the Christ of the New Testament is called Jesus Neither God Nor Man, by Earl Doherty. I think you may have heard of it?

Toto

Most of the people who make this argument are referring to Paul, assuming that the Pauline letters predate the gospels and that the few references to human aspects of Jesus in Paul's letters are either later interpolations or have some sort of metaphorical meaning.

Toto

Sorry, but he hasn't, and he hasn't met the criticisms of his arguments.

aa5874

There is no supporting evidence for the presumptions of Scholars. We can no longer accept unsubstantiated thoughts.

The first source to mention the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke claimed Jesus was crucified 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius--See "Against Heresies" 2.22.



All you have are unsubstantiated thoughts and no supporting evidence.

In the writings of the Jesus cult it is claimed Paul was alive after gLuke was written.

We know how the Jesus story most likely in the 2nd century.

It is found in the 2ND century writings of Aristides "Apology".


[U]ARISTIDES' Apology There was never any historical Jesus just 2nd century myth fables about a God that came down from heaven called Jesus Christ.

avi

Your rejoinder would be more effective if you would site even ONE example, with a reference to refute his position.

Such a reference would require citation of the papyrus datum demonstrating his "error". I find aa5874's posts informative, thoughtful, articulate, and especially well documented.

Toto writing "no he hasn't", without providing EVEN ONE illustration, doesn't cut it. For example, which "criticism" has aa5874 failed to address?

In my opinion, the concept of arguing against, or "attacking", aa5874, is misguided.

What we ought to be doing, in my opinion, is answering some of his most pointed questions:

Most importantly, where is the evidence from the Gospels that Paul existed?
There is none.

aa5874 pointed that out.

Forum participants are contradictory, here. Jeffrey Gibson, in another thread, criticized aa5874, because the Greek text does not include "Iesou". Ok, fine, then, KEEP THE LOGIC, and tell me, WHERE in Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John, does one read about "Paul"?

So, if the Greek text, without "Iesou", CAN NOT BE absolutely deemed to be referring to Jesus, because "Iesou" is absent from the text, then, why shouldn't we adopt the same convention, with regard to absence of reference to Paul in the gospels?

Who was the first "patristic" author to document Paul? Irenaeus, end of 2nd century. In my book, "irenaeus" is as fake as a three dollar bill. (why? because I cannot picture the Roman army ignoring the Bishop of Lugdunum; his writings are confused about papal succession and age of Jesus at date of crucifixion; his text is in Latin, though his language was Greek, etc, etc)

Who identified Irenaeus as the broken link in the theory that "Paul" wrote before Mark? aa5874 taught me.

If he has one unpersuasive argument, in my opinion, it is his ostensibly excessive reliance upon Justin Martyr, whose sole extant ancient manuscript is corrupted. However, even that "weakness" supports his perspective, i.e. Justin makes no mention of "Paul".

In my opinion, the proper attitude for a forum of skeptics is SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE, and I don't see ANY data supporting the idea that "Paul"'s epistles were written before the late 2nd century, (OR LATER!). Thanks aa5874.

If Toto has a link to offer, I would be glad to discuss her perspective with actual papyrus supporting her idea that Paul preceded Mark. I have, conversely, little or no interest in discussing the offtopic issue of aa5874.

aa5874

Sorry, but your claim is completely unsubstantiated. Something is radically wrong and fallacious with your statement

I did make valid arguments that the Pauline writings were composed c 180 CE or later by PRODUCING the supporting evidence from antiquity--Not by ambiguity, guessing or presumptions like Doherty or Ehrman.

1. In the very Canon, the author of Acts wrote nothing of the Pauline Corpus and knew nothing of the Pauline revealed Gospel. Acts of the Apostles is first mentioned by name c 180 CE by Irenaeus.

2. The very first source to mention the books of the Canon by name claimed Jesus was crucified about 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius c 48-50 CE which makes the Pauline Corpus a pack of fiction. See Against Heresies composed c 180 CE or later.

3. The Pauline Corpus [P 46] has been recovered and was dated sometime between the 2nd and third century by Paleographers.

4. A 2nd century Apologetic source mentioned the story of Jesus and the Apocalypse of John and never wrote of the Pauline Corpus or the Revealed Gospel of Paul. See the writings of Justin.

5. A 2nd century Apologetic source mentioned the story of Jesus and did not acknowledge Paul as the one who evangelised the Gentiles--See the writings of Aristides' "Apology".

6. A 2nd or 3rd century Apologetic source mentioned the story of Jesus and did NOT mention the Pauline writer or revealed Gospel--See Minucius Felix "Octavius".

7. A 3rd century Apologetic source mentioned the story of Jesus but did NOT acknowledge that Paul preached the Gospel to the Gentiles--See Arnobius "Against the Heathen".

8. A 3rd century Apologetic source claimed Celsus in the 2nd century wrote NOTHING of Paul. See Origen's "Against Celsus".

Now, we can no longer accept the logical fallacies of HJers like Ehrman. It is already known on this very forum after discussion that have lasted for years that there is no evidence from antiquity for an HJ of Nazareth.

The matter has long been resolved.

The HJ argument is the weakest of weak arguments wholly unsubstantiated and cannot be maintained.

Anyone who have a copy of "Did Jesus Exist" will clearly see the abundance of logical fallacies and errors in the HJ of Nazareth argument.

Ehrman himself will show and state that the NT is filled with historical problems yet use the very same source of fiction as a source of history for his Jesus of Nazareth.

The HJ argument has been an utter failure because it is admitted the NT is not historically reliable.

The past cannot be reconstructed without credible data

HJ of Nazareth cannot be reconstructed.