Paul's shadow in the gospels

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Jax,
It's just that Paul, if writing in the mid 1st century, would be more likely to use the name Dalmatia as opposed to Illyricum as the person writing 1 Timothy under his name did.
Illyricum did not exist as a province after the reign of Vespasian. 2 Timothy was written in the second century AD, at a time when illyricum did not exist anymore and was replaced by the provinces of Dalmatia & Pannonia.

"Fellowsoldier" in the Pauline epistles is more likely to mean fellow preachers in hostile territories than members of the Roman army.
So if Aretas III was ruler from 87-62 BCE there is no chance that Paul could be writing to the Corinthians after 44 BCE?
Damascus got outside Nabataean control in 64 BCE. So it would be a minimum interval of 20 years between Paul getting out of Damascus and him visiting Corinth (according to my study, with Paul living in 1st cent AD, that interval is only 12 years).
As I said, that minimum interval, with Paul assumed to live in the 1st cent. BCE, can be easily more than 20 years. Certainly 20, 30, 40 years (taking in account Illyricum and Achaia started to exist as Roman provinces in 27 BCE) is possible, but it is a stretch.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Jax »

Bernard Muller wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:02 am to Jax,
It's just that Paul, if writing in the mid 1st century, would be more likely to use the name Dalmatia as opposed to Illyricum as the person writing 1 Timothy under his name did.
Illyricum did not exist as a province after the reign of Vespasian. 2 Timothy was written in the second century AD, at a time when illyricum did not exist anymore and was replaced by the provinces of Dalmatia & Pannonia.

"Fellowsoldier" in the Pauline epistles is more likely to mean fellow preachers in hostile territories than members of the Roman army.
So if Aretas III was ruler from 87-62 BCE there is no chance that Paul could be writing to the Corinthians after 44 BCE?
Damascus got outside Nabataean control in 64 BCE. So it would be a minimum interval of 20 years between Paul getting out of Damascus and him visiting Corinth (according to my study, with Paul living in 1st cent AD, that interval is only 12 years).
As I said, that minimum interval, with Paul assumed to live in the 1st cent. BCE, can be easily more than 20 years. Certainly 20, 30, 40 years (taking in account Illyricum and Achaia started to exist as Roman provinces in 27 BCE) is possible, but it is a stretch.

Cordially, Bernard
So far then it's pretty inconclusive. There's nothing in the letters that prevents them from having been written in the 1st century BCE. Right?
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Jax,
Well please yourself. That's certainly not what I tried to demonstrate. And then, of course, you conveniently junked the whole of Acts (which would have relocated Paul one century later), and ignore the fact that Pagan authors never put Christians in the 1st cent. BCE, but they (Tacitus & Suetonius) did it in the 1st cent. AD (under Nero). And James the brother of the Lord in 'Galatians' would not be the same man as James, the brother of Jesus called Christ, in Josephus' Antiquities.
But coming from me, together with my arguments about Illyricum, Dalmaltia, Achaia, Aretas III, destroyed Corinth, you'll found all that as inconclusive.
What conclusive arguments do you have for a 1st cent. BCE Paul? That my arguments (& Ben's one) are inconclusive for a 1st cent. AD Paul?

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Bernard Muller »

Deleted because of duplicate posting
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Jax »

Bernard Muller wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:24 pm to Jax,
Well please yourself. That's certainly not what I tried to demonstrate. And then, of course, you conveniently junked the whole of Acts (which would have relocated Paul one century later), and ignore the fact that Pagan authors never put Christians in the 1st cent. BCE, but they (Tacitus & Suetonius & Pliny the younger) did it in the 1st cent. AD (under Nero). And James the brother of the Lord in 'Galatians' would not be the same man as James, the brother of Jesus called Christ, in Josephus' Antiquities.
But coming from me, together with my arguments about Illyricum, Dalmaltia, Achaia, Aretas III, destroyed Corinth, you'll found all that as inconclusive.
What conclusive arguments do you have for a 1st cent. BCE Paul? That my arguments (& Ben's one) are inconclusive for a 1st cent. AD Paul?

Cordially, Bernard
You miss the point of my question. This isn't about proving that Paul is writing in the 1st century BCE (or 2nd century for that matter) but rather that there is nothing in the letters that conclusively ties them to the 1st century.

Having Christians in the 1st century in no way disproves 1st century BCE Christians. If you want to sink my battleship then you'll have to find something in the letters that places them in the 1st century and none other.

Is there anything in the letters that can only be from the 1st century?
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by hakeem »

robert j wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:12 pm Paul wrote to the Philippians when imprisoned in Ephesus in an imperial facility (using the term πραιτωρίῳ, from the Latin praetorium) (Philippians 1:13). Ephesus was a large and important regional center --- very likely to have a Roman administrative center with a prison.

As Paul often did, he seemed to be putting lipstick on a pig --- trying to put a positive spin on his situation --- explaining that what happened to him has resulted in “the advancement of the gospel” (Philippians 1:-12) because ---

“… my imprisonment in the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else.” (Philippians 1:-13, NASB).

Trying to make light of his situation, Paul’s gave his closing greeting from "Caesar’s household” (Philippians 4:22) --- I think the Philippians would have understood Paul’s little joke.
There is nothing in the so-called letter to the Philippians which shows that the author wrote the epistle while imprisoned in Ephesus. It is simply implausible that a person who was jailed for the crime of preaching Christ would be allowed to openly continue to commit the very same crime in prison.

If the author was actually in prison it is also extremely unlikely that he had a supply of writing paraphernalia to carry out his crime.

The conditions of prisons in antiquity must have been extremely harsh.

The Epistles under the name of Paul are all non-historical falsely attributed 2nd century or later writings invented to historicise the fables called the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Jax »

hakeem wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:11 am
robert j wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:12 pm Paul wrote to the Philippians when imprisoned in Ephesus in an imperial facility (using the term πραιτωρίῳ, from the Latin praetorium) (Philippians 1:13). Ephesus was a large and important regional center --- very likely to have a Roman administrative center with a prison.

As Paul often did, he seemed to be putting lipstick on a pig --- trying to put a positive spin on his situation --- explaining that what happened to him has resulted in “the advancement of the gospel” (Philippians 1:-12) because ---

“… my imprisonment in the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else.” (Philippians 1:-13, NASB).

Trying to make light of his situation, Paul’s gave his closing greeting from "Caesar’s household” (Philippians 4:22) --- I think the Philippians would have understood Paul’s little joke.
There is nothing in the so-called letter to the Philippians which shows that the author wrote the epistle while imprisoned in Ephesus. It is simply implausible that a person who was jailed for the crime of preaching Christ would be allowed to openly continue to commit the very same crime in prison.

If the author was actually in prison it is also extremely unlikely that he had a supply of writing paraphernalia to carry out his crime.

The conditions of prisons in antiquity must have been extremely harsh.

The Epistles under the name of Paul are all non-historical falsely attributed 2nd century or later writings invented to historicise the fables called the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.
If this were true then why did they get the name for Illyria wrong by calling it Illyricum instead of Dalmatia which is what it was called after 10 CE. as seen by the naming of it in the 2nd century letter 1st Timothy?

Also why aren't the letters more fleshed out like the Ignatious letters? Why are they not truer to Acts?

Etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Jax »

Hey hakeem,

Here's a challenge for you. I know how much you love trolling through the letters; simply find one place were the authors screwed up and left a 2nd century reference. It'll be fun and if you can find it, I for one will bend a knee and acknowledge your full mastery of this material.

Lane
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Jax,
If this were true then why did they get the name for Illyria wrong by calling it Illyricum instead of Dalmatia which is what it was called after 10 CE. as seen by the naming of it in the 2nd century letter 1st Timothy?
Where are you getting that from? Illyricum was a Roman province from 27 BCE up to sometimes during the reign of Vespasian (69-79 AD). Later it got divided in two provinces: Dalmatia & Pannonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyricum ... _province)
BTW, "Dalmatia" appears in 2 Timothy, not 1 Timothy.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Jax »

Bernard Muller wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:02 am to Jax,
If this were true then why did they get the name for Illyria wrong by calling it Illyricum instead of Dalmatia which is what it was called after 10 CE. as seen by the naming of it in the 2nd century letter 1st Timothy?
Where are you getting that from? Illyricum was a Roman province from 27 BCE up to sometimes during the reign of Vespasian (69-79 AD). Later it got divided in two provinces: Dalmatia & Pannonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyricum ... _province)
BTW, "Dalmatia" appears in 2 Timothy, not 1 Timothy.

Cordially, Bernard
Actually.
Vatinius, appointed by Caesar, was probably the first to have governed only Illyricum (45–43 BC), while Caesar had been proconsul of both Galliae and Illyricum (59–49 BC). After the Pannonian-Dalmatian rebellion in AD 9, Illyricum may have been divided into superius and inferius, but was oficially called Dalmatia and Pannonia probably not earlier than under Vespasian; after this division, no Roman province bore the name Illyricum.
From: The Roman Conquest of Illyricum (Dalmatia and Pannonia) and the Problem of the Northeastern Border of Italy by Marjeta Šašel Kos. Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7, 169-200, 2013 page 182 https://www.academia.edu/33216803/The_R ... r_of_Italy

Really Paul would have been writing about Illyricum superius or Illyricum inferius or Dalmatia and Pannonia as the area had probably been divided after the rebellion of 6 CE to 9 CE. At least 40 years earlier if he were writing in the 50's. However if he is writing in the 1st century BCE then Illyricum just by itself would be correct.

Now, I grant you that it is not conclusive, but it is suggestive and yet one more anomaly in Paul's letters if he is indeed writing in the 1st century instead of the 1st century BCE. How's your search for 1st century only references in the letters coming along BTW? Any luck? All I need is one indisputable 1st century reference to put this speculation of a pre-BC Paul to rest. Let's make it fun. A contest between you and hakeem to see who has what it takes to be showered with accolades by us. How about it hakeem? You up to it?
BTW, "Dalmatia" appears in 2 Timothy, not 1 Timothy.
Thank you for that correction, I was too lazy to look it up proprely. :thumbup:
Post Reply