The case for Post First War Paul?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2269
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by StephenGoranson »

Andrew Criddle wrote above, in part:
Clement of Rome provides evidence of knowledge of Paul's letters c 100 CE. (I'm not sure whether you accept the traditional dating of this work.)

neilgodfrey replied, perhaps inappropriately presuming(?) [what Andrew "must" think--"naively" !?], in part:
You must think there are lots of silly scholars out there who simply don't know the basics of their trade. If we read the sources uncritically, naively, then your remarks carry weight. But for those of us [...etc]

Now I, SG, add:
a) A date estimate for I Clement in mid-90s seems reasonable to me, as presented in, e.g., Apostolic Fathers, Loeb ed. vol. 1, 2003.

b) I see that the issue has been discussed recently in two articles that I do not (yet) have access to, namely:

Retrospect on a Challenge to the Consensus on the Date of 1 Clement

By: Welborn, Laurence L. Source: Biblical Research [Chicago], 65 2020, p 95-103.

Subjects: Domitian , Emperor of Rome , 51-96; Clement, First Epistle of; Persecution; Chronology, Ecclesiastical; Rhetoric -- Religious aspects -- Christianity; Christian literature, Early -- History and dating


Horror vacui: Welborn’s “Retrospect on a Challenge to the Consensus on the Date of 1 Clement”


By: Rothschild, Clare K. Source: Biblical Research, 65 2020, p 104-113.

Subjects: Welborn, Laurence L; Domitian , Emperor of Rome , 51-96; Clement, First Epistle of; Inscriptions; Chronology, Ecclesiastical; Christian literature, Early -- History and dating

Does anyone here have access to these and care to comment on them? If so, thanks.
lsayre
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by lsayre »

It's my opinion that if there ever was a living person who eventually came to be widely known by the name 'Paul', he was an obscure itinerant preacher who at some juncture in the past had traveled about revealing himself to be the living embodiment of a now 'risen' Chrestos (exclusively good god) who at some unknown juncture within eternity past had (per this very same 'Paul') been crucified by a god who possessed both the knowledge and qualities of good and evil. Paul's itinerant mission was to proclaim the good news of the now miraculously risen 'Chrestos in me' that he had received in a revelation.

All 'letters' attributed to the authorship of 'Paul' are from those merely channeling well distant memories of a rumored and long since passed itinerant 'Paul', who speaks through them via the promise that they too could achieve the level of having 'Chrestos in them", via purely a belief in the Grace of Paul's inner Chrestos. Some of the letters may reflect vague hints of (perhaps many multiple decades old) oral transmissions of what the itinerant himself was claimed to have actually spoken and/or outwardly demonstrated. Particularly the letters mention those parts that reminisce of a time when this 'Paul' displayed (or perhaps theatrically performed) 'Chrestos in me', as well as the mention (admittedly vague in its transmission) that this revelation of 'Chrestos in me' occurred to Paul within a "third heaven", and those passages that mentioned how 'Paul' used to show the signs of physical markers of his revelation of 'Chrestos' crucifixion upon his own body. And that he may have presented (theatrical) reenactments of the crucifixion . That plus those passages that refer to reflections of a once living 'Paul' as designated by statements like "don't you remember how when I was with you ...", or "I long to return to you personally, ... (but a thorn in my side in the form of my unexpected death has made such impossible, so I have to speak to you through a proxy who assuredly also has Chrestos in him [and effectively thereby me in him] via this modern day letter instead)".
Last edited by lsayre on Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:26 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by Giuseppe »

Roger Parvus answered so to my question about the dating of 1 Clement:

I think Joseph Turmel is right that 1 Clement was written in the 140s and has an anti-Marcionite purpose. It is a letter that ostensibly meanders, but its meanderings have a funny way of countering, one after another, doctrines held by the Marcionites. It undercuts Marcion without even taking explicit notice of him, for its tactic is to make it look like the subapostolic Roman and Corinthian churches were both on the same page as Paul and clearly proto-orthodox in belief. Just as the author of Acts succeeded for so long in convincing people that he wrote in the 60s, the author of 1 Clement has been largely successful in pulling off the same thing for the 90s. For some of my other thoughts on 1 Clement, see my comment to Neil’s 2011-04-06 post “Reasons to assign Paul’s letters to the first century (distilled from Doherty)”

https://vridar.org/2014/11/16/ten-eleme ... ment-68826

So, it is very embarrassing to see the case for a genuine Paul be reduced to prove the early dating of a text absolutely similar to the tendentious propaganda par excellence called Acts of Apostles. This is 100% apologetics, not even serious scholarship.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:19 am
So, it is very embarrassing to see the case for a genuine Paul be reduced to prove the early dating of a text absolutely similar to the tendentious propaganda par excellence called Acts of Apostles. This is 100% apologetics, not even serious scholarship.
The appeal to Clement's reference to a letter from Paul to the Corinthians is the equivalent of proof-texting. All the conventional assumptions about the provenance and integrity of the "letter" since when right up to "now when" are brushed aside, the actual all too cute references to that letter by Paul are read at face value -- and any critical analysis is all too often poo-poohed as "hyper scepticism". This is all good scholarship within the biblical studies field but it is not how ancient historians of any repute approach their primary sources.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Here is a classic illustration of a naive approach to dating an ancient text. It is by Bart Ehrman in the 2003 Loeb Classical Library edition of The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 1: pp 23-25
Date

We are on somewhat firmer ground when it comes to assigning a date to the letter, although here too scholars have raised serious questions. What is clear is that since the letter is mentioned by Dionysius of Corinth and Hegessipus somewhat before 170 CE on the one hand, and since it refers to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, usually placed in the reign of Nero, ca. 64, on the other hand, it must have been written sometime between these two dates. The traditional date of 95-96 is based on the indication of Eusebius that it was written near the end of the reign of Domitian (emperor from 81-96). Support for the dating was found in the ancient view, also advanced by Eusebius, that during his final years Domitian instigated a persecution of Christians in Rome. This context of persecution was used to explain the opening of the letter, which speaks of the "sudden and repeated misfortunes and setbacks we have experienced"—which were taken to refer to the arrest and prosecution of Christians during a Domitianic reign of terror.

This view of the historical context is now by and large rejected. There is nothing in the epistle that suggests it was written in the context of persecution: the "misfortunes and setbacks" could just as easily have been internal struggles within the church. Moreover, there is no solid evidence from the period itself of a persecution of Christians under Domitian.

Even so, a date near the end of Domitian's reign is altogether plausible. The epistle could not have been written much later: it indicates that the deaths of Peter and Paul took place "within our own generation" (ch. 5) and assumes that there are still living leaders of the Christian churches who had been appointed by the apostles of Jesus, that is, sometime no later than early in the second half of the first century (chs. 42,44). Moreover, there is no indication that the hierarchical structures later so important to proto-orthodox Christians—in which there was a solitary bishop over a group of presbyters and deacons—was yet in place.

Some scholars have gone so far as to claim that the letter may well have been written much earlier than traditionally supposed, possibly prior to 70 (see Welborn). But the letter calls the Corinthian church "ancient" (ch. 47), which seems somewhat inappropriate if it were only twenty-five or thirty years old; it assumes that some churches are headed by leaders twice removed from Jesus' apostles (appointees of those ordained by the apostles, ch. 46); and it suggests that the bearers of the letter from Rome have been faithful members of the church "from youth to old age," which must make them older than their mid-40s (ch. 63). For these reasons, it appears best to assume a date sometime near the end of the first century, possibly, as traditionally thought, in the mid 90s during the reign of Domitian.
The only reference to external attestation is introduced at the beginning and used for no reason other than to set a latest possible date. Context, how the letter was used, relevance of the letter's content to external conditions and circumstances up until 170 CE are not even touched upon.

From there we turn entirely to a naive reading of the contents in order to establish a date. The fiction of the deaths of Peter and Paul is introduced as a significant marker. Notice the classic move, found so often in this field, from "seems plausible" to "appears best to assume".

What is plausible tells us nothing per se about probability. Probability must draw upon the different factors I set out in my first paragraph but these -- including the relevance of the genre and functions of such a text in the wider context of church debates and changes -- are not even addressed. So from what is merely "plausible", and entirely on the basis of a naive reading of contents, we move to "appears best to assume".

That is not how serious critical dating of documents is done.

But even IF a date in the 90s could withstand serious critial scrutiny, it would tell us nothing about conclusions that should be drawn from the reference to Paul's letter (singular) to the Corinthians. That alone, like so many other passages in the "letter", could occupy a full length essay discussion.
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by rgprice »

Neil makes a good point. But regardless, the internal evidence from the Pauline letters seems to indicate to me that they were most likely originally written prior to the first war.

I will add, however, that the same goes for Hebrews and the letters of James and Jude. I could accept an argument that the letters of James and Jude are post-war forgeries that intentionally leave out the war in order to give an appearance of antiquity, but even this is actually difficult, because it would require that they be written in a very narrow window -- after the rise in importance of Jesus worship in which forging the letters would have motivation, but before the writing of the Gospels, since these letters make no references to any Gospel information and barely even mention Jesus.

Hebrews is all about the Temple. How could Hebrews have been written after the war? The only case for Hebrews being post-war that I can see, requires identifying Hebrews as a forgery that was intentionally written to appear to be pre-war. But again, the forger would had to have done this in a way that set the letter prior to the war simply by acting as if the Temple still existed, while not mentioning any obvious historical markers.

The same goes for the letters of James and Jude.

The problem I have with this is that there are many obvious later Christian forgeries, such as 3 Corinthians, that display the obvious markers of forgery. In all of these works we see the writer doing what forgers did - they put in obvious markers to try and indicate that the letters were written prior to the war or they mention elements of the Gospel narratives or they make certain predictions about the future. That's what forgers did. That's why its obvious that the Pastorals are later forgeries.

But the letters of James, Jude, Hebrews, and the "authentic 7" Paulines do none of that. There are a small handful of exceptions in the Pauline letters, like 1 Thess 2:14-16, but these exceptions only highlight the rarity of such markers. And anyway, I've come to consider that 1 Thess 2:14-16 is not an interpolation, but rather is based on a reading of Isaiah that considers the Suffering Servant to be the Lord.

So I agree with Neil's point about dating, but the fact that these writings reflect no knowledge of Gospel narratives and contain no obvious indicators to locate themselves prior to the war, leads me to believe that they were written prior to the first war. It seems to me that there would have been no real motive for forging these letters prior to the writing of the first Gospel and that these letters couldn't have been forged after the writing of the Gospels because if they were they would have made references to Gospel material, as so many later forgeries do.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by Irish1975 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:27 am Here is a classic illustration of a naive approach to dating an ancient text. It is by Bart Ehrman in the 2003 Loeb Classical Library edition of The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 1: pp 23-25
Date

We are on somewhat firmer ground when it comes to assigning a date to the letter, although here too scholars have raised serious questions. What is clear is that since the letter is mentioned by Dionysius of Corinth and Hegessipus somewhat before 170 CE on the one hand, and since it refers to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, usually placed in the reign of Nero, ca. 64, on the other hand, it must have been written sometime between these two dates. The traditional date of 95-96 is based on the indication of Eusebius that it was written near the end of the reign of Domitian (emperor from 81-96). Support for the dating was found in the ancient view, also advanced by Eusebius, that during his final years Domitian instigated a persecution of Christians in Rome. This context of persecution was used to explain the opening of the letter, which speaks of the "sudden and repeated misfortunes and setbacks we have experienced"—which were taken to refer to the arrest and prosecution of Christians during a Domitianic reign of terror.

This view of the historical context is now by and large rejected. There is nothing in the epistle that suggests it was written in the context of persecution: the "misfortunes and setbacks" could just as easily have been internal struggles within the church. Moreover, there is no solid evidence from the period itself of a persecution of Christians under Domitian.

Even so, a date near the end of Domitian's reign is altogether plausible. The epistle could not have been written much later: it indicates that the deaths of Peter and Paul took place "within our own generation" (ch. 5) and assumes that there are still living leaders of the Christian churches who had been appointed by the apostles of Jesus, that is, sometime no later than early in the second half of the first century (chs. 42,44). Moreover, there is no indication that the hierarchical structures later so important to proto-orthodox Christians—in which there was a solitary bishop over a group of presbyters and deacons—was yet in place.

Some scholars have gone so far as to claim that the letter may well have been written much earlier than traditionally supposed, possibly prior to 70 (see Welborn). But the letter calls the Corinthian church "ancient" (ch. 47), which seems somewhat inappropriate if it were only twenty-five or thirty years old; it assumes that some churches are headed by leaders twice removed from Jesus' apostles (appointees of those ordained by the apostles, ch. 46); and it suggests that the bearers of the letter from Rome have been faithful members of the church "from youth to old age," which must make them older than their mid-40s (ch. 63). For these reasons, it appears best to assume a date sometime near the end of the first century, possibly, as traditionally thought, in the mid 90s during the reign of Domitian.
The only reference to external attestation is introduced at the beginning and used for no reason other than to set a latest possible date. Context, how the letter was used, relevance of the letter's content to external conditions and circumstances up until 170 CE are not even touched upon.

From there we turn entirely to a naive reading of the contents in order to establish a date. The fiction of the deaths of Peter and Paul is introduced as a significant marker. Notice the classic move, found so often in this field, from "seems plausible" to "appears best to assume".

What is plausible tells us nothing per se about probability. Probability must draw upon the different factors I set out in my first paragraph but these -- including the relevance of the genre and functions of such a text in the wider context of church debates and changes -- are not even addressed. So from what is merely "plausible", and entirely on the basis of a naive reading of contents, we move to "appears best to assume".

That is not how serious critical dating of documents is done.

But even IF a date in the 90s could withstand serious critial scrutiny, it would tell us nothing about conclusions that should be drawn from the reference to Paul's letter (singular) to the Corinthians. That alone, like so many other passages in the "letter", could occupy a full length essay discussion.
Great stuff, Neil.

“Naive” is almost too generous.

Ehrman writes,
there is no indication that the hierarchical structures later so important to proto-orthodox Christians—in which there was a solitary bishop over a group of presbyters and deacons—was yet in place.
??
1Clem 42:1
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

1Clem 42:2
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

1Clem 42:3
Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured
through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in
the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

1Clem 42:4
So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops
and deacons
unto them that should believe.

1Clem 42:5
And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written
concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus
saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their
bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith
.

1 Clement is traditionally the oldest “witness” to the idea of apostolic succession and the martrydom of Peter and Paul (in Rome! because why not). And so naturally one argues from those same facts for an early date. Rigorous historical scholarship.
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by rgprice »

Yeah, I point out in the book I'm working on that Ehrman's claims about "church" structure are all based on assumptions that these "churches" came into existence after the pressed death of Jesus. But in fact, there were God-fearing assemblies in place for hundreds of years prior to the rise of Christianity, in which such structures developed. The worship of "Jesus Christ" would no doubt have developed among such existing congregations, that already had such structures in place.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by andrewcriddle »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:53 am ........................

Sceptical inquiry is not about pushing evidence to vanishing points to suit our agendas, though the term is sometimes used as if that is what is meant by it. If you see evidence in 1 Clement for a broader impact of Paul's activity within the parameters conventional wisdom assigns to it, then that's fine. Not all of us see that datum of testimony in the same way and it could be discussed at length. -- Without assuming anything about the Pauline correspondence that we have in our canon, and thinking through the contents of 1 Clement more generally, especially his references (or lack of them) to Paul, questions and doubts must inevitably surface.

For one -- that an author writing 100 CE should find the same conditions in Corinth as Paul presumably found there, with the same idealized(?) factions, must surely raise questions.
Clement's argument
Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. But that inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved. But now reflect who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves.
seems to be not that the conflict in Corinth in his time is the same as that in Paul's time but that it is worse, more culpable.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:45 am Clement's argument
Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. But that inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved. But now reflect who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves.
seems to be not that the conflict in Corinth in his time is the same as that in Paul's time but that it is worse, more culpable.

Andrew Criddle
Which makes the claim all the more problematic.

Presumably Paul's letter had no impact whatever. Meanwhile, the Roman church sits on a copy of it and decides a generation later to do something about it -- and not even then to do anything except beg as a servant church. Yes, now that would bring the Corinthians into line!
Post Reply