Dating Paul's letters

[Stuart]

To believe that Paul is actually pre-70 AD you have to presume the following

1) the letters are basically a unity
-- allowing some wiggle room for inauthentic elements or deutero Pauline material or books (varies from person to person)

2a) the bulk of the pseudo autobiographical material is authentic, reflect the actual activities of Paul
-- this is an absolute requirement. The belief collapses if the material (almost all not attested in the Marcionite) is later inventions
-- this also means you reject the concept of separating Paul the legend from Paul the letter writer

or alternately
2b) the fragments of the letters were from the time period before 70 AD, although they were likely formed into letters even long after
-- this is essentially a "collection" theory

3a) that churches in Greece and Turkey were founded and within one generation developed so rapidly that they required complex hierarchies
-- rapid conversion rates, almost uniform evangelical success
-- wide social swaths joined the church, from the most prominent to mere slaves, both Jews and Greeks joined

or alternately
3b) that the churches grew because they were already existing as God fearer "Jewish" Synagogues that rapidly converted to "the way"

4) Christianity fragmented after Paul, taking various elements of his positions and heightening them while downgrading other parts, thus creating sects.
-- essentially flipping the concept of sectarianism bringing different theologies into Christianity which were harmonized, into instead a single theology that through time and distance fragmented into various communities that took on different aspects. (This is similar to the Q theory scholars and their naive Jesus communities that emphasized specific aspects of the gospel in different locales)

5) Often, but not always, there is a presumption of a pristine Church that is corrupted by the factors stated above of splintering

The above was a summary of my understanding of the views of those who hold a traditional pre-70 AD composition of the Pauline letters (in the main). Many of these positions are not articulated, though presumed. They are often not defended because they are assumed universal and unassailable. (I think all of the above is wrong, but you are not asking for a case against, so I'll refrain)

*********************************

However, there is another vain of proponents for early dating that is quite radical. It generally holds that Christianity is much older, dating as far back as the Maccabean revolt. The fragments of Paul date from as early as the 2nd Century BC. I really don't understand the premises assumed for this position, so will let those who hold it state them.

[GakuseiDon]

1. The Gospels place Jesus in the time of Pilate. James is noted as Jesus' brother.
2. Paul apparently met Jesus' brother, James.

Assuming those two things are reporting actual historical fact, then that places Paul around 50 CE. If the letters of Paul were written in the Second Century CE, we'd have to ask: what was the Second Century view of James? If that view was that the Gospel accounts were reliable and that the James that Paul met was the brother of Jesus, then it seems like the Second Century CE writers were wanting to place Paul around 50 CE.

That raises a few questions, as any paradigm shifts naturally do. For example: If the Second Century authors had the Gospels in front of them when writing the letters of Paul, why didn't they include more details of the Gospels into Paul? E.g. Jesus' sayings and actions?

[Peter Kirby]

What are the reasons for dating Paul's "genuine" letters pre-70 CE?

From a previous discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=155

1 Corinthians 9:13

Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?

seems to imply that the temple is still in operation.

(More generally; if one wishes to argue that the references to Jerusalem in Paul are genuine but after 70 CE then the issue is not just the existence of a Christian community in Jerusalem at this time but the apparent importance and authority of this community. )

Andrew Criddle

The word for idol's temple in 8:10 is quite different from the word for temple in 9:13 it is not a parallel. I agree that hIERON could be used for a pagan temple. But I would be surprised to see ThUSIASTHRION altar used of a pagan altar.

Jerusalem is also the base for Cephas and other apostles quite apart from the brethren of the Lord such as James. I'm not sure what scenario you are suggesting as a possibility. Is it one in which there is a Jerusalem church before and after 70 CE ruled by leaders claiming to be relatives of Jesus with Paul only coming along after 70 CE ?

Andrew Criddle

The issue is the specific word THUSIASTHRION . It is not a usual Greek word. It is a primarily Septuagintal/Jewish Hellenist/Christian word. In the NT it always refers to altars (literal or symbolic) to the Jewish/Christian God. In the Septuagint it usually means an altar for Yahweh but it can occasionally be used for an altar stone for Baal. I am not aware of it being used for a pagan Greek sacrificial table,

As I said in my reply to Peter the passage about an idol temple uses quite different vocabulary. However there is a parallel use of THUSIASTHRION in 1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel according to the flesh. Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? which is definitely talking of the Jewish altar.

Andrew Criddle

The word θυσιαστηριον can be found in Jdg 2:2 for the altars of the inhabitants of the land. In Jdg 6:28, 30-32 it's an altar of Baal, also in 1 Kgs 16:32, 18:26, 2 Kgs 11:18. In 2 Kgs 21:5 it's an altar to all the powers of heaven.

Hi spin

I noted in my reply to Jay that θυσιαστηριον is occasionally used for altars of Baal. The altar in 2 Kings 21:5 is a pagan altar but one in the temple of Jerusalem itself.

Andrew Criddle

[Irish1975]

Devil's advocate: what in Paul is guaranteed to demonstrate that Mark relies on him? Honestly

“Guaranteed to demonstrate” is way too strong.

1) The preaching of the dying(crucified?)-and-rising Savior-Messiah, with specific reference to Isaiah 53
2) Baptism interpreted according to that motif (“Baptised into his death”)
3) Ritual reenactment of the death and future coming in the Lord’s Supper
4) A non-Davidic messiah (the bits about David in Romans being interpolated). In gMark, Jesus is the antithesis of a nationalistic warrior king, and a messiah who is “not David’s son.”
5) An imminent eschaton
6) Salvation offered to, perceived by, gentiles (the Syrophoenician woman, the Roman centurion)
7) Deprecation of the pillars

[mlinssen]

Devil's advocate: what in Paul is guaranteed to demonstrate that Mark relies on him? Honestly

“Guaranteed to demonstrate” is way too strong.

1) The preaching of the dying(crucified?)-and-rising Savior-Messiah, with specific reference to Isaiah 53
2) Baptism interpreted according to that motif (“Baptised into his death”)
3) Ritual reenactment of the death and future coming in the Lord’s Supper
4) A non-Davidic messiah (the bits about David in Romans being interpolated). In gMark, Jesus is the antithesis of a nationalistic warrior king, and a messiah who is “not David’s son.”
5) An imminent eschaton
6) Salvation offered to, perceived by, gentiles (the Syrophoenician woman, the Roman centurion)
7) Deprecation of the pillars

Yes, I was exaggerating on purpose there. Fine answer though!

1) I have always found Isaiah 53 to be very weak, and cheap at that. There is almost as little of it in the canonicals as there is in Paul, although I'll grant that there is nothing of it in Paul. I don't see any rising, by the way

2) I never realised it but there are two major blocks of baptism indeed (and then some):

Romans 6:3 Or are you unaware that as many as have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised up out from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life.

1 Corinthians 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one should say that you were baptized into my name.
16 Now also I baptized the household of Stephanas; as to the rest, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel; not in wisdom of discourse, so that the cross of the Christ should not be emptied of its power.

That's puzzling, and indeed points to a prior notion of baptism, although it is far less focused than what we're used to from the canonicals. It's Paul "testing the waters" here?

With regards to the other points, there is a story there, but not necessarily the story of the canonicals, perhaps.
But the baptism can't point to Thomas or Marcion, and it is too wild to point to the canonicals - although very little of all the baptism in the NT makes sense, to be frank. I went through it all for my ATP and "immersion" is the only thing that sticks

[neilgodfrey]

Eschatogical Ripeness It is well known and a familiar thought in NT studies that the Paul of 1 Thessalonians expected an immediate eschaton. This mood of immediacy dims in the other epistles, but never entirely. By contrast, many NT texts have a “post-eschatological” flavor: Luke, John, Ephesians/Collossians, the Pastorals, the Catholic epistles. It is, furthermore, natural to try to situate the Paulines between earlier Jewish apocalyptic such as 1 Enoch and DSS on the one hand, and the turn towards a more Hellenistic/Egyptian/Gnostic metaphysics such as we see in the Nag Hammadi texts. It is hard to imagine authentic Paul being as early as the former material or as late as the latter material. As a general rule, since no one in this discussion is entitled to simply assume a historical Jesus as a fixed buoy in these troubled waters, it would be better to find a broad argument for situating Paul historically, more in terms of the evolution of ideas than in terms of those notoriously shakey historical moments (the crucifixion, Aretas, or political events known only through Josephus).

Yes, but does not such a trajectory point to more than an isolated figure representing the mid-way point? For the idea that there was a trajectory of thought to hold would we not need to find a cluster or school of persons expressing the idea? Is Paul a standalone in this model? If so, are we not looking at a bit of circularity?

What you say about an argument for a pre-70 Paul is valid and does contribute towards the answer to my opening question. So that's good, thanks. My above question is a spin-off.

Early Influence I don’t see how one can avoid accepting as an axiom that the Pauline material exerted a formative influence on much (although not all) of the remainder of the NT material. It had to have been around for a while before gMark, Ephesians, or 1 Peter, or the Pastorals, were worked up. And it is fair to take it more or less for granted that the other 3 Gospels and Acts came some decades, or generations, after gMark. If the axiom of early influence is rejected, then it is difficult or impossible to outline a historical trajectory for the composition of the NT.

Yes, and the conventional wisdom would insist that the Gospel of Mark is certainly no later than the 90s, many would insist no later than around 75.

[neilgodfrey]

The above was a summary of my understanding of the views of those who hold a traditional pre-70 AD composition of the Pauline letters (in the main). Many of these positions are not articulated, though presumed. They are often not defended because they are assumed universal and unassailable. (I think all the above is wrong, but you are not asking for a case against, so I'll refrain)

Yes, and thanks. It certainly helps to spell them out as you have done.

[neilgodfrey]

Three Arguments:

Arguments from Pillars

• • Paul mentions the Pillars.
  • The Pillars are assumed to be the first people to see Jesus.
  • Jesus is assumed to have been seen in pre-70 CE times.
  • Therefore the Pillars are from pre-70 times.
  • Therefore Paul is from pre-70 times.
  Arguments from nascent organization
  
  • • In the epistles, the feeling is that Paul is giving a form the first time on the first communities in the Diaspora.
    • The second century communities, by their time, should have no need of someone who says them so banal instructions about organization, money, eating, etc.
  Arguments from connections with Imperial house
  
  • Paul mentions greetings addressed to Caesar's house.
  • In 2° century, Christians didn't enjoy so strict Imperial connections. Evidence: Apologies addressed to this or that Emperor.

A very handy collation. Thanks.

[neilgodfrey]

1) I have always found Isaiah 53 to be very weak, and cheap at that. There is almost as little of it in the canonicals as there is in Paul, although I'll grant that there is nothing of it in Paul. I don't see any rising, by the way. . . .

I would add to Irish1975's list of indicators that Paul infused Mark:

[*]preaching faith apart from the law (faith alone heals)
[*]preaching the obsolescence of the law (e.g. foods)

As for Isaiah 53, Kee's list of Isa 53 echoes in Mark: https://vridar.org/2008/08/30/jewish-sc ... arratives/

In Paul: https://www.academia.edu/9929626/Isaiah ... l_and_John

[neilgodfrey]

1. The Gospels place Jesus in the time of Pilate. James is noted as Jesus' brother.
2. Paul apparently met Jesus' brother, James.

Assuming those two things are reporting actual historical fact, then that places Paul around 50 CE. If the letters of Paul were written in the Second Century CE, we'd have to ask: what was the Second Century view of James? If that view was that the Gospel accounts were reliable and that the James that Paul met was the brother of Jesus, then it seems like the Second Century CE writers were wanting to place Paul around 50 CE.. . .

Curiously relevant passage appears to have been missing from Tertullian's copy of Galatians.