How do the Pastoral Epistles fit with a 2nd Century origin for the earliest "Pauline" Writings?

[schillingklaus]

Revelation is much later than the secdond temple as it is full of expressions and statements originating in the Judaizing rejection of the gnostic exegesis of Genesis 3, such as the opposition Satan - YHWH.

[Irish1975]

Are you saying that Galatians 6.11 and 1 Cor. 16.22 are proof that there were false letters circulating under Paul's name at the time they were written? If so, how do you know that?

I indicated a flaw in your argument. But that doesn’t commit me to some equally flawed argument that those verses are “proof” of the existence of fake letters circulating at the time of composition.

Let’s be clear about what you claimed and why I criticized it. You wrote:

There's a somewhat similar issue with 2 Thessalonians. The author of the letter (whether Paul or, as I think, not) seems to be aware that there are false letters claiming to be by Paul circulating in his own time (2.2), a situation of which the seven do not seem to be aware. The author signs the letter as Paul, which does also in some of the the seven, but then draws attention to his signature as the distinguishing mark in all his letters (3.17). It's not in all his letters, and none of the seven show this concern with needing to authenticate themselves at a time when false letters of Paul are known to be circulating. So the false letters of Paul seem to give away the actual time of their writing in a way the seven generally accepted letters do not.

But Gal 6:11 and 1 Cor 16:22 express a concern to assert Pauline authenticity. They protest too much. They aren’t mere “signatures” or emotional flourishes. It is a difference of degree, not of kind, between these pretensions to authenticity, and what you pointed to in 2 Thessalonians. If the latter is evidence of a “false letter,” why not the former? Far from distinguishing Galatians and 1 Corinthians as authentic, these verses are indications of inauthenticity—at least of the canonical redaction.

With so many fake Pauline epistles coming down to us in the canonical corpus, and even more that are referred or alluded to, as well as Marcion’s collection and the 2nd century Gnostic commentaries, it is reasonable to suppose (not prove) that Galatians and 1 Corinthians emerged in a climate of forgery and tampering. Many different groups wanted to claim the authority of the apostle.

[billd89]

Revelation is much later than the secdond temple as it is full of expressions and statements originating in the Judaizing rejection of the gnostic exegesis of Genesis 3, such as the opposition Satan - YHWH.

Sethians were an ancient sect, according to Josephus (90 AD). And radical allegorizers had long been operative in Alexandria (from Philo J, c.25 AD). Cainites didn't suddenly appear in Libya, 100 AD: the antinomians were simply recognized (absent their oppressors: Jerusalem Temple-obedient Jews) and not necessarily proliferating. Valentinianism was a syncretism and consolidation but it's not been demonstrated that particular trend was growing among Jewish or pagan communities after 150 AD. (Au contraire: waning.)

There's all kinds of evidence for Great Serpent worship for centuries before 70 AD, so it was ubiquitous (an inconvenient truth, proven by archaelogical evidence) in Judaic communities of the Eastern Med littoral. The recorded history is largely unknown, why? It was only when Xianity began consolidating (Late Stage 2 or 3: >140 AD) that such vestiges needed to be condemned and systematically eradicated; later rabbinical rulings against Minim, ditto.

Jewish Gnosticism dates 1st C BC or earlier; Revelation wasn't opposing smthg new & upstart, but rather an existing alternative and much older rival. Egyptian gnosticism didn't appear suddenly after Xianity!