FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-27-2013, 08:35 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default Dating Paul

PAUL NOT NAMED AND EPISTLES NOT MENTIONED
Revelation (late 90's CE)
Quadratus (120's CE), Apology
Aristedes (120's CE), Apology
Gospels (120's-180's CE)
Papias (130's CE)
Didache (130's CE)
Ariston (early 140's CE)
Epistle of Barnabas (early 140's CE)
Epistle of James (early 140's CE)
Shepard of Hermas (140's CE)
Justin, 1 Apology (approximately 150 CE)
Justin, Dialogue (approximately 160 CE)
2 Clement (approximately 160 CE)
Tatian, early 160's CE
Miltiades, early 160's CE
Minucius Felix, early 160's CE
Clausius Apollinaris, early 160's CE
Hegesippus, Commentaries, 165-75 CE
Dionysius of Corinth, ca 170 CE
Melito of Sardis, early 170's CE
Rhodon, early 170's CE
Celsus, True Word, 170's CE
Athenagoras, Apology, late 170's CE
Theophilus of Antioch, early 180's CE
Maximus, 180's CE
Serapion, approximately 190 CE
Athenagoras, Apology 170's CE

PAUL KNOWN BUT EPISTLES NOT MENTIONED
Episcula Apostolorum, 170's CE
Acts of the Apostles, ca 180 CE

BOTH PAUL AND EPISTLES KNOWN
Marcion and the Gnostics, Apostilicon 130's CE
Ignatians, Marcionite (or Appelean) version, approximately 160 CE
Polycarp, 160's CE
Pastoral Epistles, (by Polycarp?) 160's CE
1 Clement (Catholic redaction) 150-160's CE
2 Peter, 180-200 CE
Irenaeus, 180's CE
Ignatians (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
Pauline Epistles (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
Tertullian, Third century CE
Origen, Third century CE

Best,
Jake Jones IV
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 02-27-2013, 09:13 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default

Hi Jakejonesiv,

Based on this evidence, it does seem reasonable to place Paul's epistles around 130, and probably to attribution them to Marcion. Marcion might have rewritten an earlier substratum. We might also consider a more orthodox revision in the 160's.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
PAUL NOT NAMED AND EPISTLES NOT MENTIONED
Revelation (late 90's CE)
Quadratus (120's CE), Apology
Aristedes (120's CE), Apology
Gospels (120's-180's CE)
Papias (130's CE)
Didache (130's CE)
Ariston (early 140's CE)
Epistle of Barnabas (early 140's CE)
Epistle of James (early 140's CE)
Shepard of Hermas (140's CE)
Justin, 1 Apology (approximately 150 CE)
Justin, Dialogue (approximately 160 CE)
2 Clement (approximately 160 CE)
Tatian, early 160's CE
Miltiades, early 160's CE
Minucius Felix, early 160's CE
Clausius Apollinaris, early 160's CE
Hegesippus, Commentaries, 165-75 CE
Dionysius of Corinth, ca 170 CE
Melito of Sardis, early 170's CE
Rhodon, early 170's CE
Celsus, True Word, 170's CE
Athenagoras, Apology, late 170's CE
Theophilus of Antioch, early 180's CE
Maximus, 180's CE
Serapion, approximately 190 CE
Athenagoras, Apology 170's CE

PAUL KNOWN BUT EPISTLES NOT MENTIONED
Episcula Apostolorum, 170's CE
Acts of the Apostles, ca 180 CE

BOTH PAUL AND EPISTLES KNOWN
Marcion and the Gnostics, Apostilicon 130's CE
Ignatians, Marcionite (or Appelean) version, approximately 160 CE
Polycarp, 160's CE
Pastoral Epistles, (by Polycarp?) 160's CE
1 Clement (Catholic redaction) 150-160's CE
2 Peter, 180-200 CE
Irenaeus, 180's CE
Ignatians (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
Pauline Epistles (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
Tertullian, Third century CE
Origen, Third century CE

Best,
Jake Jones IV
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 02-27-2013, 10:04 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Then again, if the epistles were composite texts combining preexisting Bible friendly writings with additions concerning the Christ story then there is no reason to assume an actual Paul at all. Especially since the epistles are always presented as a set for which no evidence exists that they were written or received, or that any of the Christian communities existed.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 02-27-2013, 11:21 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

'Marcion and the Gnostics, Apostilicon 130's CE'

Seems to be a ringer in this list. Just how secure is this date? Or rather what is credible evidence of the claimed content?
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 02-27-2013, 11:50 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

'Dating Paul.' Sounds like one of those romantic comedies which stars Josh Duhamel (although the way you spell 'datig' it looks more like a foreign attempt at that genre).

stephan huller is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 01:30 AM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
'Marcion and the Gnostics, Apostilicon 130's CE'

Seems to be a ringer in this list. Just how secure is this date? Or rather what is credible evidence of the claimed content?
It is all speculative, of course, and based on the reflection of Marion in his enemies' writings.

R. Joseph Hoffman
has argued that the standard dates are too late, and Marcion is earlier than commonly thought.

Quote:
Hoffmann's 1982 doctoral thesis, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity, was published in 1984. His theory was that Marcion must be dated substantially before the dates assigned on the basis of patristic testimony. According to Hoffmann, Marcion possessed the earliest version of Luke and preserved the primitive version of Paul's letters. He also attempted to discredit much of the early patristic evidence for Marcion's life and thought as being apologetically driven.
Toto is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 01:52 AM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Hey jakejonesiv,

Nice list.
What about the non canonical Acts of Paul?
I imagine it would fit in to the category:
PAUL KNOWN BUT EPISTLES NOT MENTIONED.

Technically the Acts of Paul depends on the existence of "Paul".
The dating of the non canonical act cannot be before (Canonical) Paul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WIKI
The Acts of Paul is one of the major works and earliest pseudepigraphal (noncanonical) series from the New Testament also known as Apocryphal Acts, an approximate date given to the Acts of Paul is 160 CE.[1]


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Davis

The Acts of Paul (Asia Minor, 185-195 CE) is a romance that makes arbitrary use of the canonical Acts and the Pauline Epistles. Many manuscripts have survived, there is an English translation in [Schneemelcher] v. 2 pp. 237-265, but there is not yet a critical edition. The canon list in the 6th century codex Claromontanus includes it with an indication that it contains 3560 lines, somewhat longer than the canonical Acts with 2600 lines. The author, so Tertullian tells us, was a cleric who lived in the Roman province of Asia in the western part of Asia Minor, and who composed the book about 170 CE with the avowed intent of doing honor to the Apostle Paul. Although well-intentioned, the author was brought up for trial by his peers and, being convicted of falsifying the facts, was dismissed from his office. But his book, though condemned by ecclesiastical leaders, achieved considerable popularity among the laity. Certain episodes in the Acts of Paul, such as the 'Journeys of Paul and Thecla', exist in a number of Greek manuscripts and in half a dozen ancient versions. Thecla was a noble-born virgin from Iconium and an enthusiastic follower of the Apostle; she preached like a missionary and administered baptism. It was the administration of baptism by a woman that scandalized Tertullian and led him to condemn the entire book. In this section we find a description of the physical appearance of Paul:

A man small in size, with a bald head and crooked legs; in good health; with eyebrows that met and a rather prominent nose; full of grace, for sometimes he looked like a man and sometimes he looked like an angel.

Another episode concerns the Apostle and the baptized lion. Although previously known from allusions to it in patristic writers, it was not until 1936 that the complete text was made available from a recently discovered Greek papyrus. Probably the imaginative writer had read Paul's rhetorical question: 'What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with the wild beasts at Ephesus?' (I Cor. 15:32). Wishing to supply details to supplement this allusion, the author supplies a thrilling account of the intrepid apostle's experience at Ephesus. Interest is added when the reader learns that some time earlier in the wilds of the countryside Paul had preached to that very lion and, on its profession of faith, had baptized it. It is not surprising that the outcome of the confrontation in the amphitheater was the miraculous release of the apostle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Trowbridge

The Acts Of Paul (c. 150-200 C.E.) were by far the most popular of the apocryphal acts, spawning a great deal of Christian art and secondary literature, as well as a cult which venerated Thecla, the young girl who accompanies Paul on his missionary journeys. The Acts were considered orthodox by Hippolytus, as well as other writers as late as the mid-fourth century, but were eventually rejected by the church when heretical groups like the Manichaeans began to adopt them. Still, some late Greek texts of the Epistles to Timothy contain alternate passages that appear to be derived from the Acts. The Acts of Paul were often coupled with the Third Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, which was regarded as authentically Pauline by the Syrian and Armenian churches. Originally a separate work, it was likely written around the time of the pastoral epistles and conjoined with the later Acts only after it had been excluded from most Pauline collections. The letter was written primarily to combat Gnostic and Marcionite doctrine which utilized other Pauline works for anti-semitic means. This epistle has survived in several extant manuscripts, as have the stories of Thecla and the account of Paul's beheading in Rome; the remainder of the Acts exist only in fragmentary Greek texts from the third century, and Coptic texts from the fifth. The author, who is unknown, does not appear to show any dependence upon the canonical Acts, instead utilizing other oral traditions of Paul's preaching and missionary work. He likely wrote in Asia Minor near the end of the second century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip Sellew (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 202)

A 2nd-century Christian writing recounting the missionary career and death of the apostle Paul and classed among the NT Apocrypha. In this work Paul is pictured as traveling from city to city, converting gentiles and proclaiming the need for a life of sexual abstinence and other encratite practices. Though ancient evidence suggests that the Acts of Paul was a relatively lengthy work (3600 lines according to the Stichometry of Nicephorus), only about two-thirds of that amount still survives. Individual sections were transmitted separately by the medieval manuscript tradition (Lipsius 1891), most importantly by the Acts of Paul and Thekla and the Martyrdom of Paul, both extant in the original Greek and several ancient translations. Manuscript discoveries in the last century have added considerable additional material. The most important of these include a Greek papyrus of the late 3d century, now at Hamburg (10 pages), a Coptic papyrus of the 4th or 5th century, now at Heidelberg (about 80 pages), and a Greek papyrus of correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians (3 Corinthians = Testuz 1959), now at Geneva. These finds have confirmed that the Thekla cycle and story of Paul's martyrdom were originally part of the larger Acts of Paul (details in Bovon 1981 or NTApocr.).
mountainman is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 05:56 AM   #8
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default date of revelation

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv
Revelation (late 90's CE)
Thank you Jake, excellent research, an important post to the forum.

I am writing to suggest that the date you have offered for authorship of Revelation, may be too early, by several decades.

As I understand it, John of Patmos is regarded by some authorities as the same author, John, of gospel fame.

Then, the date for Revelation is based on two different assumptions:
a. that we know when John, author of "gospel of John", lived, and composed;
b. that the same guy subsequently wrote Revelation, hence the late first century date.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Differences in style, theological content, and familiarity with Greek between the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, and the Revelation are seen by some scholars as indicating three separate authors
I am unable to find a reference to either John's life. How do we know when these guys were writing?
If someone writes a history of Ivan the terrible, then, we understand this author lived after Ivan. If someone writes a history of Russia, and makes no mention of Ivan grozny, then can we reasonably conclude that he must have lived BEFORE Ivan had ruled?

Which of the documents in your excellent list, references John of Patmos? Or, is there some other source, not included in this list for dating Paul's epistles, that mentions John of Patmos?

With respect to Marcion, are there not some sculptures, or coins, or temples, or engravings on stone, somewhere, attesting to his existence in mid second century, or is there only conjecture, and assumption based on Tertullian or other 3rd century opponents? Do any of the documents attributed to Mani, for example those found along the silk route, mention Marcion? Were they not both raised in Ὁσροηνή? I think that Mani referenced Paul, but I am not positive about that....

You cited Tatian, I guess that means "Diatessaron". Umm, Does he mention in any document, John of Patmos? Where is the SOURCE for this idea that John of Patmos lived in the first century? I hope it is not Eusebius.....
avi is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 09:08 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
Default

Jake,
Of course, I do not accept many of your dating. As example,
- for Mark's gospel (70-71), see here
- for Matthew's gospel (80-90), see here
- for 1 Clement (81), see here

Where does that dating in your OP come from?

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard Muller is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 09:19 AM   #10
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
PAUL NOT NAMED AND EPISTLES NOT MENTIONED
Revelation (late 90's CE)
Quadratus (120's CE), Apology
Aristedes (120's CE), Apology
Gospels (120's-180's CE)
Papias (130's CE)
Didache (130's CE)
Ariston (early 140's CE)
Epistle of Barnabas (early 140's CE)
Epistle of James (early 140's CE)
Shepard of Hermas (140's CE)
Justin, 1 Apology (approximately 150 CE)
Justin, Dialogue (approximately 160 CE)
2 Clement (approximately 160 CE)
Tatian, early 160's CE
Miltiades, early 160's CE
Minucius Felix, early 160's CE
Clausius Apollinaris, early 160's CE
Hegesippus, Commentaries, 165-75 CE
Dionysius of Corinth, ca 170 CE
Melito of Sardis, early 170's CE
Rhodon, early 170's CE
Celsus, True Word, 170's CE
Athenagoras, Apology, late 170's CE
Theophilus of Antioch, early 180's CE
Maximus, 180's CE
Serapion, approximately 190 CE
Athenagoras, Apology 170's CE

PAUL KNOWN BUT EPISTLES NOT MENTIONED
Episcula Apostolorum, 170's CE
Acts of the Apostles, ca 180 CE

BOTH PAUL AND EPISTLES KNOWN
Marcion and the Gnostics, Apostilicon 130's CE
Ignatians, Marcionite (or Appelean) version, approximately 160 CE
Polycarp, 160's CE
Pastoral Epistles, (by Polycarp?) 160's CE
1 Clement (Catholic redaction) 150-160's CE
2 Peter, 180-200 CE
Irenaeus, 180's CE
Ignatians (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
Pauline Epistles (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
Tertullian, Third century CE
Origen, Third century CE

Best,
Jake Jones IV
This is list provided by jakejones is very good. This is the sort of information that I hoped that so-called scholars would present.

There is a consistent pattern in these sources which shows that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed AFTER the Jesus story was known.

Examine every writing in the list.

1. There are writings which the authors knew of the Jesus story but Nothing of Paul, the Pauline Revealed Gospel and Pauline letters to Churches.

2. Any author that wrote about Paul, the Pauline Revealed Teachings or Pauline letters to Churches will ALWAYS know of the Jesus story.

3. The Pauline writings themselves show that the Pauline writer was AWARE of the Jesus story and even the stories about the disciples and even claimed he persecuted those who believed the stories of Jesus.

4. Authors which mentioned the Pauline letters to Churches know virtually all books of the Canon.

The pattern is consistent Pauline letters to Churchs did NOT predate the story of Jesus.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:34 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.