darstec

I would place "authentic" Paul in the second century. He quotes material from the Septuagint which according to Josephus and other sources was not yet translated into Greek. But then he also "quotes" or pretends to quote Greek from the Old Testament which doesn't appear in any translations or fragments we have access to.

I also see Gnostic influence in Paul. There are also some very early parts of Paul I would place in the first century. But I do not see Paul persecuting Christians until after Titus damaged Jerusalem.

The paucity of Greek and Aramaic framents/manuscripts in the Dead Sea Scroll collection seems to parallel Josephus' contention. But this is mostly guess work on my part and not widely supported by many scholars. However with 2000 years and the Catholic Church in control of literature it is a wonder much of anything got to us, and what did I am sure has been compromised. At least we can thank those Irish monks who defied Roman and copied all kinds of heretical and even pornographical literature for us, else we would have even fewer of the Classics than we have now.

rlogan

Peachy.

Do we have a forged 1 Clement and Ignatia?


Hmm. I don't see where Paul gets authority to be persecuting anyone. I do see a marketing principle being applied - if the worst critic turns out to be the best witness then we must indeed listen.

But I'm open to discussion.

I also am of the opinion that the Tacitus reference to persecution under Nero is doctored to commandeer a reference to some other group.



I guess where all this is going is the general idea that the 2nd Century is the birth of what we now call "Christianity", although there were some limited "Christ" cults operating in the first.

Diogenes the Cynic

I like to phrase it as "assuming the impossible is impossible until proven otherwise."

I don't know why so many theists find that to be such an unreasonable premise. Of course, they try to argue that there is some sort of meaningful disnction between the "miraculous" and the "impossible," but that usually involves some variation of the formulation that "It's not impossible for God,' which is really only a disguised tautology for the statement that "It's not impossible if it's not impossible."

Djugashvillain

You have no evidence, do you?

Agemegos

Were there? I thought the Tale of Genji by Murasaki Shikibu was recognised as the world's first novel. And that was written nine hundred years after the Gospels.

Kosh

Interesting. What is the evidence behind the typical Pauline dating? (50 - 60 ad)???

darstec

Paul must write during that era to make the approximate traditional 70 CE date for GMark to work. Logic states that there had to be a decade or so for the epistles to disperse widely enough for Mark to use them. Push Paul further into the future pushes all the other gospels much further.

If Paul is placed into the second century then any supposed prophesies just become hindsight not prognostication. And temple problems then become pushed forward from Titus to Hadrian (where I think they belong). Parts of Paul are obviously second century. But then did "Paul" write the naive theology normally assigned to the 6th and 7th decades of the first century or did he borrow them for his own use, writing much later? It is possible that "Paul" is a school rather than a person.

What about the Mark Hofmanns (Mormon forgeries) of the first and second centuries? Surely any literate person had a much greater advantage back then. Religion is as strong a motivator for fraud as money.

Diogenes the Cynic

darstec, I find your ideas intriguing and i'd ike to subscribe to your newsletter.

I'm curious, what do you think is the origin and meaning of Paul's appearance chronology? In particular, what the hell was he talking about with the "500?"

rlogan

Well exactly so. I think sheer inertia is keeping people out of the second century, and despite such a long and thorough history of fabrication from the first word of Genesis onward, there is an unshakeable tendency to stay near the party line of the former church gestapo.

I am baffled by the tendency of quite good scholars to look at some of the vague "there will be false prophets" or whatever in GMark and attempt to place these with events in the first century. The temple "no stone left standing" is a fairly clear reference, but can only tell us post-70 and nothing more.

The writer wants us to believe 1st century, but he can't even get his geography straight, nor can he come up with better historical anchors. I think this is a demonstration he's both removed in time and place.

It is the Testimonium Flavianum and other church frauds that form a web keeping the whole structure in the 1st century.

A school that does not subscribe to a Historical Jesus until the consolidation of church power makes it a necessity?

This is a good question, anyway.

Susannah

It just struck me, the other day, remembering this passage; Bethlehem is 5 miles from Jerusalem. The Magi turn up, asking questions; Herod talks to them.

The next logical step would be for Herod to invite the Magi in to rest, wash up, eat a meal, watch a dancing girl or two, then (maybe in the morning, after a good, royal breakfast) go on their way. At least, convince them that they need to stop and eat. After all, it's been a long, hard journey... And it will take some time to call in the specialists in the Scriptures...

Meanwhile, he sends a pair of soldiers off to Bethlehem, posthaste. An hour later, they are making enquiries. By the time the Magi are wiping their lips, the threat is taken care of.

No fuss, no muss.

That it does.