stephan huller

Evidence? Who needs that. It gets in the way of truth

Sheshbazzar

But it is ruled out by Sheshbazzar being unwilling to join in playing in Jeffrey's favorite playpen.

If Jeffrey wants to screw around and try to prove something by Greek syntax and grammar, I'm not stopping him, and he is welcome to it.
But I seriously doubt that he can prove that the 'Pauline Epistles' are the authentic writings of one 1st century Jew named 'Paul' by such means.
More in line with the OP however, would be for Jeffrey to attempt to prove WHEN these 'Pauline Epistles' were written.

spin

Actually in line with the o.p. would be for you to justify your claim that "the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceeded [sic] the written Gospels... is a very controversial position on Christian history ..." which requires more than that a few odd members of this forum agree with the assertion.

Toto

The mainstream dating on Peter Kirby's Early Christian Writings

The so-called authentic Pauline letters are dated to 50-60, and the gospels from 65-120.

There are scholars who date the Paulines late, but I believe most of them would also date the gospels later.

Next issue:

You could examine aa5874's claim that the Pauline letters were written very, very late, none of which seems to be based on Greek syntax or grammar.

aa5874

The dates that you have provided are not cast in stone and were not intended to be accepted as facts. There is no data supplied to show how those dates were arrived at.

It is completely absurd to suggest that those dates cannot be challenged.

It is well known that even Scholars cannot agree on the dating and authenticity of many many writings of antiquity.

It is virtually impossible for the dates you provided to be confirmed simply because NO corroborative DATA is available.

The dates YOU presented for the Pauline letters must have been derived from GUESSING and PRESUMPTIONS.

The only author that mentioned the activities of Saul/Paul did NOT claim or imply that there were Pauline letters to Seven Churches and Pastorals up to c 62 CE.

NO Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE in Acts of the Apostles--the Only source for Saul/Paul activities.

In Acts of the Apostles, up to the time of Festus, procurator of Judea, c 58-62 CE there is NO claim at all anywhere that there were Pauline letters to Churches.

In fact, in Acts, it is clearly stated that it was the Jerusalem Church that wrote letters that were disttributed by a group--See Acts 15.

The dates you provided for Pauline letters are completely based on IMAGINATION.

Please, please, please. Even the Church does not know when Paul really lived, when he really died and what he really wrote.

Even the Church writers place Paul AFTER gLuke which may mean Paul really lived in the 2nd century or later.

Jeffrey Gibson

Some???

Jeffrey

PS. Perhaps you should also add a note to the guidelines about the illegitimacy of shifting the burden of proof when the evidence that the guidelines says is mandated is requested.

aa5874

Where is the evidence for those dates you presented?? You just stated the rules but yet refused to abide by them.

Please present the supporting evidence or data for the dates you provided for the Pauline Corpus.

Where is your supporting evidence for the Estimates you presented?

Estimated 50-60-----1 Thessalonians--evidence please!!!

Estimated 50-60------Philippians--evidence please!!!

Estimated 50-60-------Galatians--evidence please!!!

Estimated 50-60-----1 Corinthians--evidence please!!!

Estimated 50-60-----2 Corinthians--evidence please!!!

Estimated 50-60-----Romans--evidence please!!!

Estimated 50-60-----Philemon--evidence please!!!

Estimated 50-80-------Colossians--evidence please!!!

Sheshbazzar

Boqer tov! Another glorious beautiful day.

Just taking a moment to say, as I obviously endorse aa5874's astute observations and objections re. the Pauline Epistles, as I have in hundreds of other threads in this Forum, I am allowing aa5874 to most ably present what are our mutual views regarding the dating of the 'Pauline Epistles'.

I could, if it is insisted, copy and expand upon aa5874's objections, arguments, and inquires for your further reading pleasure.

All of the dates listed above were arrived at by speculation. none of them stand upon any material evidence, other than the dog chasing its own tail fallacy of allowing the admittedly questionable content of the 'Pauline' texts dictate the veracity of these texts various claims.

The sand castles of Textual criticism do not substitute for the provision of authentic, non-apologetic derived, and contemporary material evidence.
You want to prove that a 'Pauline' epistle dates to the first century, then you need to produce an unquestionably authentic first century copy, or authentic first century non-apologetic corroboration. Nothing less will do. Sans that, all you are doing with textual criticism is making speculations and repeating assertions as to the dating without provision of a shred of actual material evidence.

The popular position is to speculate and assert that the 'Pauline epistles' are early. (I supposes some would even speculate that 'Paul' wrote this crap in the BC era.)
I am repeatedly charged with 'asserting'. But everything the 'early 'Paul' claimants are defending are all built entirely upon speculations, gullibility in the accepting of 'Paul's' claims, followed up by their evidence-less assertions also.

Toto

No one has ever suggested that. But the question is whether dating the Pauline letters before the gospels is "a very controversial position on Christian history". It clearly is not.

If you want the basis for these dates, you can go to the website and read the extensive literature there.

I do not think that there is a good basis for many of these dates - but they are not controversial. Your ideas are controversial.

Iskander

There is no need to pay any attention to an incomprehensible rule, which should have never been made.

Posters in these sorts of forums are expected to discuss the evidence made public by experts and it is legitimate to quote the findings of experts in support of their position. This may be considered by some to equate with an appeal to authority, but it not so.


Posters here are not obliged to bow to craftsmen with special tools like knowing a little Greek, Latin, and Hebrew...and so forth; it is not the possession of a tool what matters, but the ability to use that tool in an intelligent and productive manner. There is nobody here in this forum, except Mr Criddle and Mr Pearce, who has shown the ability to make use of tools.