Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
schillingklaus
Posts: 580
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by schillingklaus »

There is no such thing as a historical Paul except in the reckless fantasy of apologists. Reasonable scholars know that the epistles are late piecemeal.

History is not primary but a late fraudulent forgery, promoted only by reckless apologists. It can be safely ignored as it is absolutely irrelevant for the background of Christianity.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

maryhelena wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 2:02 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 2:56 pm
rgprice wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:56 pm I know there are several threads about this, but I'd like this to be a wholistic and even-handed comparison of the arguments for and against dating the earliest layer of the Pauline epistles to one of three different time period:
A) 1st century BCE
B) 1st century CE prior to the First Jewish-Roman War
C) After the First Jewish-Roman War.
I remember a few threads where quite a good argument was made (not from me) that Paul is dependent on Philo, at least indirectly influenced. That always seemed right to me, without giving it much thought.
The Pauline writer may well have been dependent on Philo. However, the issue, in relationship to Paul being in Damascus while it was under the control of an Aretas - is an issue related to the historicity of the NT figure of Paul.
Hi Maryhelena, I only had variant A in mind and "Paul" as the author of the letters.

Perhaps this author was dependent on Philo, perhaps indirectly influenced, perhaps it was in the same air for both of them. But somehow both are very close. Therefore I would not date the letters before Philo.

justmytwocents
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2478
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by maryhelena »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 1:09 pm
maryhelena wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 2:02 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 2:56 pm
rgprice wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:56 pm I know there are several threads about this, but I'd like this to be a wholistic and even-handed comparison of the arguments for and against dating the earliest layer of the Pauline epistles to one of three different time period:
A) 1st century BCE
B) 1st century CE prior to the First Jewish-Roman War
C) After the First Jewish-Roman War.
I remember a few threads where quite a good argument was made (not from me) that Paul is dependent on Philo, at least indirectly influenced. That always seemed right to me, without giving it much thought.
The Pauline writer may well have been dependent on Philo. However, the issue, in relationship to Paul being in Damascus while it was under the control of an Aretas - is an issue related to the historicity of the NT figure of Paul.
Hi Maryhelena, I only had variant A in mind and "Paul" as the author of the letters.

Perhaps this author was dependent on Philo, perhaps indirectly influenced, perhaps it was in the same air for both of them. But somehow both are very close. Therefore I would not date the letters before Philo.

justmytwocents
I have no problem with the Pauline writer, or writers, being influenced by Philo. But that does not necessarily mean they were close re time frame.....if historicity is assumed for Paul. It would rule out a historical Paul in 63 b.c. Something I'm not proposing at all. The Paul figure is to go to the gentiles re his good news. New Testament writers place paper apostle Paul in Damascus under Aretas. History identifying Aretas III in 63 b.c. A historical date of significance to Hasmonean history. Loss of sovereignty, of nationalism. The way forward for the Hasmoneans was to the gentiles.....to move towards a universal concept of Jewish theology. They had nowhere else to go but seek some good news.....a kingdom without end....

Did they choose this route ? Interestingly....we have Josephus claiming Hasmonean ancestry.....Josephus with his TF...with his John the baptizer and even his James story. And the Lukan writer could never have got his 15th year of Tiberius story up and running without a helping hand from Josephus re his ambiguous dating of Pilate.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 12018
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by Giuseppe »

Among the "Arguments in favor of the Pauline letters having originated after the First Jewish-Roman War", I should place the following, inspired by my recent reading of the Vinzent's book Resetting the Origins of Christianity:
  • Paul is so much the target of a radical catholic domestication, in Acts of Apostles, Irenaeus, etc, that by pure "effect contrast" the suspicion is very strong, that the original Paul was ab initio the mere mouthpiece of Marcion and none other.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:37 am
... I should place the following, inspired by my recent reading of the Vinzent's book Resetting the Origins of Christianity:
  • the original Paul was ab initio the mere mouthpiece of Marcion and none other.
  • I think that's reasonably likely (though there may have been an actual Paul in the Marcionite community)
rgprice
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by rgprice »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:37 am Among the "Arguments in favor of the Pauline letters having originated after the First Jewish-Roman War", I should place the following, inspired by my recent reading of the Vinzent's book Resetting the Origins of Christianity:
  • Paul is so much the target of a radical catholic domestication, in Acts of Apostles, Irenaeus, etc, that by pure "effect contrast" the suspicion is very strong, that the original Paul was ab initio the mere mouthpiece of Marcion and none other.
I don't think this is the case. If Paul were originally "Marcion's", then why appropriate him at all? Why not just cast him aside? Why appropriate anything from Marcion? If Marcion invented it all, why would there be any desire to "appropriate and correct" his teachings, instead of simply just disregarding them?
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 12018
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by Giuseppe »

rgprice wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:20 am I don't think this is the case. If Paul were originally "Marcion's", then why appropriate him at all? Why not just cast him aside? Why appropriate anything from Marcion? If Marcion invented it all, why would there be any desire to "appropriate and correct" his teachings, instead of simply just disregarding them?
I don't know, but what is well described by Vinzent is the colossal extent of the Catholic domestication of Paul, even in minor writings as Praxapostolos.

For example, Vinzent raises questions that are very 'alarming', in this sense:

He [Irenaeus] reads and uses Acts within the context of the Praxapostolos and the larger collection of Christian writings, not in order to develop a history of the beginnings of Christianity but rather to derive from it an orthodox, anti-heretical understanding of both the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles.

We may now ask whether Irenaeus saw this as being the essential function of Acts or perhaps even the very intention with which this work has been produced.

(Resetting the Origins of Christianity, p. 211, my bold)

A such colossal action of co-optation seems to assume, for contrast, that the original Paul was really on the side of opponents of Irenaeus. This is only a suspicion, but one to which the same Acts of Apostles + Irenaeus seem to move me.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:20 am If Paul were originally "Marcion's", then why appropriate him at all? Why not just cast him aside? Why appropriate anything from Marcion? If Marcion invented it all, why would there be any desire to "appropriate and correct" his teachings, instead of simply just disregarding them?
  • I think the finalising and final redactors of the NT were appropriating and co-opting as much as they could in order to cast the past aside

    I reckon many/most characters in the NT have been co-opted to do just that eg. Simon, Thomas, Hermas/Hermes, John, etc., etc.

    Changing names was a long-standing trope all about that
eta:
to co-opt Giuseppe: eg. co-oping an original Paul to show he was really "on-side"
Post Reply