dogsgod

According to a reading of Acts, Paul is in Jerusalem in 44CE, about the time of Herod's death, and as we can see this was his second meeting with apostles in Jerusalem. The first meeting is reported in Acts 9.

In Galatians Paul states that he visited Jerusalem twice, 14 years apart which according to the above, places him in Jerusalem in 30CE.

In 30CE he meets with apostles 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

OK so far?

Toto

What do you mean by "OK"? You are trying to combine two sources of dubious accuracy that are not exactly consistent.

You are not the first to do this. You can see some other attempts:

Paul time line places "Paul met with Barnabus, Peter, and James in Jerusalem (Acts 9:26 and Galatians 1:18-19)." before 40 CE and the second trip to Jerusalem at 50 CE. "In about 50 AD, Paul and Barnabus go to the council in Jerusalem 14 years after Paul's conversion (Galatians 2:1-9 and Acts 15:2)"

Wikipedia has an attempted harmonization based on Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk).

In any case, 30 seems too early, whatever the reconstruction.

And there is a possibility that 14 is just a magic number that has no connection to any timeline.

TedM

Agree with Toto--not sure what you are after here.


If the timeline consistency between different accounts is your issue of concern, I haven't looked into the issue much but will point out the following:

In Act 9:23 it says 'after many days' he went into Jerusalem, so that doesn't sound to me like he went right after his own conversion, or that it can be tied to any particular date. How are you deriving 44CE? Also, Paul doesn't say in Galations that he visited Jerusalem only twice. He refers to a 'second visit' but the context is that of his aquaintence with other apostles after his conversion. No need to count any pre-conversion time in Jerusalem (Acts 8) as one of those 'visits'.

dogsgod

Reading Acts and Galatians I am just pointing out a time line from the information we have. I know people do not like the early date for Paul in Jerusalem, but 14 years is what we have to work with. According to Acts, questionable as it is, it has Paul in Jerusalem at the time of Herod's death, 44CE, subtract the 14 years that Paul provides for between visits and we have Paul in Jerusalem in 30CE for his first visit. Just sayin'. I know it is a pointless exercise but it is not unreasonable to point these things out. The early date for Paul is not really a problem other than it conflicts with gospel dates, but then if the gospels are fiction, who is to say that 30CE is early?

dogsgod

Just to add, I am sure there are proper ways to date Paul's writings and trips, I am not suggesting that this is it.

JoeWallack

JW:
Potentially this explains a lot. You have Paul explaining the significance of Jesus' death while Jesus is still alive! Alfred Hitchcock moment:

Paul: MJ blah, blah, blah.

Jesus: Hello

Paul: Who are you?

Jesus: I'm HJ

Paul: Can I see you in my tent for a moment?

!@#$%^&*()_+

Paul: (coming out of tent) Hey everyone, who wants fresh wine and wafers.

I'm surprised Doherty is not all over this like Lechner on Miggs.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Minimalist

Not by a long shot.

mountainman

Hi dogsgod,

There are other sources that have been used to make an attempt to establish Paul's travels, even if the sources are considered "late". Two such sources are the "Acts of Paul [and Thecla]", and another is the "Acts of Titus", where Paul is mentioned a bit. In the latter, before Paul went to Jerusalem the text states that:

"After a fast of seven days he cast down the idol of Apollo"

It's things like this one needs to know about the ancient reputation of Paul.

Best wishes,


Pete

spin

:hysterical:



:notworthy:

TedM

From what I've seen with a quick search is that it is commonly thought that Jesus could have died 27,29,30,or 33 CE, so take your pick. 27 obviously works the best with the Paul timeline.