aa5874

The Pauline writings themselves do NOT state when any of them were written.

For hundreds of years people have PRESUMED that the Pauline letters were written before c 70 CE but the Pauline writer did NOT ever claim such thing.

Go through each letter word by word and you will see NO date is supplied by their authors.

And even more remarkable, the author of Acts did NOT claim that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches. The author of Acts made Paul a "postman" for the Jerusalem Church.

The author of Acts described the CONTENTS of a typical letter from the Jerusalem Church and claimed Paul and his Group ACTED as "POSTMEN".

Amazingly in the Canon there is NO internal corroboration that Paul wrote any letters and NO statement at all from the very Pauline writer that he wrote letters before c 70 CE.

The Pauline letters, P 46, are dated by Paleography from the mid 2nd-3rd century.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

outhouse

ya I just grabbed one link as a example.

understood pervo is the king of act's, despite his personal mistakes in life



theres so much scolarship on dating pauls epistles, and most all fall in line with each other.

Toto

There is a large body of "scholarship" that dates Paul's epistles by tying them into events in Acts, based on the assumption that Acts is historically reliable.

Once you drop that fallacious assumption, there is almost nothing to anchor Paul to any particular date.

outhouse

heres another read by Nixon.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pd...7/17_nixon.pdf


while acts contains mythology, its not void of historical facts. no scholar throws the baby out with the bath water.

Toto

How do you know that any of those historical facts involve Paul? Acts is patently church propaganda in a historical setting.

outhouse

not everything was church propaganda, nor can you show it ever was.

in pauls time there were no churches. Were talking about dinner tables in certain houses.

Adam

I would have thought that spin, at least, would recognize Peter Kirby as not an orthodox churchman. Here he proclaims himself a Naturalist in philosophy:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...c_inquiry.html

Why would even he date seven Pauline epistles to 50-60 CE unless there was evidence from academics, not just Bible scholars?

Toto

Peter Kirby was the product of a good Catholic school. His website reports on the standard scholarly consensus.

sotto voce

'Good', 'scholarly' and 'Catholic' in the same sentence.

tanya

'Good', 'scholarly' and 'Catholic' in the same sentence.

Absolutely, yes.

Augustine
Jerome
Thomas Aquinas,

closer to home: J.B. Lightfoot (yeah, I know, Church of England, but from my perspective, two peas in a pod, or more accurately, perhaps, a couple of enantiomers.)

They would all regard me, as an heretic, to be burned alive at the stake, unlike Bart, who would have me burned as a witch, up in Salem.