capnkirk

What is the basis for the dating of Paul's epistles? Are these dates wholly dependent on implied Biblical references, like Acts? I haven't been able to find any extrabiblical corroboration; is there any?

Capnkirk

Toto

There is a recent thread on this precise topic somewhere. Bill is going to upgrade vBB tomorrow and we might have a chance of finding it after the index is rebuilt

Most scholars assume the basic historicity of Acts and date Paul's letters from there. But there are some real problems.

Bernard Muller

Capnkirk:
I manage to cover that, among other things, in two pages of mine:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appb.html
Search on > 3.2.1 <
Going through it, you'll be invited to poke on that other page, which is actually my main page on the topic:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appp.html

That does cover the Corinthian letters, which are actually more than two, twice three combined in one, for a total of six (plus at least one lost one).
Yes, I worked together with 'Acts' to get the dating & splits. I found there are concordance between 'Acts' and Paul's epistles, and also conflicts, all of them explained by Luke's agenda.

I also go over the dating of Galatians here:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes3xx.html
Check the second half of that short page.

1Thessalonians written from Corinth in late 50 or early 51, Romans written also from Corinth in early 58.

The Philippians letter is at least three combined in one.

This is my dating:
1Th -->50-51 from Corinth
1Cor a --> early 53, from Ephesus
Php a --> early 53-54, from Ephesus
1Cor b --> 53-54, from Ephesus
1Cor c --> early 55, from Ephesus
2Cor a --> later in 55, likely from Ephesus
2Cor b --> later in 55, from Ephesus
Php b --> late 56/57, from Ephesus (in jail)
Philemon --> late 56/57, from Ephesus (in jail)
2Cor c --> late 57, from Macedonia
Galatians --> early 58, from Corinth
Romans --> early 58, from Corinth
Php c --> early 58, from Corinth

I also went through all the original Corinthians & Philippians letters, explaining the reason for the splits, and the very human motivation of Paul behind each parts of them (I got 9 pages on them where they are reconstructed word by word, plus the later interpolations).

Best regards, Bernard

capnkirk

Bernard,

Thank you for posting the three links; they have dates galore. Alas, I was asking for information concerning any extrabiblical sources for the dating of these various events.

For example, as Toto said, much of the dating is based on Luke's account in Acts (as your links tend to bear out), but Luke was writing 80 years after the fact. If that is the best dating we have, then as far as I am concerned, it is all a house of cards. It's not much different from calculating the age of the earth using the OT "begats".

Attonitus

A paleographical dating of P46, containing Romans, 1 Thess, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, Col, and Hebrews (parcial) 200 CE. Previously, only speculations.

Bernard Muller

Capnkirk,
I would not agree about 80 years after the facts. I date 'Acts' at around 90, that is 40 to 30 years after the facts. But if you have already made up your mind, so be it.
About my dating of the gospels and 'Acts', I have that page:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/gospels.html

Attonitus,
If you do not read my pages, you'll never find how I got these dates. And how do you know these 200CE texts are the earliest? My basis for dating is mainly internal evidence.

Best regards, Bernard

Attonitus

Hi Bernard,

Capnkirk looks for an external evidence. P46 it is the fully text more earliest, and 200 CE it is the paleographical dating. Young Kyu Kim in 1988 dated P46 to the third quarter of the 1st century, but their work it is not generally accepted. I don't reject your exegetical work, I simply exposed a paleographical evidence.

All the best,

Bernard Muller

capnkirk:
Not really, I struggled to get the dating right and I am confident each item has some solid basis. That's the first step.
The second one is to reach full cohesion/coherence, and everything fit very nicely.
I do not think your parallel with the OT is warranted. We are not looking at the same thing. And dismissing, by rhetorical means, work which took me several years is easy & cheap.

Best regards, Bernard

redzrx

I have read that when dating books/letters that they cannot give a definite year or date but can usually give the century that is written. Writing style (and history)is basically what they go by so accuracy is only within maybe 75-125 years either way.

you will also find that scholars may change there readings on dates or have critisism from other scholars if the dating is too precise so multiple scholar input is needed.

I do agree though that pauls letters were before the wall of the temple came a tumblin town.. I think Bernards estimates are in the ball park..

Mario

spin

We know that in the middle thirties Herod Antipas sent John the Baptist to Machaerus which was on the Nabataean border. John had been stirring trouble because of Herod's divorce from the daughter of the Nabataean king Aretas IV so that he could have a someone troublesome marriage to Herodias. The ensuing war brought Aretas north into Herod's territory, but the Romans intervened to drive him back. Aretas IV never had control of Damascus, though we know an ancestor did toward the end of Seleucid control of Syria. Aretas II was asked to become the ruler of Damascus around 85 BCE.

Now the only historical indication to come to light from Paul's letters is a reference to his flight from Damascus which was under the control of Aretas (2 Cor 11:32). If this is a factual indication it must mean Aretas II and Paul then lived around 85 BCE.


spin