Dating Paul's letters

[neilgodfrey]

From a previous discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=155

Ah, I knew there must be something historical here. Thanks for pulling those sections out and copying them here, Peter.

[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).

As an aside here, I am reminded of the "heretic" Joseph Turmel's view that the "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians was Bar Kochba .... https://vridar.org/2011/05/31/identifyi ... salonians/

[davidmartin]

The trajectory of Immanence:
Thomas - it's in this moment. Likewise the Odes - it has arrived
Gospels - retain this as a subtext "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"
Paul - it becomes an immanent Parousia, but shifts from a personal/previous event to cosmological eschatology
Finally - the Gospels official narrative and later texts - no longer immanent

The Shephard of Hermas deals with it. The Parousia can't come until all who have entered the church do so. Kind of a middle position

The trajectory is one of an earlier immanence that get's pushed further and further out
The Enoch/DSS (and Revelation) style eschatological stuff is grafted on later

[GakuseiDon]

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.

That would be interesting if true. But do we know that it was missing? Tertullian doesn't mention James as the brother of Christ in "Against Marcion" Book 5, but that would appear to indicate that Marcion didn't have it in his own copy of Galatians rather than Tertullian not having it. Unless you are referring to a different text?

If a 'historicist' inserted the "James brother of the Lord" into Paul -- whether Paul was written in the First Century or Second Century -- then it suggests the natural reading is a biological brother rather than a spiritual brother.

[neilgodfrey]

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.

That would be interesting if true. But do we know that it was missing? Tertullian doesn't mention James as the brother of Christ in "Against Marcion" Book 5, but that would appear to indicate that Marcion didn't have it in his own copy of Galatians rather than Tertullian not having it. Unless you are referring to a different text?

Historical inquiry begins with testing the reliability of sources.

If Marcion did not have that key passage in his version of Galatians then we would expect Tertullian -- who elsewhere seems never to fail to castigate Marcion for chopping out passages he does not like -- to make hay of that omission. Especially since its presence -- if it was present in Tertullian's version -- would have done so much to demolish Marcion's teachings. One may think this is the same sort of silence as that of the dog that does not bark.

Then later we read in a work by Irenaeus what appears to be a very careful word for word quotation of Galatians 2:1 and the word "again" is omitted -- as if Galatians originally only spoke of one visit by Paul to Jerusalem. That also is a pointer, even if small, to the absence of that passage from Marcion's and Tertullian's copies of Galatians.

Such details white ant a naive reading of canonical Galatians. Historical inquiry cannot ignore the indications that the status of James and his relationship with Jesus were polemical developments of the second century.

[Giuseppe]

Something I see in action behind radical critics who doubt the authenticity of the pauline epistles.

• "Paul" finds an origin in the Gnostic camp.

• The Gospel Jesus finds an origin in the camp of the Judaizers.

For an example:

• Stuart (as one of the best Paul mythicists) reduces any biographical element of the epistles in the section: anti-marcionism.

• The same Stuart claims that the Baptism of Jesus by John was found in the Earliest Gospel.

The idea is plausible, only I see it explicited clearly by the Paul mythicists only very rarely.

The problem is that for me

• the essentia of Gnosticism is anti-demiurgism,

• but the anti-demiurgism can't be a Jewish thing,

• therefore the gnosticism can't be found in the Christian Origins.

Therefore Paul existed.

[neilgodfrey]

• but the anti-demiurgism can't be a Jewish thing,

Why can "anti-demiurgism" not be "a Jewish thing"?

[Giuseppe]

There is no trace of Jews hating YHWH as an evil deity. It was probably a gentile thing.

[Stuart]

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.

That would be interesting if true. But do we know that it was missing? Tertullian doesn't mention James as the brother of Christ in "Against Marcion" Book 5, but that would appear to indicate that Marcion didn't have it in his own copy of Galatians rather than Tertullian not having it. Unless you are referring to a different text?

Historical inquiry begins with testing the reliability of sources.

If Marcion did not have that key passage in his version of Galatians then we would expect Tertullian -- who elsewhere seems never to fail to castigate Marcion for chopping out passages he does not like -- to make hay of that omission. Especially since its presence -- if it was present in Tertullian's version -- would have done so much to demolish Marcion's teachings. One may think this is the same sort of silence as that of the dog that does not bark.

Then later we read in a work by Irenaeus what appears to be a very careful word for word quotation of Galatians 2:1 and the word "again" is omitted -- as if Galatians originally only spoke of one visit by Paul to Jerusalem. That also is a pointer, even if small, to the absence of that passage from Marcion's and Tertullian's copies of Galatians.

Such details white ant a naive reading of canonical Galatians. Historical inquiry cannot ignore the indications that the status of James and his relationship with Jesus were polemical developments of the second century.

Neil,

There is an interesting theory John Knox put out (Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon, 1942, University of Chicago Press), which Dr. Robert Price supports (e.g., The Colossal Apostle, chapter 12), that the first two chapters (Marcionite form) were written by Marcion or a Marcionite author, and that the original Galatians began at chapter 3.

This is similar to John Clabeaux's opinion that the Marcionite collection is not the earliest form of the Pauline letters but rather the collection at the stage of the ten letter collection; that there is a pre-Marcionite Pauline text. He makes no distinction as to what constitutes a Marcionite layer, but the observation is of note. He further points out that a seven letter form likely proceeds the ten letter form of the Marcionites.

Price takes it further, as did others going back into as early as the 19th century, seeing in the collection a series of fragments, small letters and tracts, which were cobbled together over time to form the letters we have. There are several famous examples found in the Corinthian letters.

That opens a very different possibility for the authorship of the letters, and pushes (some) fragments in those letters to possibly well before the middle of the 2nd century when the collection appears. It also of course eliminates the nearly half of the collection elements from the Catholic and Pastoral layers of being early, and also much of the Marcionite editorial layer, such as chapters 1 and 2 (Marcionite form) of Galatians. It also seems likely the openings and closings are also additions from the point when the tracts were formed into three-letter, seven-letter and ten-letter collection forms.

I still see most of these fragments as 2nd century, but certainly one could argue that some of the tracts could be 1st century.

[GakuseiDon]

Historical inquiry begins with testing the reliability of sources.

If Marcion did not have that key passage in his version of Galatians then we would expect Tertullian -- who elsewhere seems never to fail to castigate Marcion for chopping out passages he does not like -- to make hay of that omission.

Actually, no we wouldn't. I think you misunderstand Tertullian's approach to Marcion there. For example, as Tertullian explains in Book 4 of "Against Marcion" about the Gospel of Luke, both parties believe that the other's had been changed:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... an124.html

We must follow, then, the clue of our discussion, meeting every effort of our opponents with reciprocal vigor. I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is.

So Tertullian isn't starting from the position that Tertullian's group has the original literature. I think anyone can see the problem with that approach, including Tertullian. His starting position is that BOTH groups are claiming to be using the originals. (For the Gospel of Luke, Tertullian uses the approach of arguing that his version of Luke was the earlier one, thus more likely to be the original. He's not just asserting it; he's trying to PROVE it.)

Especially since its presence -- if it was present in Tertullian's version -- would have done so much to demolish Marcion's teachings. One may think this is the same sort of silence as that of the dog that does not bark.

No, in this case, the dog that didn't bark in the night was doing what was expected. So we can assume that the reference to James as "brother of the Lord" wasn't in Marcion. Whether it was in Tertullian's we can't tell, but it certainly wasn't in Marcion's otherwise, as you say, Tertullian would have mentioned it.

As Tertullian notes in Book 5 while examining Marcion's use of Galatians:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... an125.html

Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained.

And Tertullian is right! It is superfluous to dwell on what Marcion had erased, since the Marcionite response would be to claim that they had the true originals and it was Tertullian's group that had just added stuff.

Then later we read in a work by Irenaeus what appears to be a very careful word for word quotation of Galatians 2:1 and the word "again" is omitted -- as if Galatians originally only spoke of one visit by Paul to Jerusalem. That also is a pointer, even if small, to the absence of that passage from Marcion's and Tertullian's copies of Galatians.

I can't find "again" missing in the English language version on the earlywritings website. This is Irenaeus in Book 3 of "Against Heresies":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book3.html

But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who summoned him to the apostles, on account of the question [which had been raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus. But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles."

Are you talking about a variant?

Such details white ant a naive reading of canonical Galatians. Historical inquiry cannot ignore the indications that the status of James and his relationship with Jesus were polemical developments of the second century.

I agree, especially if we are talking about interpolations from Second Century (or later) writers. Assuming that James was seen somehow as a biological brother in the Second Century, then:

* If the reference to James in Galatians as a "brother of the Lord" was removed by Marcion from a proto-Christian original, then it suggests that Marcion considered the natural reading to indicate a biological brother.

* If the reference was added by a proto-Christian interpolator to a Marcion original, it also suggests that it was put in there as a reference to indicate a biological brother.

Either way, "James the brother of the Lord" would seem to have meant an actual brother rather than a spiritual brother, since I'd guess Marcion wouldn't have had any problems with a spiritual brother. That means a Paul who was writing close to the time of Jesus, or interpolators who assumed that Paul was writing at a time close to Jesus.