The case for Post First War Paul?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:46 pm
This may excuse absence, but surely, with as much as this writer talks about the Temple and its practices, the writer would have made some comment about its destruction.
Froim the same Attridge commentary as quoted above:
Another, related argument is often advanced to support a pre-70 date, namely, that the text lacks any reference to the destruction of the temple, as is found in works such as Barn. 16.4. Such a reference would, it is argued, appropriately seal Hebrews’ descriptions of the inadequacy and outmoded character of the Law and its cult.61 Arguments from silence are always questionable, but this one has a certain plausibility to it. Nonetheless, it is by no means decisive. It assumes that Hebrews would be particularly interested in demonstrating the ultimate supercession of the old cultic regime. This assumption is part of a more general construal of the program of Hebrews, which is often taken to be an apologetic or polemical response to the attractions of Judaism. That construal is, however, questionable, as we shall soon see. Hebrews is interested in the old cult primarily as a foundation for the christological exposition that undergirds the paraenetic program of the text.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by Charles Wilson »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:15 amI would be very surprised if we one day confirmed that the evangelists were non-Jews. The gospels are surely very much in the genre of Jewish Scriptures; and their familiarity and close weaving of Jewish Scriptures into their narratives is what we would expect from Jewish authors.
That would lead to other Epistemological Issues, however.

Zakkai attempted to Construct a Judaism that was Non-Temple based. In the same manner as seen in the Solution to the "Day of Atonement" Issue, where there would not be two consecutive Fast Days, different forms of a New Judaism would be invoked. It appears that the "Understanding" was that the Yavneh Work would be for Jews who survived while Christianity would be for everyone else.

Acts 5: 34 - 39 (RSV):

[34] But a Pharisee in the council named Gama'li-el, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while.
[35] And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men.
[36] For before these days Theu'das arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
[37] After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
[38] So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail;
[39] but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"

I have always been intrigued by this Passage. I believe it is detailing the birth of this New Form of Judaism. It is Reasoned, Logical. The New Christians are not to be tampered with.

Therefore, what happened after the Destruction of the Hasmonean Temple Worship was authored by the Romans with the help, perhaps, of Zakkai and a few of the Priestly Survivors. They were allowed to live - away from Jerusalem at Yavneh - but it was always with the idea that the old worship was to be displaced by a new worship that acknowledged Roman Hegemony. The New Judaism was inward looking and Non-Threatening. The Basis of the New Religion was taken from the Old Judaism as was detailed. It was provided to the Romans by the Learned Priestly Types in exchange for their Priestly lives.

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by rgprice »

ABuddhist wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:24 pm Hypothetically, the author of Hebrews may have wanted to seem to be writing from an earlier time, and, recognizing that quoting from the gospels or acknowledginging that the Temple had been destroyed would reveal the work as recenter than the Gospels and events, chose to refrain from such things.

But supporting your point, Mr. Price, I dare say that a non-deceitful author of Hebrews, if aware of even a minor interruption of the temple's rites (as Titus's campaigns undoubtedly caused even if the temple's destruction truly was less significant to Jews compared to what later commentators have assumed) would have seized upon such interruption as evidence that the Earthly Temple and its rites were fallible and corruptible compared to their alleged perfect heavenly counterpart.
Yes and I have a hard time believing that even forgers of this period would have been so astute as to avoid Gospel content in order to make works appear older. Surely by the middle of the second century it was believed that the Gospels had been written within years of Jesus' supposed death. Would anyone really refrain from adding Gospel details at a time when it was believed that the Gospels would have been written by 35 or 40 CE (by current measures)?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by ABuddhist »

rgprice wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:01 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:24 pm Hypothetically, the author of Hebrews may have wanted to seem to be writing from an earlier time, and, recognizing that quoting from the gospels or acknowledginging that the Temple had been destroyed would reveal the work as recenter than the Gospels and events, chose to refrain from such things.

But supporting your point, Mr. Price, I dare say that a non-deceitful author of Hebrews, if aware of even a minor interruption of the temple's rites (as Titus's campaigns undoubtedly caused even if the temple's destruction truly was less significant to Jews compared to what later commentators have assumed) would have seized upon such interruption as evidence that the Earthly Temple and its rites were fallible and corruptible compared to their alleged perfect heavenly counterpart.
Yes and I have a hard time believing that even forgers of this period would have been so astute as to avoid Gospel content in order to make works appear older. Surely by the middle of the second century it was believed that the Gospels had been written within years of Jesus' supposed death. Would anyone really refrain from adding Gospel details at a time when it was believed that the Gospels would have been written by 35 or 40 CE (by current measures)?
With all due respect, a hypothetical forger could have been operating around, say, 70-95 CE, when the gospel(s) were known to be new (I assume) and it was still necessary to assume lack of familiarity with their words in order to be taken seriously as a pre-70 text. I am just presenting ideas.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by rgprice »

ABuddhist wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:27 pm With all due respect, a hypothetical forger could have been operating around, say, 70-95 CE, when the gospel(s) were known to be new (I assume) and it was still necessary to assume lack of familiarity with their words in order to be taken seriously as a pre-70 text. I am just presenting ideas.
Even that is a lot of assumptions. It would assume that the forger would know that the Gospels were false and that people would think that details contained in them were invented by the writers. If one thought that the Gospels were true, then referencing material in them wouldn't be an indication of early dating. For example if one made a reference to Pilate, or Judas, or Mary, etc., none of those things would have been viewed by people in 70-95 or later as an indication that a work was "post-Gospel" because it was assumed that all of that information would have been known by anyone from the time.

Anyway, my point is that I don't think that post-Gospel forgers were consciously avoiding Gospel material in order to make their works appear older. Clearly we have many examples where that wasn't done, for example the Pastorals, 2 Peter, 3 Corinthians, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by Jax »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:45 am
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
The highlighted text is interesting to me. How could the author consider the church in Corinth to be ancient if it was only 20-30 years old? He refers to Paul as an ancient worthy as well.

Hardly statements to connect to the recent past me thinks.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by John2 »

Jax wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:28 am
The highlighted text is interesting to me. How could the author consider the church in Corinth to be ancient if it was only 20-30 years old? He refers to Paul as an ancient worthy as well.

If 1 Clement was written c. 95 CE then the Corinthian church would have been fifty to sixty years old. I don't know if that would qualify as "ancient" or what the Greek word for "ancient" is here, but if we go by the traditional dating for 1 Clement then the Corinthian church was at least half a century old in 95 CE.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by John2 »

Powell (citing Robinson) makes an interesting observation that Acts uses the word "ancient" to describe people and events that are presented as living and occurring half a century before the writing of Acts (which in my view was c. 95 CE), like 15:7, where it "is used at the Council of Jerusalem of 'the early days' less than twenty years previously," and 21:16, where Manson is called "a Christian from the early days."

Without entering into Robinson's whole view of the dating of Acts, he seems to make the point clearly enough that [ancient] is at best a relative term. The Corinthian Church is [ancient] not simply because of the passage of time, but because it is old when compared with more recently established communities.


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cl ... frontcover
Last edited by John2 on Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by rgprice »

John2 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:10 am If 1 Clement was written c. 95 CE then the Corinthian church would have been fifty to sixty years old. I don't know if that would qualify as "ancient" or what the Greek word for "ancient" is here, but if we go by the traditional dating for 1 Clement then the Corinthian church was at least half a century old in 95 CE.
There is really no telling how old the assembly in Corinth may have been. It could have been hundreds of years old for that matter.

We should not assume that these bodies formed after a supposed "time of Jesus". They were not likely formed "by" Paul. More likely, these were existing bodies of congregations that worshiped the Jewish god. They were likely comprised of Gentiles or a mix of gentiles and Jews. But such bodies are known to have existed in the region going back to 200 BCE.

We should not assume that some "apostles" came along and formed these bodies, rather than these were existing bodies of Gentile/Jewish congregations with existing hierarchies, existing relationships with Jerusalem, existing patterns of worship, existing use of the Torah, etc. To these groups, people like Paul came and evangelized. Paul apparently came to such a group in Corinth and stared making a bunch of claims about how these God-fearers and Jewish proselytes could be adopted into the covenant of Abraham without having to undergo circumcision or follow Jewish law.

But when one talks about the "ancient Corinthian church", it could well be a God-fearing synagogue that had been around since 100 BCE for all we know. The synagogue may have been around that long, but adopted worship of the Lord Jesus more recently, however the institution would still be quite old.

There is a tendency among so many scholars of early Christianity to assume (based on Acts) that all "churches" originated after the dead of Jesus. But this is actually a pretty absurd assumption. Almost certainly, these bodies existed prior to the worship of any Jesus figure, human or otherwise. They were most likely semi-Jewish religious bodies that were already worshiping the "God of Abraham" long before worship of "Jesus" was introduced.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by andrewcriddle »

John2 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:10 am
Jax wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:28 am
The highlighted text is interesting to me. How could the author consider the church in Corinth to be ancient if it was only 20-30 years old? He refers to Paul as an ancient worthy as well.

If 1 Clement was written c. 95 CE then the Corinthian church would have been fifty to sixty years old. I don't know if that would qualify as "ancient" or what the Greek word for "ancient" is here, but if we go by the traditional dating for 1 Clement then the Corinthian church was at least half a century old in 95 CE.
The Greek is ἀρχαίαν basic meaning ancient but can mean original/there from the beginning.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply