Vinnie

55 C.E. +/-10

Is that better?

My statement only applies to Paul's genuine epistles. Paul could have written something in the 20s for all I know or care. The maximum date depends on Paul's death.


Limited External attestation which does occur 1st century (e.g. Clement)


Evidence of Collections. Marcions collection and the one behind most Greek Manuscripts and P46 which is dated ca 200. Both were current in the mid-2d century. This is obvious for Marcion who is placedi n that time period but undoubtedly, p46 was current in the middle of the second century as well. Why? Scholar will not relegate the creation of this colection as occuring in Egypt and it must have undergone significant development to include Hebrews. Thus the latest possible date of this collection of letters that were written in different times before it is mid second century.

There is another collection that is usually dated no later than early second century (at the latest!). Its one which 10 letters addressed to seven churches which contained the letters in decreasing length and counted together letters to the same community. The evidence for this is less direct but it all fits.

Its evidenced by Marcion's collection which seems to have depended on this earlier one and is tied in with two other groups of letters to seven churches ca. 100 which do not imitate one another and also with the problems of Paul's letter's particularity which as Harry Y. Gamble wrote in Books and Readers in the Early Church, "The textual traditions of Paul's letters preserves indications of an early, certainly first century, effort to overcome the problem by deleting or generalizing the addresses of some of the letters and sometimes by omitting other locally specific matter as well, thus mechanically conferring on Paul's particular letters the appearance of general letters."p. 60 But this chopping method proved inadequate since the particularity of Paul's letters was too extenive to obscure through textual emendation. The collection of ten books to seven churchs referenced above appears to be a more adequate solution to chopping up Paul. But the letters certainly predate this and some time for development is needed.

Already off the limited generic material above our latest possible date is shrinking back down....

To use an internal and less generic and more specific evidence: to take just one example, I can date Thessalonians easily and early on the basis of its uber-urgent eschatology. It was OBVIOUSLY written very early. I noted the progression here before (Paul to Mark to John to Red.John). Paul's audience was shaken that Christ has not returned when some of them have died. This is a very clear chronological indicator IMO.

Then we have the letters written in Paul's name afterwards which can be dated to varying degrees. Obviously Paul's letters predate these and presumably Paul was dead by this time as well.

We haven't even discussed Acts and the Pauline corpus yet though nor any of the content of the genuine epistels themselves and their chronological indications.

You just have not yet convinced me that something so bland and basic is worth the effort? Why go on?

krosero

So apparently I wasn't skeptical enough in the common ground I thought we could all stand on. I should have said, "A skeptic would find at least that Jesus, if he even existed, did not do everything the Gospels said he did." Minor edit, minor difference. My question is still there: is there an inconsistency in the way Josephus is used against HJ arguments?

Yes, that's what skeptics here argue: and they follow up with the conclusion (separately reached) that Josephus did not mention Jesus. They use, as I say, the Gospel Jesus as a hypothetical figure that Josephus should have heard about, rather than asking whether Josephus would have heard or written about a naturalistic figure.

The question about if he was a big splash or if he was too insignificant for Josephus to write about just seems like a false choice to me. Why the extremes? A person can cause quite a stir, and remain interesting historically, if one historian of the time happens not to have found him interesting the way we do. And leaving us aside and sticking just to Josephus, he could have found someone interesting who was not supernatural but who did cause a stir and may not fairly be described as an insignificant nobody.

Vinnie

actually strike the Clement attestation from my post....too specific a dating assumed...though late first early second would be accurate but this gives us nothing new....

Peter Kirby

Because bringing systematization to the bland and basic is the essence of science, an enchantment with the ordinary. And because in the discipline of NT studies, as in any--to quote the ancient saw--well begun is half done. Setting down a solid foundation makes so many other questions easier.

So far we have this: Marcion had a collection of Paulines and, if he did not write them, they must have been written some time before. How much longer before? Can we tell from some data other than Marcion's use, which doesn't move us any earlier than 'the early second century or before'?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

No, thats not what I said. I said there were three collections.

1) Marcions which dats ca 140 or whenever Marcion is placed.
2) The one behind Greek manuscripts today and P46 whic his dates ca 200. This must be placed as current at least mid 2d. for the two reasons I articulated: can't be viewed as created in Egypt and it includs Hebrews suggesting development.
3) Three cumulative reasons for an even earlier collection on which Marcion;s was based with consisted of letters to 7 Churches (number symbolizing completeness of Paul's addresses to the church when in fact he wrote particualr letters).
4) Thus the evidence is that Christians seem to have had difficulties with the particular nature of Paul's letters in the first century. This collection embraced the problem and furnaced a solution to it no later than early 2d. century. As I quoted Gamble: "The textual traditions of Paul's letters preserves indications of an early, certainly first century, effort to overcome the problem by deleting or generalizing the addresses of some of the letters and sometimes by omitting other locally specific matter as well, thus mechanically conferring on Paul's particular letters the appearance of general letters."p. 60 But this chopping method proved inadequate since the particularity of Paul's letters was too extenive to obscure through textual emendation."


I also posed other methods for dating.

1) Using epistles written in Paul's name to establish a maximum date. I was not specific on exacts.
2) You can use specific examples such as the overly-urgent eschatology found in Thessalonians which places this letter early--between Jesus and the gospel of Mark in my progression. There are theres.
3) Add in Acts of the apostles (I was not specific on parts).
4) There are limited attestations to individual works e.g. Ignatius (early 2d.), 1 Clement, (late first to early second century) and on and on. To add another:
5) Even something as mundane as dating James (faith vs works) can tie in evidence.

The problem is this is old news. We are not doing anything new here as far as I am aware. Do you have some good reasons for doubting what most everyone sees as overly obvious that should cause us to take up this issue again? No one wants to discuss it, its dead. Effort is better spent on methodology and reconstruction.

spin

If he wasn't a big splash then he drops below historical radar. Not only doesn't Josephus talk about him, but you don't reach him with depth charges either. The fish is running too low for the usual means of historical detection devices. This means the fish gets away, that is if the fish was there in the first place. Who really knows what was seen in the fog? Was it just a trick of shadows? Or was there something real?


spin

Clivedurdle

Never mind Josephus mentioning Jesus, did he discuss xianity or something similar to it? Is there a silence about xianity?

Clivedurdle

from http://i-cias.com/e.o/jerusalem.htm.

Let's try something else. Jesus is a complete fiction. Xianity arose post 70 and towards Hadrian 130, and this is evidenced by discussion of the new Jerusalem, and the kingdom is with you. Josephus does not mention anything because it wasn't there! Acts is definitely based on Josephus. Marcion pulls it all together about 140.

Clivedurdle

Further, do we have several separate religions/cults that became joined together with its history rewritten afterwards to make it look all reasonable and logical?

A gnostic paul going on about a heavenly christ elsewhere in the empire, some real social advances about keeping things in common arising from the experience of the Jewish wars, various other bits and pieces?

spin

Peter Kirby and Vinnie have decided when Paul was doing his thing. On what grounds they have done so they have not stated, other than a brief undefined reference to the letter of Clement (c. 96 CE). I have started a thread to see how one can date the Pauline corpus independently from other nt efforts. Perhaps they can enlighten me.


spin