spin

Why would you think that, I mean that there was this likelihood? Sounds totally unsupported to me.

If we can go by Romans, the people Paul corresponded with were well-steeped in Jewish thought (ie Jewish or para-Jewish, as a christianity would have been) and most Romans were dubious of eastern religions and cults. I find it hard to see these people making their way into Caesar's household.

We have to assume that there were enough cultists, that they had a good enough education to be useful in Caesar's household, and that they were inducted into Caesar's service, especially when they were Jewish or para-Jewish.

Does this book provide any substantive evidence for your claim?


spin

neilgodfrey

The only sure testimony we have for dating Paul’s letters is the external testimony of Tertullian. He speaks of them first appearing as a corpus in the hands of Marcion.

Is it too pessimistic or just realistic to suggest that arguments from the self-witness of the letters themselves are inevitably going to be problematic in a world where the forgery or pseudograph and the interpolation are known to be rife?

And to make matters worse, after reading Patricia Rosenmeyer's "Ancient Epistolary Fictions", it appears to me to be legitimate even to ask if the entire original Pauline corpus could possibly be classified as pseudepigrapha. That’s because she demonstrates what clever buggers Hellenistic / Second Sophistic letter writers could be.

She sums up with statements like: “I have tried to show how certain aspects of fictional letters remain constant: the allegiance to “real� epistolary convention including a concern with sustaining epistolary verisimilitude, the awareness of multiple audiences, and the knowledge that one can reinvent oneself with each new page, for example. At the same time, as the letter form reappears in a multitude of genres throughout literary history, each new manifestation explores different angles of the letter’s flexibility.� (p.351)

And: “The last section of this study turned to a totally different kind of epistolary experiment, one in which the authorial voice and the addressee were a complete fabrication, unrelated for the most part to any historical or previous literary reality. The imperial epistolographers thus freed themselves to write wholly creatively, although still based on the society and customs of their literary ancestors in fourth-century Athens. Alciphron, Aelian, and Philostratus turned to letter collections as an exercise in “miniaturism,� a game of endless variation on a theme. Many of their letters stood alone as glimpses into urban or rustic lower-class life; others were paired responses, or used topoi that reappeared throughout the series. These letters were masterpieces of rhetorical display, paeans to classicism; their wickedly inventive and meaningful addressees’ names are tributes to the human imagination. Finally, Philostratus capped the development of the epistolary tradition in this period by introducing his own persona as letter writer, unmediated by other assumed voices or identities. His focus on himself was even more clearly defined by the almost total anonymity of his fictional addressees.� (p.353)

Rosenmeyer, Patricia A. Ancient Epistolary Fictions : The Letter in Greek Literature. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Zeichman

Can you demonstrate that the TF's reference to Christians is an interpolation, or are you just assuming it? The language of "tribe of Christians" is, as far as I know, unused by early Christians. Josephus seems, at best, to be dismissive of this "tribe," something one would not expect an interpolator to be.

Additionally, as I saw no mention of these in this thread, and didn't look through the other ones, It's significant to note that P46 is dated to circa 200 CE (Paul's letters) and P98 is dated to the second century (Acts) [Honest to Jesus, p. 107]. I can't comment as to where these were discovered, more accurate dating. or what particular verses were in these fragments.

Peter Kirby

FWIW, Eusebius uses it, and Eusebius also translates phulon (tribe, of Christians) into the Latin of Tertullian.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Zeichman: You might want to read Ken Olson's article "Eusebian Fabrication of the Testimonium" (I think you have to join the JM list to read it.) I think that there might be an updated version of this article, but I don't seem to have a reference.

Peter Kirby relies on it in his article on the Testamonium.

Neil: I wish that book were not so expensive. Ancient Epistolary Fictions: The Letter in Greek Literature (or via: amazon.co.uk) searchable on Amazon

S.C.Carlson

Here's one approach for dating the first four letters of the Pauline corpus, all undisputed today and even by F.C. Baur of the Tübingen School, without use of data from Acts:

1. Second Corinthians 11:32-33 refers to an incident where Paul escaped from King Aretas's ethnarch in Damascus.

2. Using data from Josephus, this event can be dated to late 36 CE; see: Douglas A. Campbell, “An Anchor for Pauline Chronology: Paul’s Flight from “the ethnarch of King Aretas� (2 Cor 11:32–33),� JBL 121 (2002): 279–302.

3. In Gal 1:17, Paul referred to his presence in Damascus, at least twice but apparently in close succession. Then Paul referred to events occurring 3 years after that (1:18-24) and then to events "after 14 years" (2:1ff.).

4. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether the 3 and 14 years are concurrent or consecutive. If concurrent, then the events of Gal 2:1ff occurred around 36+14 = 50 CE; if consecutive, around 36+17 = 53 CE.

5. The writing of Galatians occurred at some point after the events of Gal 2:1, but of some recency, perhaps from 0-5 years afterwards.

6. This puts the writing of Galatians in the range of 50-58, possibly a bit latter.

7. The rest of the big 4 can be placed within a decade or so of Galatians (IMHO, within a couple of years). (FWIW, I do not subscribe to the early Galatians theory; I think it was written somewhat after 2 Cor.).

8. Of the undisputed letters outside of the big four, 1 Thess is probably earlier, Philippians is probably later, and Philemon is difficult to date.

9. Disputed letters have to be dated in conjunction with one's theory of authorship.

Stephen

Toto

Massive frustration: this article is on the web:

http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1212.pdf

but I can't read it. Adobe Acrobat 7.0 tells me the file is corrupted. Even Google's HTML cache is distorted.

I wrote this two years ago: Was Paul Ever In Damascus?, and I am not sure about the "loophole" metaphor. But it does not appear that Aretas ever ruled Damascus, and the "ethnarch" appears to be a modern harmonizer's addition to the text to get around that fact.

How does Campell date this ethnarch?

spin

This reference was specifically mentioned in the OP in the only historical context available to us.

Campbell starts with the assumption that the Pauline letter contains information that can be fit into the framework of assumptions already in place. He gives four scenarios each of which assumes the veracity of the information in 2 Cor 11 [edited to add: in the status quo contextualisation of circa 40 CE, using Acts and the gospels], ie he assumes his conclusion and the only choice which remains is how one gets there.

1. the ethnarch was actually outside Damascus waiting to apprehend Paul;
2. the ethnarch was only in charge of the Nabataean population of Damascus;
3. the ethnarch was indeed governor of Damascus through a gift by Gaius to Aretas; and
4. Aretas had seized Damascus after the war with Herod Antipas.

The first two disagree with the text and merely try -- approximately -- to accomodate what it says, though not causing greater speculation such as the other two scenarios (Campbell basically scuttles these two).

The third seems to be conjecture (and Campbell comes down against it: "it has no evidence in favor of it and one or two considerations in balance against it.") as does the fourth, which would have required vigorous response from the Romans, as Damascus was a part of the province of Syria. Vitellius would not have needed any instruction on the part of Tiberius to deal with such a problem, while there was no reason to be interested in Aretas's activities further south (Campbell intimates no love lost between Vitellius and Herod Antipas). Campbell is in favour of this fourth scenario, but it again is wish fulfillment rather than historically supported.

The motivation is obvious in all scenarios, ie to make the Pauline statement work somehow. We have no necessity for the Pauline statement fitting into the models that christian scholars wish to construct.

We are left with only the evidence of the Nabataeans taking control of Damascus early in the 1st c. BCE. Beside that there is nothing, but the hypotheses Campbell investigates.


spin

Amaleq13

The interpolator could find the term "tribe" elsewhere in Josephus though never in reference to a religious group. I believe most, if not all, of the phrases/terminology in the "reduced TF" can also be found elsewhere in Josephus though those examples tend to argue against authenticity (eg require an assumption that Josephus equated Jesus' wisdom with Solomon's). Borrowing actual words and phrases an author used elsewhere seems like a pretty obvious way to generate an interpolation even though the original context of the words and phrases might give the game away when critically considered.

The point of inserting an interpolation is to make it seem as though the "author" wrote it rather than an interpolator, isn't it?

krosero

I did not respond to your inference that I'd missed the current thread about the James passage, though it was reasonable since I see now that the biological meaning of "brother" was discussed there. Still, I had read much of that thread, and would have searched it thoroughly if I was going to make a specific argument concerning interpolation, for instance about the nature of brotherhood (an issue my argument did not need to decide, as I pointed out in my last reply, since I only offered that Jesus and James were linked by Josephus).

Jesus says, "the days will come when there shall not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" (Lk 21:6). As noted, because of this verse I would place Luke post-70. But I do not regard this as a clear historical marker (your own word was "clearly"). There are issues here: this prophecy is incorrect, since the Western Wall was left standing; for that reason it is often regarded as a true saying of the historical Jesus. If it was true, perhaps Luke included it as a true saying and not in order to refer to a recent destruction; perhaps he was prompted to include it because he was impressed in general with traditions that Jesus had pronounced a doom on the Temple and/or opposed the authorities behind it and the practices they sanctioned. I don't think we have much of a disagreement, here, though; in the end I regard Luke's indications as enough to place his gospel post-70; not clear, but enough.

Correct me if I'm wrong: you're referring to Galatians where Paul says he did not receive the gospel from any man, and separately, that after receiving his vision he did not confer immediately with men. He then mentions conferring with Kephas, without specifying what he received from him (for conferring implies a two-way dialogue and not a disrespectful lecture from Paul). You're referring to some claim by Paul that he positively did not learn anything from the men in Jerusalem, but I think this is unwarranted.

It give us one terminus for the writings, as I noted. I then offered that to establish the terminus at the other end via JC and Josephus, you'd have to comb Paul's letters to find reliable indications of a recently deceased individual. My own memory of Paul's letters did not bring to mind any particular marker, so I left it at that.

I think I have something, but let's establish what we're actually debating so there's no misunderstanding. I said that internal Biblical evidence, using Gallio, is still the best way to get usefully specific about Paul's dates. I don't see this as a problem particularly; I hardly expect external evidence to resolve really subtle gradations in the timeline. All I'm trying here is an experiment: if we had nothing else in Paul but the biblical characters, without Gallio or Aretas or other such minor characters, how far do we get using JC as a historical marker via Josephus? At one end, if we overcome all objections, we have Pilate at around the year 33, plus any subsequent years that Paul adds, such as the 3-year and 14-year periods that followed Paul's initial revelation according to his testimony at the beginning of Galations.

I'm proposing that we see a recently deceased figure in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8. Paul writes that Christ died, was buried, and was raised "on the third day". This last phrase may not be literal, and I assume Ellegard takes it to be symbolical. Well enough, the conversation could stop there. But I don't think we get very far when we cease conversation. The phrase could be evocative of the OT and still point to a time span of days; and unless we have evidence pointing to a very long time period, I don't know that we need to dilate the "three" days into many decades, or even that we need to leave Pilate's time very far behind. In any case, subsequent verses suggest that we're not speaking of a Christ who died in the first century B.C.E. Why? I don't mean the appearances to Kephas, the Twelve and to the 500. I mean the appearance to James, whom Paul refers to by his given name and nothing else in this passage, but elsewhere as the brother of the Lord -- a man with whom Paul conferred. How many years can separate brothers? Well, sometimes more than a few years, esp. if they're not biological brothers; but this issue has already been with us, so I'll continue.

In chapter 15, verse 20, Paul writes, "But now Christ has been been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." I don't know ancient Greek, so I'm just offering my impressions of the English: "now" suggests a recent event -- as does Paul's general sense of urgency about our whole condition having been changed by Christ's rising, which he locates "on the third day" after the burial, and which he seems to talk about as if it had ushered in a brief span of time that would be concluded by Christ's return.

So I don't agree that timelines pointing to a recently deceased figure are elusive in Paul. Paul lacks clear one-shot markers of such a thing, and it's fine for Doherty to ask what that could mean. But I think at most we can say that non-fundamentalist scholars have found certainty about these markers to be elusive. They're there, and defendable, albeit not easily.

All historical portraits involve probabilities rather than certainties, and this one is not a certainty; it encounters many objections along the way. I believe that the NT rarely refers to material events without cloaking them in theological language, which means that there must always be challenges to phrases like "on the third day"; I don't believe this picture I've painted has a chance of convincing a skeptic. For me this is not about convincing, since we're dealing in probabilities. I was interested in asking what we COULD get on the question of Paul's dating if we used JC as a historical marker via Josephus, and we did not answer objections along the way with the typical arguments of fundamentalists (such as the full authenticity of the TF). I think I've done that, but I'd be interested in hearing any relevant objections you want to mention here, particularly on the "recently deceased" question.