fatpie42

(emphasis added - obviously)

Um, so you agree with them on this one then, don't you? :huh:

Doug Shaver

But why make that assumption?

aa5874

You have no facts to support your claim that Paul did in fact write in the fifties, so I refute your position.

I will refute you until you can support your statement that Paul did in fact write in the fifties. You are the one who made a so-called statement of fact and never presented any evidence.

A concensus is not necessarily based on facts, it can be based on assumptions or beliefs. It may have been a concensus at one time that "Paul" wrote all the "Pauline Epistles", but now the concensus have changed and it is now assumed that "Paul" only wrote some of the Epistles.

Tommorrow, the concensus may be that "Paul" wrote none of the epistles and that the name "Paul" may have been fabricated late in the 2nd century.

fatpie42

He got the idea that Paul wrote in the 50s from the fact that this is the time the manuscript is normally dated to. He already explained how that would disqualify the destruction of the temple as the driving impetus. The Temple was not destroyed until 70 C.E., over 10 years later.

Didymus seems to suggest that the scenario of Jesus' particular crucifixion might have been enough to cause a stir. As such, the reason for holding Jesus' death as of particular importance would simply be a matter of lucky timing.

The dating of the first gospel is later than the dating of Paul's letters. Why do you think this is controversial?

In the end, the biggest problem seems to be that we don't have enough evidence to say how Christianity came about. It's very hard to distinguish fact from fiction and there's so much imagery and theological/political influence involved that vital historical details may have seemed rather unimportant to those passing down the initial oral tradition. It certainly seems likely that the gospel writers were trying to put the stories into a historical context. (For example when Luke decides that Jesus' parents were probably involved in a large census. On the one hand he fails to realise that the census takers would have visited the areas where people were living rather than expecting them to move. He also fails to realise that Galilee was not an area affected by that census anyway.)

The biggest problem I can see with the mythical Jesus argument is that disciples such as Peter do not appear to be mythical. If Paul knew Peter, are we to suppose that Paul's ideas on Christianity were due to a complete misunderstanding or wilful ignorance?

fatpie42

Romans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle...ting_of_Romans

Galatians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle...e_and_audience

Another theory which follows this claims that Galatians could be dated to as early as 49-50 AD.

Corinthians 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corin...Time_and_place

So, now at least Didymus isn't the only one who has made this 'so-called statement of fact'. Perhaps if you can find evidence contradicting these claims you can do us the honour of adding it to wikipedia with citations?

Toto

Sorry, there are no manuscripts of Paul's letters that can be dated that early. The dating is based on internal evidence.

Toto

Here is the last thread on that perennial favorite, how to date Paul's letters.

The wiki articles date Paul's letters in relation to each other, and this is probably accurate. But the overall dating is fixed by the reference to Gallio in Acts.

The reference to Damascus raises more problems than it solves.

spamandham

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...&postcount=149

spamandham

Personally, I find it simplistic to talk about "a" date for a given epistle. There were clearly multiple authors involved in every one of the "genuine" epistles, which means we have to try to date the particular passages we're interested in.

I don't know why this point is so often ignored.

...not directed to you Toto, but your post reminded me of this.

aa5874

Perhaps you didn't notice the words "probably", "could have" or "theory".

I will only accept the scholars' theories on the probable dates of the writing of the Pauline Epistles when they can provide external credible non-apologetic sources for their assumptions.

There is just too much internal inconsistencies surrounding "Paul". The Acts of the Apostles, the writings of Justin Martyr and the Epistles themselves appear to have chronological problems.