Vorkosigan

Yes, I've made this point many times here too. Once the gospels are seen a fictions, their datings are irrelevant to dating Paul -- and Paul's letters float upward several decades.

Vorkosigan

maryhelena

And that is what I said is it not?

Running with the idea of a composite figure of ‘Paul’ is relevant for unravelling early Christian history

Early christian history = chronology, time stamp, time frame. Pete, I don't view this whole exercise re early christian origins as a negative endeavor. I don't use words like *fabrication*, *conspiracy* or *fraud*. If you want to run things from the 3rd century and use these type of words - so be it. I'm not in that frame of mind re early christian history whatsoever.

mountainman

The "F" words are quite appropriate for the Pauline Epistles and the letters to Seneca.

I dont use the "C" word; but my detractors cant help themselves.

maryhelena

Indeed, once the gospel JC is viewed as ahistorical a whole new vista opens up for searching for early Christian origins. Unfortunately, some mythicists are stopping short of utilizing the wider perspective that a non-historical JC facilities. That said - the NT dating structure is, to my mind relevant. Relevant for outlining, suggesting, what history the NT writers deemed to be relevant for their pseudo-historical reconstructions. Below is a chart I’ve just put together. (no doubt it can be improved - but that’s it as of now...)What one makes of the relevant history is where the debates should be. I’ve only used the basic dating from gLuke and Acts - and the big one re ‘Paul’ and Aretas. I’ve not used the references in Acts to Herod the King - with no other qualifier these references are ambiguous.

(I'm running with the perspective that 'Paul', like JC, is a composite figure. Consequently, references re 'Paul' from Acts and 2 Cor are not referencing a historical figure. A composite figure cannot be equated with one specific historical figure. Who wrote, and when, the letters attributed to 'Paul' is outside of the scope of the chart.)

History (via Wikipedia)	New Testament	Notes
	2 Corinthians 11: 31 - 33
Aretas advanced towards Jerusalem at the head of 50,000 men, besieging the city for several months. ..Scaurus ordered Aretas to withdraw his army, which then suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Aristobulus on the journey back to Nabatea. In 64 BC, the Roman general Pompey annexed the western part of Syria. The Romans occupied Damascus and subsequently incorporated it into the league of ten cities known as the Decapolis.......The Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC) occurred during Pompey the Great's campaigns in the east.	The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.	The reference to Aretas is Aretas III who lost control of Damascus around 63/62 b.c. The relevant historical time frame for 'Paul's' pseudo-history runs from 63 b.c. when Judea became a Roman client kingdom. 'Paul's' escape from Damascus based upon the Joshua story of the escape of the spies over the walls of Jericho as a prelude to entering the Promised Land.
Aristobulus and his son were captured in 63 BCE. Antigonus the Hasmonean was captured and taken to Rome in 63 B.C. He and his father escaped and returned to Judea in 57 b.c. Aristobulus was on his way to Judaea with his son Alexander, in 49 BC when "he was taken off by poison given him by those of Pompey's party". His son Alexander was beheaded by the Roman commander Scipio at Antioch.		Paul' under house arrest in Rome.
Josephus states that Marc Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8-9). Roman historian Dio Cassius says he was crucified. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a stake and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him." In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king." Antigonus was taken to Antioch and executed, ending Hasmonean rule.		The crucifixion, the binding to a stake/cross and the scourging of Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews = ahistorical model for the pseudo-historical gospel JC crucifixion story. The JC story referencing elements from the Antigonus history (via Josephus) re 3 year ministry/rule (gJohn) the cutting the ear of the High Priest's representative (Hyrcanus by Antigonus). The exchange of money: Judas with the Jewish leaders. Herod the Great with Marc Antony to have Antigonus killed. Christians first being named so at Antioch (Acts)
	Luke 3:1
Tiberius 15th year = 29/30 c.e. Pilate dating ambigious = 19 - 26 -36 c.e. Herod Antipas = 4 b.c. - 39 c.e. Philip tetrarch = 4 b.c. - 20 th year of Tiberius, 34 c.e.(can be questioned). Lysanias tetrarch of Abiline = 40 b.c. - 36 b.c. High Priest Annas = 6 c.e.-15 c.e. Caiphas High Priest = 18 c.e. -36 c.e.	In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.	From Lysanias in 40 b.c. to the 15th year of Tiberius = 70 years of history for Luke's pseudo-historical story. Luke is also intersted in 63 b.c. He places his JC nativity story in 6 c.e. around 70 years from the events of 63 b.c. The long peaceful rule of Philip the Tetrarch = the model for the man of Peace element in the JC pseudo-history. Casearea Philippi and Bethsaida, places of relevance to Philip's history being places of relevance for the gospel JC story.
	Acts 18:11-13
Gallio dated between 51-52 AD or 52-53 AD.	So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God. While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia.
	Acts 23:23-25
Roman governor Felix = 52 - 60 c.e.	Then he called two of his centurions and ordered them, “Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen[a] to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. Provide horses for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.
	Acts 25: 12-14
Agrippa II, in 53 c.e., was made governor over the tetrarchy of Philip and Lysanias, by Claudius. In 66 c.e., the Jews expelled Agrippa II and Berenice from Jerusalem. Festus = about 60 - 62 c.e.	A few days later King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to pay their respects to Festus. Since they were spending many days there, Festus discussed Paul’s case with the king. He said: “There is a man here whom Felix left as a prisoner.	From Gallio and Agrippa II dating around 51/53 c.e. - until Festus around 60 c.e. about 7 years. - and another 7 years until 66 c.e., Agrippa II expelled from Jerusalem. Two 7 year periods - 7 +7 = 14 years.

aa5874

Whether or not the Canonised Gospels are fiction they are EXTREMELY significant for the LATE dating of the Pauline epistles.

Even if the Short-Ending of gMark was Fiction we still know the author used an EARLIER Hebrew source because he copied passages Word-for-Word.

Claims made by Paul are NOT found in the earliest Gospels, the Short-Ending Mark, the Long-Ending gMark and gMatthew.

The hypothetical "Q" [sayings common to gMatthew and gLuke] cannot be found in the Pauline writings.

The christology of the Pauline writings is FAR more higher than that of gMark and gMatthew.

Once the Gospels are logically deduced to be AFTER the Fall of the Temple then the Pauline writings cannot be earlier than gJohn.

Grog

Why necessarily upward?

EarlDoherty

There are flaws in this reasoning, but it may be several days before I can present them. I'm still dealing with the death of my mother and its aftermath, as well as a couple of personal matters. But I'll leave you with these two preliminary observations:

(1) Paul is hardly the sole source of material in early Christianity which can be used to determine relative overall dating for a movement which does not need an historical Jesus.

(2) No one is saying that "Paul" and the Paulines need to be specifically dated as traditional scholarship has done, but those epistles (in content much wider than simply Aretas!) can be shown to fit best with a general location of the middle range of the first century, while continuing to prove more problematic in a second century dating (this within the context of the documentary record and picture as a whole). That cannot be ignored simply to make an alleged point (as MH does, largely unargued) that eliminating the Gospels as history blithely frees the Paulines to be dated whenever one would like to see them.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Good point! Sometimes one has to step back, take a backwards step, in order to move forward. The past is always relevant to how we face the future...

aa5874

What you say is self-contradictory. By assuming the Pauline writings were early you have introduced a massive problem which was unheard of--that Jesus was was crucified in the Sub-Lunar and in effect made the Pauline writer an Heretic.

No such problems existed before.

There is evidence, even apologetic evidence, that the Pauline letters were written late.

1. The very Paul claimed he used WRITTEN sources to state Jesus died, was buried, and resurrected on the Third day. [1 Cor.15]

2. Apologetic sources, Origen and Eusebius, claimed Paul was aware of gLuke. [Church History 3.4.8, 6.25 and Commentary on Matthew]

3. Certain passages found in the Pauline writings are found ONLY in gLuke. [see 1 Cor.11.24-25 and Luke 22.19-20]

There is absolutely no problem in dating the Pauline writings AFTER gLuke. None whatsoever because there is evidence.

maryhelena

No, Earl, I never proposed any such thing...Perhaps, when you have more time - re-read what I wrote:

Earl, it's up to you, if you want to use the Gospel chronology - to produce a logical reason for doing so.