Dating Paul's authentic letters

[dabber]

Hi Guys
Please can someone clarify why Paul's authentic letters are dated 50-60 ce?

He's mentioned by Clement and Ignatius, so upper date 90-95 ce. He doesn't mention destruction of Jerusalem except one passage 1 Thess 2 which some say is an interpolation.

He's ignorant of gospels, so before them. Early on as circumcision a big issue in his letters. So think reasons why 50-60 ce.

But the theology seems advanced? Wonder if he wrote shorter letters and these got expanded later? Any evidence for this?

Many thanks

[dabber]

To add, 2 Cor 11:32-33 mentions his arrest under king Aretas in Damascus 37-40 ce. So that'd place him early.

Conversion 33 ce + 17 years = 50 ce. Tradition died 60 ce. So guess dating makes sense. Except what's bugging me is the theology seems developed and advanced in some of his writing...

[andrewcriddle]

There are various threads on this viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8005 viewtopic.php?f=3&t=155
One general issue is that not only does Paul not mention the destruction of Jerusalem, but his letters seems to presuppose that Jerusalem is an important place where there is a central Christian community and where the Temple still functions.

Andrew Criddle

[Giuseppe]

There are various threads on this viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8005 viewtopic.php?f=3&t=155
One general issue is that not only does Paul not mention the destruction of Jerusalem,

that is the only real good argument, since the radical critics insist that the following point:

but his letters seems to presuppose that Jerusalem is an important place where there is a central Christian community

...is a Catholic interpolation.

[dabber]

One general issue is that not only does Paul not mention the destruction of Jerusalem, but his letters seems to presuppose that Jerusalem is an important place where there is a central Christian community and where the Temple still functions. ..

Thanks, very helpful - makes sense