Is there any case to be made for dating the origin of the Pauline letters to after teh First Jewish-Roman War?
It has always seemed to me that the letters must originated prior to the war since there is essentially no mention of the war or the destruction of the temple, which seems like it would have been relevant to the message.
Then we have passages like these:
1 Cor 3:
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.
How could this be written without mentioned the actual destruction of the temple if it had indeed already happened?
On the other hand, stating that the body is the temple is quite contrary to Judaism and could seem like a teaching that would make sense after the actual temple had been destroyed.
We also have this:
13 Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? 14 So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.
Seems to suggest that the actual temple still stands.
So, is there any case for dating the origin of the letters to after the war?
For readers who are historically-minded realists, the 11th chapter of canonical Romans references the temple's destruction in 70, and probably also the wars of the 2nd century. But for readers who think that Paul got his ideas from heaven, or at least was an inspired genius, it is pure theology and apocalyptic foreboding.
The question of dating "the origin" of the Pauline letters is ambiguous. Their status as "letters" is dubious. If they went through multiple and drastic and sloppy revisions, as all our best evidence and basic reasoning would suggest, then their "origins" are unknowable.
The life of a historical Paul cannot be reconstructed. The subject of the Pauline corpus is just as legendary as the object of the Gospels is. Most importantly, we don't have evidence for a Pauline corpus prior to Marcion's edition--or even much evidence that people read these texts before Marcion. (1 Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp are not datable to a pre-Marcion time.)
The writings themselves are extremely rich and various. Again, a historically realistic reader will infer that they were worked up by many hands over many years, while a believer will accept them as inspired products of one great man.
Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:22 am
Again, a historically realistic reader will infer that they were worked up by many hands over many years, while a believer will accept them as inspired products of one great man.
Most of what went on in cross was a waste of time. They asked each other a lot of irrelevant questions. But overall, Ehrman performed better. He used his time to bait Price into defending unbelievable positions such as that everything inconvenient could just be assumed an interpolation, that all the letters of Paul were second century forgeries, and that the baptism scene in the Gospels was based on obscure Zoroastrian doctrines. And rather than play smart, and saying adopting these conclusions wasn’t necessary to doubt historicity and thus not relevant to the clocked debate, Price took the bait, and burned clock affirming them, and defending them so horribly it appeared to the audience he had no coherent or credible defense of them.
The net effect was making it seem as though doubting historicity required adopting half a dozen wildly implausible assumptions. For the record, no, we don’t. We don’t need bizarrely late dates for the Gospels. We don’t need the seven core letters of Paul to be forgeries.
—Carrier (28 October 2016). "The Ehrman-Price Debate". Richard Carrier Blogs.
Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:22 am
For readers who are historically-minded realists, the 11th chapter of canonical Romans references the temple's destruction in 70, and probably also the wars of the 2nd century. But for readers who think that Paul got his ideas from heaven, or at least was an inspired genius, it is pure theology and apocalyptic foreboding.
...
The writings themselves are extremely rich and various. Again, a historically realistic reader will infer that they were worked up by many hands over many years, while a believer will accept them as inspired products of one great man.
Good point. Yes Romans 11 does indeed look like a reaction to the war. But it is still puzzling why the destruction of the temple wouldn't be more clear in the letters overall.
rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:35 am
Is there any case to be made for dating the origin of the Pauline letters to after the First Jewish-Roman War?
It has always seemed to me that the letters must originated prior to the war since there is essentially no mention of the war or the destruction of the temple, which seems like it would have been relevant to the message.
Then we have passages like these:
1 Cor 3:
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.
How could this be written without mentioned the actual destruction of the temple if it had indeed already happened?
On the other hand, stating that the body is the temple is quite contrary to Judaism and could seem like a teaching that would make sense after the actual temple had been destroyed.
My understanding is that many post-Second-Temple Jewish writings - and early Christian writings - talk about the Temple in present tense even when it's certain or pretty certain that the author knew or would have known the Temple had been destroyed.
And, yes, that passage, 1 Cor 3:16-17, referring to 'you' as a temple of God is a bit of a give-away.
Jacob Berman, of the History Valley podcast channel, of course, has at least one passage in Thessalonians, iirc, in mind in wondering if [some of] Paul's letters were written after then Fall of the Temple.
Most of what went on in cross was a waste of time. They asked each other a lot of irrelevant questions. But overall, Ehrman performed better. He used his time to bait Price into defending unbelievable positions such as that everything inconvenient could just be assumed an interpolation, that all the letters of Paul were second century forgeries, and that the baptism scene in the Gospels was based on obscure Zoroastrian doctrines. And rather than play smart, and saying adopting these conclusions wasn’t necessary to doubt historicity and thus not relevant to the clocked debate, Price took the bait, and burned clock affirming them, and defending them so horribly it appeared to the audience he had no coherent or credible defense of them.
The net effect was making it seem as though doubting historicity required adopting half a dozen wildly implausible assumptions. For the record, no, we don’t. We don’t need bizarrely late dates for the Gospels. We don’t need the seven core letters of Paul to be forgeries.
—Carrier (28 October 2016). "The Ehrman-Price Debate". Richard Carrier Blogs.
NOW BOLDED
Robert M Price is not a live good debater or live discusser of concepts pertaining to early-Christianity b/c he waffles with a lot of whataboutery. One can see that in some of his recent appearances on the History Valley YouTube Channel.
But he has discussed Paul's letters pretty comprehensively in his 2012 book, The Amazing Colossal Apostle, including their provenance. And he put up and discussed proposals for the second century authorship of many of them, in and around the Marcionite community.
And, of course, over the years Carrier has stuck to his guns over the traditional views of the dating of the Pauline letters AND failed to engage in arguments about their dating or later dating of some if not all of the synoptic gospels
"While things were in this state, while there was division in the Senate, resentment among the conquered, no real authority in the conquerors, and in the country at large no laws and no Emperor, Mucianus entered the capital, and at once drew all power into his own hands. The influence of Primus Antonius and Varus Arrius was destroyed; for the irritation of Mucianus against them, though not revealed in his looks, was but ill-concealed, and the country, keen to discover such dislikes, had changed its tone and transferred its homage. He alone was canvassed and courted, and he, surrounding himself with armed men, and bargaining for palaces and gardens, ceased not, what with his magnificence, his proud bearing, and his guards, to grasp at the power, while he waived the titles of Empire. The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk; and while the country was still unquiet and delighted in novel topics, there were persons who associated him with idle rumours of Imperial honours. By order of Mucianus he was surrounded with a guard of soldiers. Lest his execution in the capital should excite too much notice, they conducted him to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins. Julius Priscus, who had been prefect of the Praetorian Guard under Vitellius, killed himself rather out of shame than by compulsion..."
1 Corinthians 1: 10 - 16 (RSV):
[10] I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
[11] For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
[12] What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
These 2 Passages read remarkably similar. "I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas..." therefore is Mucianus referring to putting the Piso Family in their places, esp. by the murder of Calpurnius Galerianus, who had only a noble name and "youthful beauty".
Post War? Which War? The Roman Civil War that brought the Flavians to power, perhaps?
Acts 6: 15 (RSV):
[15] And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.
Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:22 am
Again, a historically realistic reader will infer that they were worked up by many hands over many years, while a believer will accept them as inspired products of one great man.
Most of what went on in cross was a waste of time. They asked each other a lot of irrelevant questions. But overall, Ehrman performed better. He used his time to bait Price into defending unbelievable positions such as that everything inconvenient could just be assumed an interpolation, that all the letters of Paul were second century forgeries, and that the baptism scene in the Gospels was based on obscure Zoroastrian doctrines. And rather than play smart, and saying adopting these conclusions wasn’t necessary to doubt historicity and thus not relevant to the clocked debate, Price took the bait, and burned clock affirming them, and defending them so horribly it appeared to the audience he had no coherent or credible defense of them.
The net effect was making it seem as though doubting historicity required adopting half a dozen wildly implausible assumptions. For the record, no, we don’t. We don’t need bizarrely late dates for the Gospels. We don’t need the seven core letters of Paul to be forgeries.
—Carrier (28 October 2016). "The Ehrman-Price Debate". Richard Carrier Blogs.
NOW BOLDED
One does not need to postulate any 'wild' theories about paul being late since:
1) There's nothing unambiguous in the letters dating them to 50-60 except prior assumptions
2) They are unheard of until the 2nd century
3) Dating them wrt to Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp is a circular logic jerk
4) Most reconstructions filter them through gospel and acts assumptions
5) The letters themself attest to forgeries in paul's name
6) Fragmentary and interpolation theories are hand-waved away too easily
7) Multiple editions attest to a longer transmission history than assuming the near pristine quality with which they are fondled over
It's just that the case for 50-60 is highly unsatisfactory to reasonable people. Those dates are built on a mountain of assumptions, but I doubt the guild is going to heavily repudiate their own work written in tons of ink.
The letters of Paul emerge at around the same time as other versions of Paul -- our canonical Acts, Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Pastorals. When Paul appears in the record he does so in the midst of, not preceding, controversy over who he was and what he taught. Different factions shaped Paul to be their representative in opposition to others.
The issues addressed in the letters of Paul are largely relevant to second century issues: beginning with the question of Paul's status as an apostle. Also, circumcision and legalism, the role of Greek wisdom, celibacy, . . . .
