Paul’s epistles are generally dated from IIRC about 45AD to about 60AD.
Do the arguments for these dates rely in any part on a premise that Jesus himself lived from about 0AD to about 33AD? Or can the dates be arrived at independently of that assumption?
For example, if we don’t mention Jesus, is it possible to rule out a date fifty to a hundred years earlier?
I’m guessing so–there are geographical and political references in the epistles etc, and probably facts about vocabulary and form are relevant. But I don’t really know how these things are reasoned, so I’m hoping someone here can give me some info…
This may be a nitpick, but 4 BC to 30 AD is a better estimate of Jesus’s life:
There isn’t anyone, I think, who thinks that either Jesus or Paul or the epistles attributed to Paul should be dated fifty (let alone one hundred) years earlier.
There are a few scattered references to other people. The reference to King Aretas in 2 Corinthians 11, for example.
However, other internal references do a better job of indicating dates. Paul’s ongoing feuds with “Judaizers” and disputes over circumcision would make no sense if moved back a century. Those were specific issues with which the early church wrestled and having someone write about them a hundred years earlier, then have those writings drop out of sight, only to be revived (or rediscovered) at exactly the appropriate time for them to be contextually accurate in the first century C.E. would be extremely unlikely.
Similarly, Paul’s references to other people within the early Christian community dovetails, chronologically, very well with other references to the same people. This is not an ironclad argument for the time period for Paul’s writings, but it satisfies Occam better than any other proposed dating.
Weren’t there debates about how to handle Hellenization of jewish society for at least a few centuries prior to 0CE? I know some Jewish people would even have a kind of “corrective plastic surgery” done, so there were at least some people who thought you could be a jew while appearing uncircumcised. (And if some people thought that, surely there were debates about it.) This would make it unsurprising (to me in my currently very ignorant state) if there were groups identifying with Judaism prior to 0CE who argued about whether gentiles had to be circumcised.
Utter speculation, but I’m just trying to find out what the evidence is that places Paul in late-mid 1st century CE in order to quash such speculation.
Who are some of those people, and is it easy to tell me about what the other references are to them that you mentioned?
Most of the Hellenization debates were regarding circumcised Jews having surgery to “restore” the foreskin. That was considered a violation of the Covenant and such Jews were condemned as apostates. Insisting that one become circumcised in order to become Christian would have a similar theme regarding the need for circumcision to acknowledge the Covenant, but would make no sense in a discussion of moving beyond the Jewish Covenant to a new set of beliefs. Paul never argued that Jews should have their foreskin “restored” and, indeed, said that Jews were Jews (as he was) and should follow the Jewish law (such as in matters of eating food sacrificed to idols).
Priscilla and Aquilla, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus. The first three are mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, typically dated to the 90s when allusions to them would have still been recognizable to Christians in Asia Minor. The next two are the supposed recipients of letters from Paul, and Timothy is mentioned in the non-Pauline Letter to the Hebrews. (I am following the current scholarship that Paul was not the author of the letters to Timothy and Titus, so that references to them are outside the Pauline oeuvre.) Again, they would have been recognized as bishops in recent memory, making it unlikely that they were different people than the ones mentioned by Paul. Similarly, the interchangeable use of (Aramaic) Kephas and (Greek) Petros (both meaning “rock”) that occurs in both Paul’s letters and the Gospels suggests that that man’s name had not yet been “normalized” over time.
None of these references “prove” that Paul could not have written his letters at a different time. However, one would still face Occam when trying to come up with a scenario in which Paul wrote his letters, then someone came after him by decades and invented a religion that used his references to pretend that he was writing in the middle of the first century. As it is, half of “his” letters are now deemed to have been written by later followers, based on changes in theology or phrasing. Had his letters been written much earlier, it would seem that the later works would have employed his most developed theology–that of Romans. This suggests that the “later” works were written sufficiently soon after Paul’s actual letters that there was not yet a “standard” theology to follow. Again, not proof, but a strong suggestion from Occam.
I’m unaware of anything in the epistles that says anything equivalent to “it’s been thirty years now since Our Lord preached”, so I don’t think the epistles were ever dated as “Jesus +30~50 years”.
Yes. As it happens I did some research fairly recently as to which traditional books are not considered truly Pauline. First I note that the unsigned book of Hebrews is not considered so, but that is of long standing.
The scholarly consensus is very strong against:
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Ephesians
Two others are strongly doubted, but not decisively so:
Colossians
2 Thessalonians
If you remove these 6 from the list of those “signed by Paul” the remaining ones have strong consensus in favor. They number 7.
I’m taking this from a Wikipedia article and one of the links, but I also sought feedback on a separate board from someone better versed in these matters than myself.
I just read the book “Zealot” which mentions a lot of the timing debate about the chronology of various events. Wrapped up in there is Josephus mentions of various events, who was high priest, etc.
For example, IIRC, the author estimates the conversion of Paul likely happened about 37AD. Paul then went about preaching to the various Jewish diaspora communities and also to gentiles.
Apparently, he concocted his own version of Christianity only loosely based on the message promulgated by the remaining apostles in Jerusalem, including Jesus’ brother James the Just who was the head of the church. he visited them in about 40AD when he was beginning his preaching, then was summoned again about 50AD.
There are plenty of name-calling passages in his epistles which basically boil down to “ignore those guys from Jerusalem who want to tell you to act like Jews, you can be gentile and still be my kind of Christian”.
It culminated in a showdown
The Acts portrays this all sweetness and light, but apparently, reading between the lines, Paul is forced by James’ gang to be purified in a traditional Jewish ritual even though he no longer believes these necessary. Then when he is about to be torn apart by a mob for his heresy, he is arrested by the Romans in a case of mistaken identity and eventually (2 years later?) sent to Rome for trial.
When the Jews revolt and Jerusalem is burned to the ground, and all its inhabitants slaughtered (about 70AD) Paul is safely under house arrest in Rome. With much of the original church gone, and Paul’s followers in multiple communities established all around the eastern Mediterranean, his brand of Christianity wins out.
That’s in line with what I learned in a (secular, academic, historical) class, though Ephesians was in the “debatable” category.
It’s true that the best piece of evidence for the dates of Paul’s epistles is that they’d have to come within a couple decades of the death of Jesus, because of, you know, causality. Dating them before Jesus’ death is just plain nonsensical. However, there isn’t any evidence at all that I’m aware of that suggests a date before 40 A.D. or after 60 A.D., no matter how flimsy or speculative, and the content of the epistles is excellent evidence that they were written for the very early church, while the later pseudo-Pauline epistles are clearly written for a community with a much more established church. I can’t think of a specific reference in Paul’s letters to any contemporary events or people whose dates can be exactly known, though.
In short-- while the evidence we have is not enough to definitively place Paul’s epistles in their accepted range without considering Jesus’ probable date of death, we can’t put them any earlier without positing that Jesus was born earlier.
That conveniently leaves out Paul’s main argument–that Peter, also one of the apostles, had heard a vision telling him to preach to the Gentiles, and did not preach that they must be circumcised. Paul also argues that the other apostles did not follow James’ rulings when he was not around to bully them. It makes sense, since James seems to have as much legitimacy as Paul–neither having been part of Jesus’s ministry before he died.
(That is, assuming that James wasn’t excised from the gospels or something. And that Jesus really did say that only his disciples were his family.)
In any case, what I’m trying to figure out, if possible, is a conditional statement: If we make no assumptions about the existence or dates of Jesus, this affects our dates for Paul in what way if any?
(I’m not going to pretend though that this isn’t because I’m starting to wonder about how firmly we can be certain that a historical figure lies behind the gospel narratives. Until very recently, I thought it was all conspiracy-theory type thinking, but I have learned that the number of actual historians, while still tiny, is growing–and that’s apparently just the ones who say it in public in writing. And when I look at the actual criticism of historical methods used to establish Jesus’s existence that’s offered by actual historians, it’s definitely not nonsense, at the very least. But anyway in this thread my formal official purpose is just to ask about the conditional described above. )
Ah. No, it doesn’t affect our estimation of the age of Paul’s letters at all. Every single piece of evidence we have points to Paul’s letters being written between 40 and 60 A.D. We have literally no evidence that they were written at any other time.
Super Bowl negative MCMXV? But Paul called that one wrongly. Blue trounced Green in the chariot races that year.
In all seriousness, III Corinthians is actually a real non-canonical text, albeit one that came so long after Paul and was so radically unlike his real letters that even the ancients knew it was a forgery. I don’t have my copy to hand, so I can’t tell you much more than that, though.
Oh, I thought this was going to be about one surefire weird trick from the Bible to help you pick up chicks.