aa5874

Again, I am dealing with sources, written statements and evidence from antiquity. I have NO time to waste with Rhetorical questions.

What makes people knowledgeable without evidence and sources of antiquity??


What is Scholarship WITHOUT evidence and sources of antiquity??

Like having a good lawyer but NO alibi.

Toto

It's a relatively simple matter to figure out why scholars date Paul's letters to 15 years after his death. The date depends on knowing the date for a certain Roman official named Gallio who is mentioned in Acts, and an elaborate attempt to correlate the events in the epistles and Acts. This exercise is based on the idea that Acts represents actual history.

Once you realize that Acts is not even intended to be historically accurate, you realize that there is no anchor for dating Paul's letters. There are no internal reasons in the letters that date them to the mid first century, we have no record of them before the second century, we have no copies that can be dated that early.

In fact, not all scholars agree.

Have you read Robert M. Price? Hermann Detering? Winsome Munro? William O. Walker?

Vorkosigan

Walker is online at Google books

http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=...page&q&f=false

aa5874

The claim that the Pauline writings were interpolated has NO real value as evidence for the date of composition of the letters themselves.

Again, one fundamental sign to show a writing is early is Word-for-Word copying. There is NO word for word copying of any verse of the Pauline letters, NO acknowledgement that Paul wrote letters, and NO admittance that Paul was visited by the post-resurrected Jesus by any authors of the NT.

Quite remarkably, the Pauline writings show the very lowest variants per page or the least corrupted when compared to all the Canonised Gospels and Acts even though it was claimed that the Pauline writings were MANIPULATED by Marcion.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

outhouse

well act's has never been seen as reliable to scholars


correct

but if I said 90% follow my statements, I would be close to accurate if not generous.


nor the gospels, less a few gragments possibly dated the first century



I dont buy that at all.

they have used so much more then that to date pauls letter's independantly of act's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles


These are the 7 letters (with consensus dates)[3] considered genuine by most scholars (see main article Authorship of the Pauline epistles: section The undisputed epistles):

First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)


here you will note, each letter has been dated independantly


http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=311531&page=3

Seven letters are generally classified as “undisputed”, expressing contemporary scholarly near consensus that they are the work of Paul: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon


Internal evidence

This consists of what the author tells us about himself in the letter, either explicitly — the author clearly identifies himself — or implicitly — provides autobiographical details. This evidence is important in spite of its problems. For example, because the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews never identified him or herself, scholars as early as Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century suspected that Paul was not the author.

[edit] External evidence

This consists of references, again either explicit or implicit, to the text, especially during earliest times by those who had access to reliable sources now lost. Explicit references would be mentioning the text or letter by name, or a recognizable form of that text. Examples include a list of accepted biblical books, such as the Muratorian fragment, or the contents of an early manuscript, such as Papyrus 46. Unfortunately, these witnesses are often either damaged or too late in date to provide much help.

Implicit references are quotation from Paul, especially indirect or unattributed, or expressing ideas and phrases that appear in his works. This use or reference implies the material quoted was in existence at the time the external evidence was created. For example, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is named by Irenaeus in the mid 2nd century, as well as Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch; it is impossible for this letter to have been written after their time. On the other hand, lack of witness by ancient sources suggests a later date, an argument from silence. However, use of this line of reasoning is dangerous, because of the incompleteness of the historical record: many ancient texts are lost, damaged, or have been revised.

[edit] Historical setting

An independently written narrative of Paul's life and ministry, found in the Acts of the Apostles, is used to determine the date, and possible authorship, of Pauline letters by locating their origin within the context of his life. For example, Paul mentions that he is a prisoner in his Epistle to Philemon 1:7; based on this statement, J. A. T. Robinson argued that this captivity was Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea,[4] while W. M. Ramsay identified this as Paul’s captivity in Rome,[5] while others have placed the captivity in Ephesus. One difficulty with this position is the limited data available on Paul's historical setting, and this is especially true with the conclusion of the narrative of Acts prior to Paul's death. It also assumes that the book of Acts was written by an actual traveling companion of Paul's. However, as A.N. Sherwin-White has noted, in travel romance literature of this period, it was a normal literary convention to use the first-person plural while characters were on a shipboard voyage, and "we" passages in Acts coincide with such voyages.

[edit] Language and style

Vocabulary, sentence structure, employment of idioms and common phrases, etc. are analyzed for consistency with the author’s other known works. A similar style implies common authorship, whilst a radically divergent vocabulary implies different authors. For example, E. J. Goodspeed argued that the vocabulary of the Epistle to the Ephesians showed a literary relationship with the First Epistle of Clement, written around the end of the 1st century.[6] Similarly, E. Percy argued that the speech and style of Colossians more strongly resembled Pauline authorship than not.[7] Of course, style and language can vary for reasons other than differing authorship, such as the subject of the letter, the recipient, the circumstances of the times, or simply maturation on the part of the author.

[edit] Contents and theology

Similar to internal evidence, doctrinal consistency and development are examined against the author's other known works. Theological themes like the eschaton or the Mosaic Law could reappear in different works, but in a similar manner. A consistent point of view implies a common author; contradictory or unrelated teachings imply multiple authors. For example, W. Michaelis saw the Christological likeness between the Pastoral Epistles and some of Paul's undisputed works, and argued in favor of Pauline authorship.[8] A problem with this method is analyzing the coherence of a body of diverse and developing teachings. This is seen in the disagreement between scholars. For example, with the same epistles mentioned above, B. S. Easton argued their theological notions disagreed with other Pauline works, and rejected Pauline authorship.[9] G. Lohfink argued the theology of the Pastoral epistles agreed with Paul's, but took this as proof someone wishing to enjoy the authority of an apostle copied the famous church leader.[10]

Toto

Have you done a survey? Who are these scholars? Are they really independent scholars or are the theologians?

How does this support your argument?? And there are no fragments of the gospels that can be dated to the first century.

Your source does not support your point. Did you even read this (which is actually from here) ??:

outhouse

First i'll follow Carrier over some unknown dating method hinging on Gallio

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

The material for this section is taken from my own survey of scholarly consensus found in numerous sources. It is believed that Jesus died c. 30 A.D. Specifically, if he died under Pontius Pilate, the date must have at least been between 26 and 36, the ten years we know Pilate to have served in Judaea.[1] Whatever the date, Paul's conversion follows one to three years later. The earliest known Christian writings are the epistles of Paul, composed between 48 and 58 A.D.



key word's are



scholarly consensus

aa5874

You should have realized that this is BC&H. It is expected that you have EVIDENCE from antiquity to support your supposed consensus.

You ought to know that the CONSENSUS is that the NT is NOT historically reliable.

This Bart Ehrman in a debate Why are you using UNRELIABLE sources to date the Pauline writings???

I do NOT accept the NT as a credible historical source so you will have get some other evidence for the Pauline writings.

Apologetic sources as late as the end of the 2nd century did NOT know of Paul so I cannot accept that the Pauline writings were composed before the Fall of the Temple and it is found NO author of the NT Canon claimed Paul wrote letters to Churches.

The abundance of evidence shows that Paul was a fraud. He used an alias and was alive AFTER the FALL of the Temple.

outhouse

Do you have any idea how scholarships are preformed?


I agree, and never stated otherwise.


im sorry, but most scholars follow the dating im providing.

the dates are not contested by mainstream scholarships. There are a few mythers out there that do make these claims but they have much more critics then support.




poor arguement


there were many different movements within christianity

paul would have amounted to be jesus enemy while he was alive, jesus would have viewed paul in a very negative light.

paul went one direction while the real followers of jesus went another and were basically written out of history by the roman verions that laid the foundation for future text.

Toto

As English is mangled...

Scholarship operates on consensus, but there is always a time when the consensus is overturned based on new evidence or new understanding of the evidence. I have already explained to you why the consensus on the dating of Paul's letters is based on a shaky foundation. Do you see any reason to continue to follow that consensus?


You are totally confused. This has nothing to do with mythicism. Earl Doherty follows the consensus on the dating of Paul, but some scholars who are not mythicists do not.


You are correct here, but there are better arguments.

This is a common way of trying to make sense of early Christianity, since later Christianity seems so much at odds with what is in the gospels. But there is not a lot of evidence for it.