This is an interesting, seemingly-relevant passage in Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book I)maryhelena wrote:How about a 4th possibility?
'Paul' is a composite of two early christian figures. A pre-70 c.e. 'Paul' and a post 70 c.e. 'Paul'. Actually, perhaps this two 'Paul' suggestion ties in with your 2nd possibility. The pseudonym, 'Paul', being used for not one one figure but two figures, a composite NT 'Paul'.
This would mean that the NT 'history' of early christianity is actually a condensed history. A longer development period that has been condensed, reduced. Ruling out a pre-70 c.e. gestation period seems, to my thinking, to go against the whole thrust of the NT story. The story was set pre-70 c.e. One would have to have a very good argument to write off a period of Jewish history that the NT writers, evidently, found some value in.
Thus, a two 'Paul' solution, an early 'Paul', and a late 'Paul', would go a long way to accommodate/reconcile the various pre and post 70 c.e. arguments.
5. All Scripture is Gospel; But the Gospels are Distinguished Above Other Scriptures.
Here, however, some one may object, appealing to the notion just put forward of the unfolding of the first fruits last, and may say that the Acts and the letters of the Apostles came after the Gospels, and that this destroys our argument to the effect that the Gospel is the first fruits of all Scripture. To this we must reply that it is the conviction of men who are wise in Christ, who have profited by those epistles which are current, and who see them to be vouched for by the testimonies deposited in the law and the prophets, that the apostolic writings are to be pronounced wise and worthy of belief, and that they have great authority, but that they are not on the same level with that "Thus says the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:18 Consider on this point the language of St. Paul. When he declares that 2 Timothy 3:16 "Every Scripture is inspired of God and profitable", does he include his own writings? Or does he not include his dictum, 1 Corinthians 7:12 "I say, and not the Lord", and 1 Corinthians 7:17 "So I ordain in all the churches", and 2 Timothy 3:11 "What things I suffered at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra", and similar things which he writes in virtue of his own authority, and which do not quite possess the character of words flowing from divine inspiration. Must we also show that the old Scripture is not Gospel, since it does not point out the Coming One, but only foretells Him and heralds His coming at a future time; but that all the new Scripture is the Gospel.
... we shall not hesitate to find Gospel in such discourse also as is not narrative but hortatory and intended to strengthen belief in the mission of Jesus; and thus we shall arrive at the position that whatever was written by the Apostles is Gospel. As to this second definition, it might be objected that the Epistles are not entitled Gospel, and that we are wrong in applying the name of Gospel to the whole of the New Testament. But to this we answer that it happens not unfrequently in Scripture when two or more persons or things are named by the same name, the name attaches itself most significantly to one of those things or persons. Thus the Saviour says, Matthew 23:8-9 "Call no man Master upon the earth"; while the Apostle says that Masters have been appointed in the Church. These latter accordingly will not be Masters in the strict sense of the dictum of the Gospel.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101501.htm
