Toto

That's what you have to do in the absence of better evidence.

We have been through all this before. Acts of the Apostles shows evidence of having been written to create the idea that early Christian history was harmonious, and the Pauline and Petrine factions agreed on every issue. Paul's letters contradict this, so why would the author of Acts want to refer to them?

This reason for dating the Letters post-Acts is completely baseless as a matter of logic.

The Church writers who didn't know anything about Paul dated gLuke to the first century. It's not clear why you would want to rely on anything they say.

Trying to date early Christian literature is inherently speculative. There is no call to be so dogmatic about it.

Jeffrey Gibson

I'd very much like to know how you can use a tool in any way at all if you don't possess it.

And in your listing of who possesses it, not to mention uses it well and with precision, you've left out Spin.

You also open yourself up to the question of how you might know whether and when that tool is being used in "an intelligent and productive manner".

What Greek do you have? I'm guessing little to none (and therefore, if I am correct in this, also no real ability whatsoever to evaluate whether an argument based on Greek grammar and syntax is a good, let alone an intelligent, one). But I'd be happy to be disabused of this notion and shown that I am wrong in my surmise.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Which rule is that? And why should it never have been made?

Jeffrey

aa5874

What absurdity!! We are right now dealing with the controversies. Right now you are ENGAGED in the discussion of the dating of the Pauline Corpus.


The Pauline Corpus has been found to have multiple authors which must mean that the dating and credibilty of the Pauline Corpus is extremely controversial.

Anyone familiar with Scholarship know that some Scholars have already deduced that the Entire Pauline Corpus was composed in the 2nd century or not composed by a 1st century Paul.

Right now, Doherty has already written books declaring that the Pauline crucified Jesus was never on earth.

It is your responsibility and obligation to first read the website and extensive literature. You used their Estimates without presenting the evidence.

You plastered dates of the NT texts on this thread WITHOUT providing a single piece of supporting evidence or data when you knew in advance that it was probably derived from Presumptions and Guessing.

My arguments are SUPPORTED by the evidence which are presently available.

Toto, where is the evidence for the dates you posted? You stated that the rules of forum require evidence to be presented.

Why are you not abiding by the rules?

I have made references to Multiple sources to support my argument but you have not done so. You merely posted Estimates froim a link.

Surely, posting estimates without the suppoprting data is not evidence at all.

Again, I repeat, your dates for Pauline writings that you posted Must have been generated from Presumptions, Speculation and Guessing because the only source to mention Paul wrote Nothing at all of Pauline letters--NOTHING.

It would appear to me that you have exposed a massive case of Chinese Whispers where unsubstantiated Estimates from a link is being used to provide dating for NT writings.

By the way, I am still awaiating the evidence to support the dates of NT texts that you plastered on this thread.

My argument is extremely clear and cannot be contradicted based on the present available evidence.

The Pauline Corpus was unknown up to to c 180 CE or later.

1. Acts of the Apostles wrote Nothing of the Pauline Corpus.

2. The Jesus of the Canonised Gospels did NOT teach "salvation by the resurrection" as stated in the Pauline writings.

3. Origen in the 3rd century admitted that Celsus in the late 2nd century wrote NOTHING of Paul.

4. Justin Martyr in the mid 2nd century admitted that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles that was read in the Churches.

5. The first writer, Irenaeus c 180 CE, to mention the Pauline Corpus admitted that Jesus was believed to have been crucified c 48-50 CE making the Pauliner Corpus a pack of Lies.

The abundance of evidence supporting late Pauline Corpus is overwhelming and FAR superior.

Sheshbazzar

Well Mr. Bigname Authority has asserted these dates here and here, and Mr Authoritative Bigname agreed there and there, and just everyone that wants to be a Big Name has to quote and to agree with Mr B.A and Mr. A.B.'s asserted dates because that is how their big name 'authority' is established. :Cheeky:

aa5874

Again, your assertion is without evidence and wholly illogical.

Once the author of Acts did NOT mention the Pauline Corpus and wrote extensively about the activities of Paul then it is completely logical that the Pauline Corpus was unknown at the time of composition of Acts.

This is EXACTLY what is expected when the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline Corpus.

This is so basic that I cannot understand how you could have missed it.

One fundamental reason why the Pauline Corpus was not mentioned by Acts is because it was not yet invented.

Next, Justin Martyr also did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus although he wrote extensively about the post-resurrection activities of so-called Heretics in the time of Claudius up to c 150 CE.

I am extremely happy to see that you have declared that Church writers didn't know anything about Paul.

So, Now tell us where did you get you ESTIMATES for the Pauline letters? Why did you rely on your link? You must now admit the dates you provided are really worthless and have no real historical value.

We cannot rely on any source to date the Pauline letters in the 1st century especially when the very Church and its writers did not know when Paul really lived, when he really died and what he really wrote.

By the way, I still need the supporting evidence that your link RELIED on for the Estimates.

Sheshbazzar

Certainly not a very solid base on which to be denigrating the evidences and speculations of those holding views different than your own.

The tyranny of the majority, in itself is never enough to determine what are the true facts of any matter.

aa5874

Finally, Toto has admitted what we knew all along.

The dating of the Pauline Corpus was a product of Presumptions and Guessing.

No supporting evidence was ever presented and none will be expected.

Toto

I am not supporting the conventional wisdom on the dating of Paul's letters. I don't know when they were written, when they were edited. I have no particular reason to take a dogmatic position.

But the scheme proposed by aa5874 is not an improvement. In fact, it is a step backwards. aa5874 insists on taking Acts at face value rather than reading it critically, and assumes without proof that if the Pauline corpus were available, that it would have been mentioned explicitly by the author of Acts. Everything aa5874 assumes here should not be assumed. But he keeps repeating it AD NAUSEUM.

There are scholars who have spent their careers analyzing Acts in its historical context, and they have more interesting things to say. You don't have to believe them, but if you fail to take their findings into consideration, you miss out. These scholars point out that Acts shows evidence that the author knew of the Pauline letters, because of the way various ideas, incidents, or themes from the letters are present in Acts, even if they are transformed or distorted. There is an old thread in the archives on this.

Toto

Weren't you the one objecting to your name being mangled?

The way things work, you don't have to agree with any established authorities, but you need to know their arguments and interact with them.