Dating of genuine Pauline epistles

[gmx]

On what basis are the "genuine" Pauline epistles dated to 50-60 CE? Is it essentially achieved via a correlation of the internal evidence with Luke-Acts?

[Huon]

A paleographical dating of P46, containing Romans, 1 Thess, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, Col, and Hebrews (partial) 200 CE. Previously, only speculations.

The earliest surviving manuscripts all, with the possible exception of P52 date to around 200 CE, based on paleographic analysis. Since both these documents were recovered from Egypt, it does demonstrate that Paul's letters and GJohn were available there in that time-frame.
The first attempt at creating a canon of Christian Scriptures was made by Marcion circa 140 CE. His "New Testament" consisted of a modified Gospel of Luke (which he believed was written by Paul), Galatians, Corinthians (treated as one epistle), Romans, Thessalonians (as one epistle), Lacodiceans (his name for Ephesians), Colossians, Philipians, and Philemon. He did not include 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus or Hebrews. One source indicates that he may have not known of their existence, or regarded them as not authentic writings of Paul, or because he disliked their theology.

Circa 200 CE, the church at Rome added the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) to Marcion's collection. Also about 200 CE, another church (probably in Egypt) included Hebrews, but rejected 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Thessalonians, and Philemon as invalid.
Later collections of epistles included the full set of 14 letters that are traditionally associated with Paul and are now included in every Bible.

[DCHindley]

On what basis are the "genuine" Pauline epistles dated to 50-60 CE? Is it essentially achieved via a correlation of the internal evidence with Luke-Acts?

To speak of "genuine" epistles from the get-go is a red herring in my opinion. David Trobisch has, I think, demonstrated that the Pauline corpus, as currently received, are an amalgamation of two smaller collections of letters, one to churches and another to individuals. The commonly held opinion that only the letters to churches could be "authentic" is based on a number of prejudices that, frankly, are bogus.

The relative dates that are proposed by various critics are the result of comparisons of internal references to places, events and people in the individual letters, and yes as well to Acts. There can be a disconnect between the events described by Acts and the letters themselves. The letter to Titus, FWIW, says it was written in Nicopolis. There were two cities called Nicopolis in the Mediterranean world of the day, but nowhere does Acts mention him staying at either one. Of course, this is where the presuppositions about the lack of "authenticity" of the personal letters come in handy - to wave away such inconsistencies. All the doctrine fit to believe, some will tell you, can be found in Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians and Galatians, and maybe on a good day 1 Thessalonians or one or more of the other letters to churches.

Anyways, there are allusions to historical events that may help date specific parts of specific letters. I think the diatribe against women who won't wear a veil in 1 Corinthians 11 should have their hair shaved off is a reference to the Nazirite vow of Helena, dowager queen of Adiabene, who, along with her sons (who were both kings in succession to one another), had taken on the vow while in Adiabene. She traveled to Jerusalem, after the seven years she had sworn, to fulfill the vow around 45-46 CE, but was told by the local authorities that her vow was not fulfilled because of corpse impurity, until she spent another 7 years in Judea, which was considered more clean. So, she built a palace and did just that. Paul, who was probably not happy that her two sons had converted by circumcision, and perhaps she did not observe "proper" apparel and such being a foreigner, railed against her as if she were a adultress, which may have been the case as she did give a gift to the temple that had envraged upon them verses on adultery in the law. She returned to Adiabene around 55 CE. In 2 Thessalonians 2, there is mention of the "man of sin" who is probably a reference to Caligula's attempt to erect a statue in the temple in the late fall of 40 CE. The dates of these events seem to date Paul about a decade earlier than Acts does.

[DCHindley]

FWIW,

Here are the widely varying orderings of 9 respected scholars (I selfishly snuck myself in as the 10th, although unrespected, "scholar"):

Book	Schaff	Zahn	Alford	Bagster	Conybeare & Howson	Lewin	Farrar	Harman	Mitchell	Hindley
1 Thes		53	52	52-53	52	52	52	52-54		50-51
2 Thes		53	53	53	53	52	52	53-54		50-51
Galat	56	52	54-57	54-57	57	58	59	58-59	56-57	51-52
1 Cor	57	57	57	57-58	57	57	57	57-58	57-58	52-53
Romans	58	58	58	59	58	58	58	58-59	58-60	56
2 Cor	57	57	58-59	57-58	57	57	58	57-58	57-58	56
1 Tim			67-68	65	67	64	66	65-66		56
Ephes	61	64	61-62	54-57	62	62	63	63		61-63
Philippians		63	63	61-63	62	63	61-62	63		61-63
Colossians		63	61-62	63	62	62	63	63		61-63
2 Tim		66	67-68	65	68	66	67	65-66		61-63
Philemon		63	61-62	63-64	62	62	63	63		61-63
Titus			67-68	65	67	64	66	65-66

[MrMacSon]

Exegesis and parsing other texts suggests Paul was near the end of his life in Rome in the early 60s, as summarized by Wikipedia -

His final days spent in Rome
"Acts recounts that on the way to Rome for his appeal as a Roman citizen to Caesar, Paul was shipwrecked on "Melita" (Malta),[Acts 28:1] where he was met by Publius[Acts 28:7] and the islanders who showed him "unusual kindness".[Acts 28:2] He arrived in Rome c. 60 and spent another two years under house arrest (beyond his two years in prison in Caesarea).[18][Acts 28:16]

"Irenaeus of Lyons in the 2nd century wrote that Peter and Paul had been the founders of the church in Rome and had appointed Linus as succeeding bishop.[83] Paul was not a bishop of Rome, nor did he bring Christianity to Rome since there were already Christians in Rome when he arrived there.[Acts 28:14-15] Also, Paul wrote his letter to the church at Rome before he had visited Rome.[Romans 1:1,7,11-13;15:23-29] Paul only played a supporting part in the life of the church in Rome.[84]"

Death
"The Bible does not say how or when Paul died. There is an early tradition by Ignatius, probably around 110 AD, that Paul was martyred.[85] Dionysius of Corinth in a letter to the Romans (166–174 AD), stated that Paul and Peter were martyred in Italy.[86] Eusebius also cites the Dionysius passage.[87]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_ ... nt_in_Rome


18 "Paul, St", Cross, FL, ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press (2005).

83 Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.3.2

• the "...Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. ...The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate".

84 MaGee Greg. "The Origins of the Church at Rome". bible.org Accessed 18 Mar 2013.

85 Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter XII

86 of Corinth, Dionysius. "Fragments from a Letter to the Roman Church Chapter III"

• "Therefore you also have by such admonition joined in close union the churches that were planted by Peter and Paul, that of the Romans and that of the Corinthians: for both of them went to our Corinth, and taught us in the same way as they taught you when they went to Italy; and having taught you, they suffered martyrdom at the same time." earlychristianwritings.com. Retrieved 1 June 2015.

87 of Caesarea, Eusebius. "Church History Book II Chapter 25:8". newadvent.org. Retrieved 1 June 2015.

[Peter Kirby]

On what basis are the "genuine" Pauline epistles dated to 50-60 CE? Is it essentially achieved via a correlation of the internal evidence with Luke-Acts?

Yes. But a slightly broader range (ca. 40 CE - 70 CE) can be supported from the internal evidence that the Jerusalem Temple is standing (1 Cor, Rom) and from the reference to Aretas IV (2 Cor), supposing they are by the same person. Also setting the lower bound are references to Caesar (Philippians).

[Giuseppe]

I'm thinking still about the problems posed by Dutch Radical Criticism on Paul. I'm not a expert: my interest is more on Galatians than the other epistles, and just Galatians is the epistle who raises more doubt regarding his authenticity (and quasi by implication, of all the others). The real author seems to be someone that is disturbed by a new, degrading heresy: the news about a recently historicized Jesus? A "different gospel" given by evil angel (just as the Torah was given by evil angels?).

[Bernard Muller]

After a lot of research, I got this dating of Paul's (mostly) authentic epistles:
Extract from http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html (refer to that webpage for better presentation, links and justifications):

3.3 When were the genuine Pauline epistles written, relative to Paul's third journey?

Notes:
a) '1Thessalonians' (not shown here) was written earlier, during the second journey, after Paul arrived in Corinth for the first time (late 50 to early 51) (references: 1Th1:1,2:2,17,3:1-2,6; Ac17:1,16,18:1,5). In this epistle, there are suggestions of raptures to heaven (4:16-17) and of the Sacrifice (5:9-10).
b) 'Romans' was written towards the end of the third journey, after the completion of the collection in Macedonia and Achaia, when Paul was still in Corinth (for a three months stay) and before going to Jerusalem (references: Ro1:7,15,15-26,31,16:1-2,23; 1Co1:14; Ac20:1-3). Several interpolations have been proposed for 'Romans': Ro16:25-27 is the most accepted.
c) Common themes, features and details are indicated (in Italics) for 'Hebrews' and subsequent Pauline epistles. Please consult HJ-3b for the relative dating of 'Hebrews' and Paul's letters to the Corinthians.
Here is a recapitulation, according to my studies, as explained in HJ-3b, HJ-3b extension, Appendix B, this page, and the aforementioned (nine) ones about each Corinthians & Philippians letter:

a) Spring 52: Paul's trip to Jerusalem from Corinth (fourteen years after the one in 38). The "council" of Jerusalem takes place then.
b) Summer and early fall 52 (or earlier): Paul spends time in Antioch (dispute with Peter) and departs (alone).
c) Fall 52 to winter 53: Paul becomes sick on his way NW and recuperates in "northern" Galatia where he makes converts.
d) Winter 53: Paul's arrival in Ephesus. He learns Apollos & Peter had visited Corinth and each one got followers at his detriment.
'1aCorinthians' written spring 53
e) Winter 53 to spring 55: Paul preaches in Ephesus for two years and three months. He feels partially abandoned by the Corinthians.
'1bCorinthians' written later in 53
'aPhilippians' written from early 53 to early 56?, likely 53-54
{'Hebrews' written (by Apollos) in 54} (pre-existence (explained) (1:1-3a,5-10,2:5-8), "new covenant" (explained) (8:8-13,9:1-20), Sacrifice (explained) (1:3,5:8-9,7:27,9:11-15,10:1-14), (Jesus') blood (9:12,10:19,29), co-Creator of the universe (explained) (1:2,10), Moses' followers dying in the wilderness (3:16-17), home in heaven for Christians (12:22-23), atonement for sins (explained) (1:3,2:17,10:12), "Son of God" (explained) (1:5,8-9), Christians as seed and heirs of Abraham through the "promise" (2:16,6:13-17), the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22-23), Jesus offering himself for sacrifice for atonement of sins (explained) (7:27b,10:12), "at the right hand of God" (explained) (1:3,13,8:1,10:12,12:2), "firstborn" (explained) (1:6,12:23), Jesus interceding with God in behalf of Christians (explained) (7:25))
But, later, the situation improves greatly.
'1cCorinthians' written early spring 55 (First (for Paul): pre-existence (8:6,10:4), "new covenant" (11:25), Sacrifice (clear-cut) (5:7), (Jesus') blood (10:16,11:25,27), co-Creator of the universe (8:6), Moses' followers dying in the wilderness (10:2-8))
f) Spring 55: Paul's trip to Macedonia and then Corinth (2nd one here), where Paul is rejected. Likely, no collection (as planned in 1Co16:1-4) is done.
g) Summer 55 to spring 56: Paul stays in Ephesus (about nine months).
'2aCorinthians' written early spring 55 (First (for Paul): home in heaven for Christians (5:1), atonement for sins (5:19,21))
'2bCorinthians' written late spring/early summer 55
h) Spring 56: Paul's short trip to Troas and Macedonia (where Paul hears the good news from Titus) then back to Ephesus. Meanwhile a collection has been on-going in Corinth since late 55.
i) Late spring 56: The "riot" in Ephesus.
j) Late spring 56 to fall 56: Paul is imprisoned in Ephesus. The collection in Corinth is aborted.
'Philemon' and 'bPhilippians' written then
k) Fall 56: Paul is freed and goes to Macedonia (probably Philippi first).
l) Fall 56 to early spring 57: Paul visits the Macedonian Christians and then stays in Corinth (for three months; the third trip to that city). The collection is restarted and completed in Corinth.
'2cCorinthians' written fall 56 (First (for Paul): "Son of God" (1:3,19))
'Galatians' (First (for Paul): Christians as seed and heirs of Abraham through the "promise" (3:16-29), the heavenly Jerusalem (4:26), Jesus offering himself for sacrifice for atonement of sins (1:3b-4a))
'cPhilippians'
& 'Romans' written winter 57 (First (for Paul): "at the right hand of God" (8:34), "firstborn" (8:29), Jesus interceding with God in behalf of Christians (8:34))
m) Late spring 57: Paul's arrival in Jerusalem and arrest

Cordially, Bernard

[outhouse]

On what basis are the "genuine" Pauline epistles dated to 50-60 CE? Is it essentially achieved via a correlation of the internal evidence with Luke-Acts?

Yes. But a slightly broader range (ca. 40 CE - 70 CE) can be supported from the internal evidence that the Jerusalem Temple is standing (1 Cor, Rom) and from the reference to Aretas IV (2 Cor), supposing they are by the same person. Also setting the lower bound are references to Caesar (Philippians).

I have a apologetically inclined friend who is a scholar, and he leans towards the early camp. He has never been able to justify his claims beyond rhetoric IMHO.


I personally find no issue with early to mid 50's as most plausible.

[Giuseppe]

Vermes says there: “The expressions ‘in the form of God’, ‘grasping equality from God’, and ‘emptying himself’ echo mythological concepts familiar from the Gospel of John and from late heretical Gnostic speculations. If so, chronologically they point to the early second century AD rather than the age of Paul. The hymn makes much better sense if it is taken as an existing liturgical composition inserted into the letter to the Philippians not by Paul himself but by a later editor. The fact that this poem can be removed without spoiling the general meaning of the chapter strongly favours the theory of its post-Pauline origin”.

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2015 ... ment-12201

The 'answer' of prof Hurtado (following the link):

Philip 2:6-11 isn’t “docetic” at all. I don’t know where that question comes from. And Vermes’s claim is unsupportable because (1) he is simply incorrect that the passage is incompatible with Paul’s other statements about Jesus, and so (2) no imaginative textual surgery is warranted, (3) there is no manuscript evidence of an insertion (in contrast with such evidence for various Markan endings, and the periscope of the adulteress). Vermes’s claim reflects more his own reluctance to grant that devout Jews such as Paul could have regarded Jesus as he is portrayed in the text. But that tells us more about Vermes than Paul. Fini.

And why this continuous (apologetical?) harmonization of all that that says ''Paul''? Why any solution is always the harmonization or the interpolation, but never, never, never the the calling into question of the authenticity of the entire epistle?

I'm very desolated by this state of affairs