The case for Post First War Paul?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by rgprice »

I've heard several claims that even the earliest of the Pauline letters were actually written sometime after the First Jewish-Roman War. I have a hard time believing that could be true given that they make essentially no mention of the conflict or the loss of the temple. Is there a serous case to be made that the Pauline letters date to sometime after the first war?
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by Charles Wilson »

rgprice wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:03 pmI've heard several claims that even the earliest of the Pauline letters were actually written sometime after the First Jewish-Roman War.
Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:

"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. Alfenius Varus survived the disgrace of his cowardice..."

1 Corinthians 1: 14 - 17 (RSV):

[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.)
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

To see the Tie-In, you have to look at Acts 6 and on:

Acts 6:

[5] And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch'orus, and Nica'nor, and Ti'mon, and Par'menas, and Nicola'us, a proselyte of Antioch.

Who was "Proselyte"/"Hero" of Antioch? Octavian. This is an Inverted List of Caesars. This makes Stephen Martyr into Frugi Piso, the four Day Emperor.

[8] And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.

Ahhh, but there is mischief afoot:

[15] And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

As far as I know. this is not Frugi Piso. It is Calpurnius Galerianus, son of Gaius Piso.

[58] Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.
[59] And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
[60] And he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

"Saul" is Mucianus and the laying of the garments at his feet is symbolic:

"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..."

Remember, "...they conducted him (Galerianus Piso) to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins..."

Stephen is taken outside the city. Galerianus is taken outside the city.
One is stoned the other has his veins opened.

I always ask at this point: "Do you fall asleep when you are stoned?'

We now understand The House of Stephanas. It's the Piso Family.

Lastly, we get from "Crispus" to "Priscus":

"Julius Priscus, who had been prefect of the Praetorian Guard under Vitellius, killed himself rather out of shame than by compulsion..."

You can almost compute this to the day. Of course, there is more here but this should be enough.

Best,

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Greg Doudna argues a case for this late date. See his comments attached to posts at https://vridar.org/2021/01/11/why-was-t ... und-30-ce/ , https://vridar.org/2021/01/25/john-the- ... resources/ , https://vridar.org/2021/04/17/paul-is-j ... s-in-acts/

See also
  • Wells, Chris Albert. Sorting Out Paul: Caught Between Man and Legend. Place of publication not identified: Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency, LLC, 2015.
Some Dutch radicals, from memory, argued that the topics addressed in the letters were of relevance to second century debates.

As for the destruction of Jerusalem, Romans 9-11 has been said to make most sense post 70 or even post 135.

I cannot recall where I read it now, but it has been noted that major events like a world war even only a decade old can find very little mention in sources.

As for dating, the "scientific" approach, as Niels Peter Lemche has pointed out, is to start where we are most secure on the basis of independent witness.

Hence it can be argued on the basis of our first independent witnesses, and the relevance of the contents of the letters themselves, that Paul's letters belong to a second century provenance.

(The only internal date marker in the epistles is the Aretas reference. Greg Doudna argues for a post 70 Aretas figure and others have argued for interpolation.)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by Giuseppe »

The most serious cases arguing for a post-70 dating for the epistles (only a name: Bolland) don't consider the epistles as the fabrication of few people, since you can find everything in it, coming from different theologies.

The most simple and general criterium is the classification along mythicist and historicist lines.

Some passages betray knowledge of Gospel episodes: that Jesus was "betrayed" during a night, the eucharist, the list of apparitions to 12. But a Gospel of only the earthly Passion and Resurrection, probably a drama in 5 acts (eucharist, arrest, trial, crucifixion, burial/resurrection), still without a previous preaching, before the Eucharist and the arrest.

Other passages show clearly evidence of a celestial crucifixion in outer space.

Hence, the rest of the epistles can be assigned, with equal probability, to the "mythicist" author(s) or to the historicist author(s).

In the doubt, the best conclusion, in my view, is that:
  • The mythicist layer precedes, by definition, the historicist layer.
  • The mythicist layer is found also in a known forgery: Ephesians 6:12.
  • Hence the mythicist layer is not per se evidence of a pre-70 dating.
The basic problem with a pre-70 dating of the mythicist passages in the epistles is that a celestial crucifixion in outer space (THAT IS IN EVIDENCE) is more an anti-demiurgist thing to be said, than a Jewish thing (= I mean: with YHWH seen as supreme god): the Jewish god is enumerated (generally without distinction, unless when he is called "the god of this world") among the demonic archontes, the same inferior gods from the cult of which the author of Galatians wants to separate his original readers.

So the chronology would be:

Before or after 70 CE: original mythicist and anti-demiurgist layer of the epistles.

70-120 CE: first historicist and YHWH-ist layer, but without knowledge of a preaching: only from eucharist to burial/resurrection.

120-until today: second historicist layer, where the epistles are read assuming our Gospels. I am assuming that the first gospel complete of an entire life of Jesus on earth was written by this time.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by MrMacSon »

What about a role of Jewish mysticism in Pauline theology?

Dunno if it helps date Paul or not, though it seems clear that Saul (who seems to have become Paul) practised this mysticism; and that this was the foundation of his many reported experiences, including the vision on the Damascus road (though reading or reflecting on 1 Kings 19:15 may [also] have contributed).

Alan Segal has suggested that Paul was likely involved in some form of proto- Merkavah [chariot] — Hekhalot [heaven] mysticism as per the description of his journey to paradise in 2 Corinthians 12. Contemplation of the chariot chapters of Ezekiel are said to be at least as early as Johanan ben Zakkai (d. ~90AD).

According to legend, Johanan ben Zakkai foresaw the destruction of the Temple (though there are apparently no records of his activities in the lead up to it), but he was still stunned no less than his contemporaries -
his immediate reaction was one of profound grief: "Rabban Johanan sat and watched in the direction of the wall of Jerusalem to learn what was happening there, even as Eli sat upon his seat by the wayside watching [i Sam. 4:13]. When R. Johanan b. Zakkai saw that the Temple was destroyed and the heikhal burnt, he stood and rent his garments, took off his tefillin, and sat weeping, as did his pupils with him" (arn2 7, 21). The cessation of the Temple service, one of the three things on which the world is based (Avot 1:2), led to a movement of excessive abstinence (Tosef., Sot. 15:11) and to a despair of the possibility of atoning for sins. Johanan took it upon himself to give guidance to the bewildered: "Once when R. Johanan b. Zakkai was leaving Jerusalem, R. Joshua was walking behind him and saw the Temple in ruins. R. Joshua said, 'Woe is us that this has been destroyed, the place where atonement was made for the sins of Israel.' 'No, my son, do you not know that we have a means of making atonement that is like it? And what is it? It is deeds of love, as it is said [Hos. 6:6]: "For I desire kindness, and not sacrifice"'" (arn1 4, 21).

According to the aggadah, Johanan ascribed the destruction of the Temple to Israel's failure to perform the will of God; but the aggadists were also witness to the consequences of the Jewish people having been delivered "into the hands of a low people" (Ket. 66b). This led to differing attitudes toward the charitable acts of the non-Jews. Thus, according to one tradition, Johanan said: "Just as the sin and guilt offerings make atonement for Israel, so charity and kindness make atonement for the nations of the world" (bb 10b; see Dik. Sof., ad loc.). But, according to another post-talmudic tradition, Johanan praised his pupil Eleazar b. Arakh's exposition of the verse (Prov. 14:34): "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but the kindness of the peoples is sin," saying to his pupils, "I approve the words of Eleazar b. Arakh rather than yours, for he assigns charity and kindness to Israel and sins to the nations of the world" (pdrk 21). According to this view, after the destruction of the Temple the atonement of sins was denied not to Israel but to those who had destroyed it.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/phi ... nbenZakkai
There are said to be Jewish and Alexandrian antecedents to Christian mysticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian ... ntecedents

There's the the Pardes ascent - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(legend)

And there's -

'Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1-12)" The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate. Part 1 :The Jewish Sources', HTR 86 (1993) 177-217

Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1–12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul's Apostolate: Part 2: Paul's Heavenly Ascent and its Significance, 265-92
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by rgprice »

@neil

I'm quite confident that Pilate was introduced by Mark, and that Mark used Pilate in his narrative on the basis of his use of Philo's account of the Caligula Crisis, in which Pilate plays a role. And yes, I think that the 40 years between Pilate and the fall may have contributed to Mark's thinking, but I think the case is quite strong that Mark's use of Against Flaccus and On the Embassy to Gaius is why Jesus is killed by Pilate.

But I don't see what any of that has to do with Paul.

I don't find the case that Doudna puts forward in his comments compelling at all.

What I'm gathering from these responses is that there is no compelling case for dating the earliest Pauline letters prior to the First Jewish-Roman War.

There are so many places in the Pauline letters that one would expect to find mention of the destruction of the Temple, yet it is entirely lacking. I have a very hard time believing that anyone writing after the fall of the Temple would have so thoroughly avoided it.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by Giuseppe »

It is evident that Philo mentioned Pilate in his On the Embassy to Gaius because Pilate was seen someway as a precursor of Caligula, in his (failed) attempt to introduce Pagan symbols in the Temple. His mention by Philo is therefore not a fortuite coincidence.

I see no mention of Pilate in Against Flaccus.

Do you think that Mark ignored completely Josephus (and the long list of Roman authorities in Judea in his books) ?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 5:37 am @neil

I'm quite confident that Pilate was introduced by Mark, and that Mark used Pilate in his narrative on the basis of his use of Philo's account of the Caligula Crisis, in which Pilate plays a role. And yes, I think that the 40 years between Pilate and the fall may have contributed to Mark's thinking, but I think the case is quite strong that Mark's use of Against Flaccus and On the Embassy to Gaius is why Jesus is killed by Pilate.
Is this meant to be addressed to me? I wonder if comments have been mixed up. I have responded to Giuseppe's points about Pilate but that was in another discussion thread. But while we're here, is there a necessary link between the Carabbas episode (assuming that's the key point in Philo) which inspired Mark's treatment of Jesus and setting the scene in Pilate's time?
rgprice wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 5:37 amBut I don't see what any of that has to do with Paul.
Nor do I. Maybe some mix up with the discussions is happening here.
rgprice wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 5:37 amI don't find the case that Doudna puts forward in his comments compelling at all.
Well you may not be willing to be persuaded by other comments I have since dug up from Greg where he specifically addresses your next point about lack of mention of events of 70.

https://vridar.org/2020/12/10/another-p ... ent-125040
https://vridar.org/2019/04/04/can-we-fi ... ment-92226
https://vridar.org/2019/04/04/can-we-fi ... ment-92214
rgprice wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 5:37 am There are so many places in the Pauline letters that one would expect to find mention of the destruction of the Temple, yet it is entirely lacking. I have a very hard time believing that anyone writing after the fall of the Temple would have so thoroughly avoided it.
I don't know what places you are thinking of where we would expect to find a mention of the temple's destruction, but would not a very strong reason for not mentioning it be found in the setting of Paul in the time of the original apostles? It would be a pretty inept forger trying to write as if Paul were living in the time of the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus suddenly speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem 30 or 20 years later.

Other factors to consider: that 70 CE was not as big a deal as we have assumed and that many Jews were responding by simply wondering when it would be rebuilt. Sacrifices were not interrupted for any significant length of time. It was 135 that was the real crisis: from then on Jews were not even permitted to enter Jerusalem and in the temple's place we have a new altar for Jupiter. In this scenario the events of both 70 and 135 became conflated in Christian imaginations from the time of Justin. https://brill.com/view/title/16998

As for independent evidence re when we might expect past events to be mentioned, 135 was certainly a major event that Christians saw as a final sign that Christianity had replaced the Jewish cult as God's new people. Yet there are very few references made to it. Justin, I think, argues on the assumption of its importance with Trypho but only refers to it once and that in a most oblique way.
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by rgprice »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 6:21 am Is this meant to be addressed to me? I wonder if comments have been mixed up. I have responded to Giuseppe's points about Pilate but that was in another discussion thread. But while we're here, is there a necessary link between the Carabbas episode (assuming that's the key point in Philo) which inspired Mark's treatment of Jesus and setting the scene in Pilate's time?
This first link you presented was to a post about why the Gospel narrative was set in the 30s. So I was reacting to that. I think the answer to that is that Mark set it then because of his reading of Against Flaccus and On the Embassy to Gaius.

It seems that some of Doudna's case relies on assumptions about why the story was set at that time.
Well you may not be willing to be persuaded by other comments I have since dug up from Greg where he specifically addresses your next point about lack of mention of events of 70.

https://vridar.org/2020/12/10/another-p ... ent-125040
His short list of possible references is problematic.
Possible allusions to past defeat at the hands of the Romans. Gal 4:25, “Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children [Jews]”. Rom 11:11-12, the “fall” of the Jews makes possible salvation to the gentiles. 11:17, most branches of the tree (Jews, except for a remnant) “broken off”.
Firstly, Gal 4:25 is unattested in Marcion. Thus, it is possible that this is a later addition. Gal 4:25 is explanatory and interpretative, which is exactly the type of remarks that were interpolated by later writers. Secondly, while 4:25 could be interpreted as talking about Jerusalem in a state of occupation, that is not necessarily what it means.

Again, Romans 11 appears not to have been a part of Marcion's version of the letters. Thus it is highly suspect of being later proto-Catholic revision. And also again, while it is possible to interpret this in the light of the conflict, that is not the only possible interpretation. So these examples provide no clear indication that the original Pauline collection contained references to the fall of the Temple or the state of Jewish affairs after the war(s).
I wonder if a survey of MacArthur speeches to Japanese audiences post-ww2
But Paul's speeches weren't directed at Jews, they were directed as Gentile converts. The Pauline letters deal with questions around the authority of Jewish law, the need to maintain Jewish practices, matters of sacrifice and suffering. Not to discuss the war or the destruction of the Temple in all of this is baffling.
I don't know what places you are thinking of where we would expect to find a mention of the temple's destruction, but would not a very strong reason for not mentioning it be found in the setting of Paul in the time of the original apostles? It would be a pretty inept forger trying to write as if Paul were living in the time of the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus suddenly speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem 30 or 20 years later.
So here are you arguing that all of the Pauline letters are forgeries in which a Paul figure was projected back into a time when there was a real Peter and real James and some real Jesus movement prior to the war? But this seems to presuppose that there was some need to appropriate a real Jesus movement that predated the war? Firstly, this is unlikely and secondly, why even care about this, since such a supposed movement would seem to have been irrelevant by the second century. Indeed if not for the Pauline writings it seems that we would know nothing of Peter and James, etc. All of these figures in the Gospels are derived form the Pauline writings.

But in any case, you seem to be arguing here that the Pauline letters do appear to be pre-War, and it is because they were forged to appear so. I just can't conceive of a reason why anyone would care to do such a thing at a time when the Gospel didn't yet exist.
Other factors to consider: that 70 CE was not as big a deal as we have assumed and that many Jews were responding by simply wondering when it would be rebuilt. Sacrifices were not interrupted for any significant length of time. It was 135 that was the real crisis: from then on Jews were not even permitted to enter Jerusalem and in the temple's place we have a new altar for Jupiter. In this scenario the events of both 70 and 135 became conflated in Christian imaginations from the time of Justin. https://brill.com/view/title/16998
Maybe, but it again seems difficult to imagine given that the Pauline letters deal with issues relevant to the subject.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 8:15 am
I don't know what places you are thinking of where we would expect to find a mention of the temple's destruction, but would not a very strong reason for not mentioning it be found in the setting of Paul in the time of the original apostles? It would be a pretty inept forger trying to write as if Paul were living in the time of the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus suddenly speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem 30 or 20 years later.
So here are you arguing that all of the Pauline letters are forgeries in which a Paul figure was projected back into a time when there was a real Peter and real James and some real Jesus movement prior to the war? But this seems to presuppose that there was some need to appropriate a real Jesus movement that predated the war? Firstly, this is unlikely and secondly, why even care about this, since such a supposed movement would seem to have been irrelevant by the second century. Indeed if not for the Pauline writings it seems that we would know nothing of Peter and James, etc. All of these figures in the Gospels are derived form the Pauline writings.
I'm simply putting out the arguments that I see can be used to argue for a late Paul as a response to your initial query.

I don't know of any a priori reason to treat the letters as either genuine or forgeries. But if one were wanting to claim a founding figure then it seems reasonable to set one in the years immediately following the resurrection, especially if one wanted that founder figure to oppose other founding figures like the Twelve.

rgprice wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 8:15 am But in any case, you seem to be arguing here that the Pauline letters do appear to be pre-War, and it is because they were forged to appear so. I just can't conceive of a reason why anyone would care to do such a thing at a time when the Gospel didn't yet exist.
A gospel didn't have to exist before it might be understood that the Passion was pre-70. Doesn't Paul indicate that it happened at the beginning of time and was only revealed to have happened much later?
rgprice wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 8:15 am
Other factors to consider: that 70 CE was not as big a deal as we have assumed and that many Jews were responding by simply wondering when it would be rebuilt. Sacrifices were not interrupted for any significant length of time. It was 135 that was the real crisis: from then on Jews were not even permitted to enter Jerusalem and in the temple's place we have a new altar for Jupiter. In this scenario the events of both 70 and 135 became conflated in Christian imaginations from the time of Justin. https://brill.com/view/title/16998
Maybe, but it again seems difficult to imagine given that the Pauline letters deal with issues relevant to the subject.
Is much of the difficulty the result of natural resistance against challenges to long-held and universal assumptions? Again, I'm not arguing the case myself except to some extent as devil's advocate; I'm just trying to point to some reasons that can be used to argue for a late Paul.

I think the strongest reason for beginning with a second century provenance for the letters is Lemche's point about "scientific dating". If they were from the mid-first century we seem to have no evidence of any impact they -- or Paul himself -- made at that time, and hence no obvious reason why the letters were preserved.

Also we have what I consider to be a fact -- that the letters are stylized with intertextuality from the OT. They are not "natural" writings but literary compositions. Example: the author parallels himself with Jeremiah and others, and his emotional rage is an artistic adaptation of a passage from Jeremiah. Is not Paul -- all the different Pauls -- are they not all suddenly found in the second century?
Post Reply