Early evidence for the letters of Paul?

[Blood]

To Blood,

Such analysis only leads to further questions, e.g., if "salvation" (whatever that was) didn't come, then why didn't the editors of the Pauline epistles remove this tremendously embarrassing sentence? The "authentic" epistles are supposed to be full of edits and interpolations by a later hand, yet they somehow chose to leave in this bit with Paul completely wrong about prophecy.

A lot of embarrassing verses from the NT texts were not removed. It seems to me deletions were rare but additions were frequent. That would apply to the Pauline epistles.
Among the embarrassing passages in the NT: the Day of the Lord to come very soon after the fall of Jerusalem (gMark) or happening before the last one of Jesus' generation died (synoptic gospels).
Going back to Paul's epistles:
The Day of the Lord to come before the last one of Paul's generation died:
1 Corinthians 15:51-52
Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
Also in 1 Corinthians 7:29
I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none,

Cordially, Bernard

I've long wondered if all these supposedly "failed, embarrassing" prophecies simply mean that the "day of the Lord" did come (in the writers' minds) with the destruction of Jerusalem. There's no reason for Mark to write the Little Apocalypse passages unless he thought they were "fulfilled" by something, and that something most logically points to the Roman destruction in 70. All the references in the supposed "authentic" Pauline epistles to "salvation" and "the time grown short" could have been written, like Mark, long after the destruction, but retrojected to show how "prophetic" Paul was.

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

Why do you say that? Romans 13:1-4 seems to be a vague passage about nothing much.

Not so: it stresses emphatically that the good Christians of Rome should not fear the authorities. That was proved to be very wrong in 64 AD.

eta: it could apply to a number of time frames, including after 64 AD

What time frames?

"the 'massacre of Christians' in Rome" in 64 AD is unverified (it is only inferred through Annals 15.44, a passage of dubious veracity)

Not "inferred" through Annals 15.44, but graphically narrated.
Suetonius also related Nero had Christians "punished":
Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. (Life of Nero).

I think Tacitus and the particular passage in Annals was not referred by fathers of the Church because it was not complimentary about Christians & Christianity:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

BTW, Tacitus was about 8 years old in 64 AD, and could have remembered important events happening in 64 first hand.

The passage is considered of dubious veracity by relatively few experts in the field (if any).
See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

I've long wondered if all these supposedly "failed, embarrassing" prophecies simply mean that the "day of the Lord" did come (in the writers' minds) with the destruction of Jerusalem. There's no reason for Mark to write the Little Apocalypse passages unless he thought they were "fulfilled" by something, and that something most logically points to the Roman destruction in 70. All the references in the supposed "authentic" Pauline epistles to "salvation" and "the time grown short" could have been written, like Mark, long after the destruction, but retrojected to show how "prophetic" Paul was.

To clarify, I presume you mean that 'the "day of the Lord" had already come (in the writers' minds)' -ie. already been?

[MrMacSon]

[Romans 13:1-4] stresses emphatically that the good Christians of Rome should not fear the authorities.

Roans 13:1-3 could also refer to Jews. I don't think that passage shows anything was "proved to be very wrong in 64 AD".

I think Tacitus and the particular passage in Annals [15.44]* was not referred by fathers of the Church because it was not complimentary about Christians & Christianity

• * Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

It's also possible that Fathers of the Church did not refer to Annals 15.44 b/c they did not know about it.

That last part of the passage - "in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular" - is Rome-centric. That suggests it is a passage with a controlling purpose.

[Blood]

I've long wondered if all these supposedly "failed, embarrassing" prophecies simply mean that the "day of the Lord" did come (in the writers' minds) with the destruction of Jerusalem. There's no reason for Mark to write the Little Apocalypse passages unless he thought they were "fulfilled" by something, and that something most logically points to the Roman destruction in 70. All the references in the supposed "authentic" Pauline epistles to "salvation" and "the time grown short" could have been written, like Mark, long after the destruction, but retrojected to show how "prophetic" Paul was.

To clarify, I presume you mean that 'the "day of the Lord" had already come (in the writers' minds)' -ie. already been?

It means the same thing. It did come, long before "Romans" was conceived ... the "day of the Kurios," also referred to as "the wrath of Theos" by Paul, happened with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. Romans, and all the supposed "authentic" Pauline epistles, was written a long time after this event, but written as if it hadn't happened yet. This is how "prophetic" writing works, and the "Paul" character fulfills that role for the New Testament.

[MrMacSon]

It means the same thing.

Cheers. That was what I was getting at.

... Romans, and all the supposed "authentic" Pauline epistles, was written a long time after this event, but written as if it hadn't happened yet. This is how "prophetic" writing works, and the "Paul" character fulfills that role for the New Testament.

I agree. Although there seems to be some much older Jewish texts that 'foretold' the destruction of Jerusalem: the chances (probability) of that happening, given the way theology-based societies and communities rise & fall, especially in those times, was pretty high.

[toejam]

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.

This doesn't sound like a reference to the destruction of the Temple. This is a description of a Rapture-like event. Similarly in Mark 13, the expectation is of a "gathering of the elect".

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

Romans 13:1-3 could also refer to Jews. I don't think that passage shows anything was "proved to be very wrong in 64 AD".

'Romans' is addressed to inhabitants of Rome, whoever will listen to a reading of, or read, the letter, but mostly to Christians (Jews or Gentiles). There is nothing to indicate 13:1-3 is meant to Jews only. Actually, the previous chapter refers to the anticipated audience as Christians (see 12:1,5) as also the last verse of chapter 13.

For your next point: OK, let's suppose Jack wrote "Bob is Bruce [a good guy] dear friend". It is also known that this Bob killed Bruce intentionally.
Question: did Jack wrote "Bob is Bruce dear friend" before or after Bob killed Bruce?

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Blood,

I've long wondered if all these supposedly "failed, embarrassing" prophecies simply mean that the "day of the Lord" did come (in the writers' minds) with the destruction of Jerusalem. There's no reason for Mark to write the Little Apocalypse passages unless he thought they were "fulfilled" by something, and that something most logically points to the Roman destruction in 70. All the references in the supposed "authentic" Pauline epistles to "salvation" and "the time grown short" could have been written, like Mark, long after the destruction, but retrojected to show how "prophetic" Paul was.

"Mark" and the other synoptic gospels authors are very clear about the parousia happening after the fall of Jerusalem.
They are also very clear also that "the day of the Lord" is not about the fall of Jerusalem.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

Romans 13:1-3 could also refer to Jews. I don't think that passage shows anything was "proved to be very wrong in 64 AD".

'Romans' is addressed to inhabitants of Rome, whoever will listen to a reading of, or read, the letter, but mostly to Christians (Jews or Gentiles). There is nothing to indicate 13:1-3 is meant to Jews only. Actually, the previous chapter refers to the anticipated audience as Christians (see 12:1,5) as also the last verse of chapter 13.

For your next point: OK, let's suppose Jack wrote "Bob is Bruce [a good guy] dear friend". It is also known that this Bob killed Bruce intentionally.
Question: did Jack wrote "Bob is Bruce dear friend" before or after Bob killed Bruce?

That last part of the passage - "in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular" - is Rome-centric

Of course, it is Rome-centric: the passage deals with the fire in Rome and the ensuing persecution of Christians in Rome.

Cordially, Bernard