lsayre wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:34 am
DCHindley wrote: ↑Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:35 am
IMHO, Paul was not in any way involved in this development. To me, he had led an independent movement that accepted gentiles as "children of Abraham" if they believed that God would one day deliver on his promise to deliver a bountiful land of milk & honey for his children to inherit. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the Jesus movement. The mystery religious elements were introduced into his existing writings by the gentile "christians" who had developed it in a process of adoption and adaptation. Unfortunately, Pauls' theology of gentile justification before god in the age to come, and the Divine Redeemer myth developed by Jesus' gentile convert followers, mix like oil and water making the Paulines as they stand now a mess to interpret.
DCH
As such, is it possible that Paul's movement predates Christianity?
lsayre,
I'd call them near contemporary to one another.
Jesus flourished somewhere between 21 & 36 CE, depending on whose POV you subscribe to. If the Acts of Pilate and Jesus published by co-emperor Maximinus Daia around 311 CE can be trusted then Jesus suffered in 21 CE. If Nikos Kokkinos is correct, it was around 35-36 CE. The traditional date(s) are 29-33 CE.
While I'm not a fan of "conspiracy theories" to explain Christian origins (e.g., it was invented lock stock and barrel by Constantine the Great and spoon fed to his subjects so artfully that nobody suspected a thing, and the church grew to become the beast of Revelation), I do think that the dating of Pilates' day-commentaries to 21 CE plus irregularities in the way Josephus dates the governorship of both Pilate and his predecessor (were made in a way that was outside of Josephus' usual fashion), suggests that Josephus was indeed altered to make the date stated in Max. Daias publication of Pilate's Commentaries (21 CE) impossible, thus preserving the Christian date, 29-33 CE.
I'm sure it was political, but was done simply to cull favor with the Christians, whose support he needed to overthrow the other three tetrarchs of the Roman empire. Eusebius may not have ever read Josephus before Constantine presents him with a new copy that has the alterations, but it made Christian claims to 29-33 CE seem confirmed by a bona-fide historical source. He may have suspected, but endorsed it anyways (i.e., "if you accept the authority of Josephus ... then Max. Daia's Pilates' Commentaries have to be forgeries").
While Paul, ignoring Acts, leaves me two datable events: The man of sin letter would be datable to around 39-40 CE, assuming it referred to the "Caligula scare" and the valiant efforts of Petronius the governor of Syria to thwart him from starting a very serious rebellion among Jews by his provocations (let the reader be aware, a version of this is playing-out right now in the USA).
The slut shaming Paul unloads on some hussy who dared pray with an uncovered head, was probably directed at dowager Queen Helena of the Persian client kingdom of Adiabene between 39 CE because. Her son, King Izatus, a god-fearing convert to Judaism, later had himself circumcised, which his mom apparently signed off on grudgingly. She had made a Nazirite vow when her son Izatus faced a rebellion for his becoming a circumcized Judean. Since he prevailed, she was came to Jerusalem to fulfill the vow around the early to mid 50s CE. That means letting her hair grow, and at the end, having it sheared off. Perhaps she proudly displayed her shorn locks, which infuriated Paul. I believe this would have occurred before 58 CE, which was when she traveled back to Adiabene upon hearing of her son's death, to support her . younger son Monobazus' claim to the throne. He too had had himself circumcised when his brother Izatus had done so.
My version of Paul happened to favor gentiles reconciling themselves to God by means of faith in a future blessed age (no mention of an anointed leader to lead that age in, like Jesus' followers apparently did, meaning he just felt that God would do it himself by means of his angels),
without resorting to circumcision to get it.
FWIW, I put no credence in theories that date Paul to the 1st or 2nd century BCE.
DCH