darstec

I think it is a leap to think anything attributed to Paul was ealier than anything in the gospels. For all that anyone can prove there is no evidence that Paul and the gospel and Gnostic materials were contemporaneous. Just differing Hellenistic ideas far removed from the area and time in which the stories took place.

1700 -- 1800 years later we are trying to find a sequence of events which will prove impossible because of interpolations in all of the early materials.
There is much evidence that all of the NT is at least 2nd century.

aa5874

But, there is no obligation to PROVE anything BEYOND all doubt. Galileo did NOT prove BEYOND all doubt that the earth orbited the sun. He just developed a theory based on observation and collection of data.

It far easier to develop a theory that the Pauline writings were LATER than the Gospels than to develop Galileo's theories.

1. The authors of the Synoptics did not use the Pauline writings for the details about Jesus and his supposed life on earth.

2. The authors of the Synoptics did not use the Pauline writings for the details about the 12 disciples and their activities with Jesus.

3. The Synoptics ALL end just after the resurrection, the Pauline writers begin to hear from Jesus AFTER he was RAISED from the dead.

4. The peculiar details about the resurrection sightings in the Pauline writings where over 500 people SAW the resurrected Jesus cannot be found in the Synoptics.

5. The author of the short-ending of gMark appear not to have known over 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus.

6. The author of Acts of the Apostles seem totally unaware of the Pauline letters and that "Paul" went to Arabia then returned back to Damascus and waited 3 years before he went to Jerusalem. The author of Acts seems as though he NEVER ever saw Galatians 1.17-19.

7. Justin Martyr did not write a single thing about the Pauline writers or writings at all even though Justin did describe a typical sunday meeting and that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" were read in the churches.

8. Justin Martyr did NOT mention the Pauline writers or writings at all even though he mentioned the Valentinians, Basilidians, Marcosians, Empedocles, Epicureans, Platonist, Stoics and even Marcion.

9. No extant Jewish writer of the 1st century, Philo and Josephus, mentioned that there was a Pauline Jesus called the Messiah, Creator of heaven and earth who was EQUAL to God with the ability to forgive the sins of ALL Jews because of his resurrection BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

10. No writer, Jewish or non-Jewish outside the Church have written anything about the Pauline character, the Pauline Jesus, the Messiah, the Pauline churches, and the Pauline doctrine BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

11. It has ALREADY been deduced that some Pauline writings are LATE.

12. An apologetic source claimed "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

The theory that the Pauline writings are LATE is far superior to the theory of early Pauline writings. There is virtually no corroborative source for early Pauline writings.

There is NO obligation to PROVE anything BEYOND all doubt, just to collect DATA and make observations.

The abundance of evidence supports a LATE Pauline theory.

angelo

As I said above. Most scholars atheist as well as xtians all think the gospel of John was written no earlier than 90 CE. Some say even as late as 120-40 CE.

angelo

Most scholars agree that Paul wrote his epistles around 50 CE or later. 15-20 years after his crucifixion, around the same time as the Q document started floating around. Mark was written just after or during the Jewish Roman war in 65-70 CE. I think you will find that most reputable scholars agree with those dates.

aa5874

But, claiming that "most scholars agree" has NO value whatsoever as EVIDENCE. People can AGREE by FAITH.

Please PUT forward the evidence that "Paul" wrote any letter at all and that he wrote them before the Fall of the Temple.

People know what some scholars believe but people don't know the EVIDENCE for "Paul".

How in the world could scholars agree that "Paul" wrote before the Fall of the Temple when there is ZERO corroborative source of antiquity for "Paul", his resurrected Jesus Messiah, his churches, his doctrine where his resurrected Jesus Messiah was EQUAL to God, the Creator of heaven and earth whose resurrection was for the REMISSION of the Sins of Jews and all mankind?

Please state the evidence from antiquity that "Paul" wrote before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

You are supposed to know what "most scholars" use as EVIDENCE from antiquity to have come to an "agreement" about early "Paul".

What is the EVIDENCE?

Where is the Evidence?

IT can't be found.

Toto

It is true that most scholars agree that Paul wrote around 50-60 CE, but if you investigate the basis for that belief, it depends on accepting the Book of Acts as historical. There is no way of dating the "Q" document.

No one thinks that Paul was crucified. Christian legend has him being beheaded in Rome in 62 CE, but there is no support for this at all.

The earliest date for the writing of Mark is generally accepted as 69-70 CE. But it could have been written as late as 150 CE.

So most scholars do agree with you, but the basis for this timetable is very shakey.

aa5874

So, what is being uncovered is that the so-called "agreement" is shaky and baseless or based on a book of fiction called Acts of the Apostles.

It must be that most scholars have SPECULATED that "Paul" was early.

darstec

And the only reason they date them thus is because of faith and faith alone. There is no supporting evidence. Not one iota. I noted your qualifying "reputable". And no True Scotsman....

bacht

Right, the game is to date the 'apostolic' texts as early as possible and the 'heretical' texts as late as possible

show_no_mercy

Y'know, I may be showing my ignorance here... but don't NT scholars (the ones who are Christians anyway) already believe that the Jesus they worship is the Jesus in John? Shouldn't this be the "historical Jesus" if Christianity is true?

It seems like they're talking out of both sides of their mouth when they say that the gospel of John doesn't have any information about the "historical" Jesus and then when they go to church (or however they worship) they are singing praises to the Logos made flesh.

It seems to be an example of that dishonest NOMA.