The Historical Jesus III

[maximara]

Your statement makes very little sense.

Wasn't it "historical criticism" that demonstrated ALL the letters of the Pauline Corpus are forgeries or false attribution and that Paul was NOT a figure of history?

No. It was a handful of scholar who came up with this insanity and even the majority Christ mythers of the day considered it nuts.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Paleographers have examined every single letter, every single line and every passage of manuscripts with stories of Jesus and Paul and have dated them to the 2nd century or later.

As explained before Palaeography looks at ONLY the forms and processes of writing, not the textual content of documents) The context falls under Historical Criticism NOT Palaeography.

The Codex Sinaiticus is a prime example of dating through Historical Criticism rather then Palaeography. The work mentions works that have a firm date of 325 which means it cannot be any earlier then 325 (the terminus post quem).

The gloss notes regarding various Church fathers shows it cannot be any later then 360 (the terminus ad quem)

Much the same is true of our earliest written account regarding Muhammad; based on the other things the monk put in the text we have c 636 CE as to when the Monk added these personal notes to the Gospels he was copying.

Historical Criticism is our other dating method and claiming I am writing fiction doesn't cut it. You are behaving like a poor man's Joseph Goebbels as if repeating the same thing over and over again will somehow make it true.

As I have said before, if someone in the 1990s hand copied a work from the 19th century then paleographic dating would say it came from the 20th century but Historical criticism would show the original work the copyist used was from the 19th.

Dejudge has to date not produced anything out of Historical criticism that shows Paul is as late he claims it is All he has down is thrown up Paleographic dates which are NOT Historical Criticism.

I fully agree with CraigB on this point:

Still pretending to be a simpleton who believes that the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript? Why are you pretending to believe such foolishness?

Here is an off the cuff example of how Historical Criticism actually works.

Epistle to the Hebrews tries to imitate Paul's style which means Pau;'s writings had to be around for this style to reasonably well known. More of this Epistle is written as if the Temple is still intact ie BEFORE 70 CE. This would indicate the works of Paul had to be written before 70 CE and likely much earlier then that to be well enough known for the style to be copied.

Paul's claimed escape from Damascus troops controlled by Aretas as happening sometime ago. These and similar clues agree with the seven Pauline epistles being in the c 50-60 CE range.


Another one of these clues is in 1 Clement

Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. - 1 Clem 47:1

But earlier we have this:

Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices
offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the
trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the
offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the
court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore
said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been
inspected for blemishes. - 1 Clem 41:2


This clearly shows that when 1 Clement was written the Temple system was still operational. But the Temple and its system of sacrifice ended with its destruction in 70 CE. Some have suggested the Sadduccees carried on sacrifices in the ruins but if this did happened odds are it didn't last long.

So we have a work whose internal text indicated it was likely written before 70 CE and it references the epistles of Paul.

If 1 Clement was written later why wouldn't it point to since the Temple was gone traditional sacrifices couldn't be made?

 

[tsig]

No. It was a handful of scholar who came up with this insanity and even the majority Christ mythers of the day considered it nuts.



As explained before Palaeography looks at ONLY the forms and processes of writing, not the textual content of documents) The context falls under Historical Criticism NOT Palaeography.

The Codex Sinaiticus is a prime example of dating through Historical Criticism rather then Palaeography. The work mentions works that have a firm date of 325 which means it cannot be any earlier then 325 (the terminus post quem).

The gloss notes regarding various Church fathers shows it cannot be any later then 360 (the terminus ad quem)

Much the same is true of our earliest written account regarding Muhammad; based on the other things the monk put in the text we have c 636 CE as to when the Monk added these personal notes to the Gospels he was copying.

Historical Criticism is our other dating method and claiming I am writing fiction doesn't cut it. You are behaving like a poor man's Joseph Goebbels as if repeating the same thing over and over again will somehow make it true.

As I have said before, if someone in the 1990s hand copied a work from the 19th century then paleographic dating would say it came from the 20th century but Historical criticism would show the original work the copyist used was from the 19th.

Dejudge has to date not produced anything out of Historical criticism that shows Paul is as late he claims it is All he has down is thrown up Paleographic dates which are NOT Historical Criticism.

I fully agree with CraigB on this point:



Here is an off the cuff example of how Historical Criticism actually works.

Epistle to the Hebrews tries to imitate Paul's style which means Pau;'s writings had to be around for this style to reasonably well known. More of this Epistle is written as if the Temple is still intact ie BEFORE 70 CE. This would indicate the works of Paul had to be written before 70 CE and likely much earlier then that to be well enough known for the style to be copied.

Paul's claimed escape from Damascus troops controlled by Aretas as happening sometime ago. These and similar clues agree with the seven Pauline epistles being in the c 50-60 CE range.


Another one of these clues is in 1 Clement

Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. - 1 Clem 47:1

But earlier we have this:

Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices
offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the
trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the
offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the
court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore
said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been
inspected for blemishes. - 1 Clem 41:2


This clearly shows that when 1 Clement was written the Temple system was still operational. But the Temple and its system of sacrifice ended with its destruction in 70 CE. Some have suggested the Sadduccees carried on sacrifices in the ruins but if this did happened odds are it didn't last long.

So we have a work whose internal text indicated it was likely written before 70 CE and it references the epistles of Paul.

If 1 Clement was written later why wouldn't it point to since the Temple was gone traditional sacrifices couldn't be made?

Or both were using a well know style that was popular then.

 

[Craig B]

Or both were using a well know style that was popular then.

Whether that it so will be shown by historical criticism and not palaeography.

 

[dejudge]

Your statement makes very little sense.

Wasn't it "historical criticism" that demonstrated ALL the letters of the Pauline Corpus are forgeries or false attribution and that Paul was NOT a figure of history?

No. It was a handful of scholar who came up with this insanity and even the majority Christ mythers of the day considered it nuts.

What a ridiculous statement!!!

You have no idea that ALL arguments are almost always INITIATED by LESS than a handful of people.

Less than a handful of Scholars INITIATED the idea Jesus was heavenly and never on earth so based on your absurdity such an idea must be INSANE and must be NUTS.

Dejudge has to date not produced anything out of Historical criticism that shows Paul is as late he claims it is All he has down is thrown up Paleographic dates which are NOT Historical Criticism.

Your claim is well establish known fiction.

1. I have shown that the Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN in writings attributed to 2nd century Christian writers of antiquity like Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Muncius Felix.

2. I have shown that the Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN in writings attributed to Non-Apologetic writers of antiquity of the 2nd century like Celsus.

3. I have shown that the Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN in writing called the short gMark in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codex.

4. I have shown that accounts about Jesus in the Pauline Corpus are ALWAYS the LATER version if a similar account is found in the short gMark.

5. The post-resurrection narrative in the Pauline Corpus is the LATEST and LAST version of ALL the versions in the NT Canon.

In the short gMark, NO-ONE was seen of the Jesus but in the Pauline Corpus OVER 500 persons at ONCE was seen of Jesus AFTER he was raised from the dead.

6. I have shown that NO supposed early Apologetic writer claimed the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE. The supposed early writings of Ignatius and anonymous letter attributed to Clement do not state the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE.

7. I have shown that NO writing in the very Canon, especially Acts of the Apostles, acknowledged that Paul wrote letters to seven Churches and Patorals.

8. I have shown that many writings attributed to 2nd century Non-Jewish Christian writers do NOT acknowledge Paul at all as a founder of Christian Churches in the Roman Empire.

Paul's claimed escape from Damascus troops controlled by Aretas as happening sometime ago. These and similar clues agree with the seven Pauline epistles being in the c 50-60 CE range.

What a ridiculous statement.

You put forward the absurd notion that the veracity of the Pauline Corpus is corroborated by itself.

In addition, it is quite illogical to ASSUME letters in the Pauline Corpus were written c 50-60 CE simply because of a manuscript dated no earlier than the late 2nd century.

The claim that Paul escaped from Damascus cannot be ASSUMED to be true especially WITHOUT external corroboration from independent sources and when the Pauline Corpus is a well known source of fiction/mythology with events which did not and could not have happened.

It is also known that Christian writings were MANIPULATED for hundreds of years. The corruption of Christian writings can be proven by the Short and Long gMark.

Another one of these clues is in 1 Clement

Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. - 1 Clem 47:1

Again, you write more absurdities.

An anonymous letter of UNKNOWN date of authorship is quite useless to argue that letters of the Pauline Corpus were composed c 50-60 CE.

In addition, the anonymous letter of unknown date of authorship attributed to Clement seem to acknowledge ONLY ONE Epistle.

But earlier we have this:

Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices
offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the
trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the
offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the
court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore
said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been
inspected for blemishes[/. - 1 Clem 41:2


This clearly shows that when 1 Clement was written the Temple system was still operational. But the Temple and its system of sacrifice ended with its destruction in 70 CE. Some have suggested the Sadduccees carried on sacrifices in the ruins but if this did happened odds are it didn't last long.

You have destroyed your OWN argument. You have EXPOSED the descrepancies, contradictions and historical problems in YOUR supposed "early" sources.

You have EXPOSED more problems with "Against Heresies" the first writing to mention CLEMENT as bishop c 95 CE and the Pauline Corpus

It is claimed that the Clement letter was written when he was BISHOP of ROME around c 95 CE and that ALL letters in the Pauline Corpus were authentic in "Against Heresies".

You have CONFIRMED [inadvertently] that writings which appear to mention a standing Jewish Temple before c 70 CE were really composed MANY years AFTER the Jewish Temple fell.

If 1 Clement was written later why wouldn't it point to since the Temple was gone traditional sacrifices couldn't be made?

If the letter from the Church of ROME attributed to Clement was written BEFORE 70 CE why did Irenaeus, Eusebius and other Christians of antiquity claim it was written c 95 CE when CLEMENT was bishop of Rome?

You have shown that Christians writings of antiquity have been MANIPULATED and CANNOT be trusted.

Your argument that Pauline letters were composed c50-60 CE has collapsed into fallacious rubble.

 

[maximara]

Whether that it so will be shown by historical criticism and not palaeography.

Which was my point. Dejudge keeps banging on about points that are palaeographic in nature and doesn't seem to have clue one on what historical criticism even is much less how it works.

As I said before "there are four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others. New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point: (...)

1) Authentic or Early Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (50s-60s A.D.)

2) Disputed Paul or Deutero-Pauline: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians (80-100 A.D.)

3) Pseudo-Paul or the Pastorals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (80-100 A.D.)

4) Tendentious or Legendary Paul: Acts of the Apostles (90-130 A.D.)"

It is the first Paul we need to look at and what you get there it some guy writing about all the Jesus visions he is having. You don't get anything indicates that he would have been noticed by his contemporaries. More over we aren't even sure where Paul was imprisoned (Ephesus, Herod's Palace in Jerusalem, and Rome have all been suggested).

So you get what amounts to a 1st century John Ballou Newbrough who was later made into something.

This is why I find the idea Paul did exist so wonky. There is nothing to suggest that the man was important when he was writing his letters so why would anyone of that time notice him?

 

[dejudge]

... Dejudge keeps banging on about points that are palaeographic in nature and doesn't seem to have clue one on what historical criticism even is much less how it works.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Historical criticism was ALREADY used to argue that the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus are forgeries or false attribution and that Paul was not a figure of history.

Historical criticism cannot show that any letter of the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE.

There is simply no known contemporary historical data for the supposed Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

There is no internal evidence in the existing manuscripts of Pauline Corpus which can date letters to c 50-60 CE.

The internal evidence in Papyri 46 admits a date range between the late 2nd to 3rd century.

It is completely void of logic to assume that statements in the Pauline Corpus must be or most likely is true while admitting the Pauline Corpus is riddled with fiction, forgeries or false attribution.

You seem to think that "historical criticism" is merely believing what is written in the Pauline Corpus.

Without the use of paleography the dating of ancient hand-written texts will have a FAR WIDER date range than 10 years.

It is most absurd to believe Paul lived in the time of King Aretas merely because it is written in the Christian Bible.

 

[Mcreal]

It seems quite disingenuous to say the Pauline letters were written 50-60 AD/CE because that is what their prose suggests. It is feasible they were written later.

However, their prose could have been formulated earlier than the radioisotope dating of physical fragments of papyrus or parchment.

Likewise, some of those materials could be dated earlier than the prose b/c such materials could have been re-used as apparently commonly occurred.

The whole issue is fraught with various difficulties.

 

[maximara]

It seems quite disingenuous to say the Pauline letters were written 50-60 AD/CE because that is what their prose suggests. It is feasible they were written later.

It's not disingenuous, but rather the best one can make with what one has on hand.

I mean compare the dating of Paul to using the Historia Augusta as a historical reference. Everybody knows that Historia Augusta is not particularly reliable but sadly it is also "the principal Latin source for a century of Roman history. The historian must make use of it, but only with extreme circumspection and caution."

With at best only two possible contemporaries of Paul (Clement and Ignatius) to work with internal evidence plus whatever those works say regarding Paul there isn't much to work with.

However, their prose could have been formulated earlier than the radioisotope dating of physical fragments of papyrus or parchment.

Likewise, some of those materials could be dated earlier than the prose b/c such materials could have been re-used as apparently commonly occurred.

The whole issue is fraught with various difficulties.

Never mind that at best radioisotope dating is going to give you is a range that follows the 68–95–99.7 rule. The best radioisotope date range I have ever seen for documents of this age is 22 yeas (a 44 year range) uncalibrated (this is the 1QpHab Habakkuk Commentary). Calibrated to 2-sigma that document is 160-148 BCE or 111 BCE-2 CE. Not exactly useful.

As I have said before C14 dating and paleographic dating just don't have the fineness needed. This is why internal hints in documents are so critical. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but as with using the Historia Augusta as a reference it is the best one can do with what one has.

 

[Craig B]

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Historical criticism was ALREADY used to argue that the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus are forgeries or false attribution and that Paul was not a figure of history.

Historical criticism cannot show that any letter of the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE.

There is simply no known contemporary historical data for the supposed Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

There is no internal evidence in the existing manuscripts of Pauline Corpus which can date letters to c 50-60 CE.

The internal evidence in Papyri 46 admits a date range between the late 2nd to 3rd century.

dejudge, that last sentence proves that you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

 

[Mcreal]

It's not disingenuous, but rather the best one can make with what one has on hand.
{ snip }
With at best only two possible contemporaries of Paul (Clement and Ignatius) to work with internal evidence, plus whatever those works say regarding Paul, there isn't much to work with.

Sure, but there is also Marcion, and the context of Acts, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter, etc.

We'd do well to individually and collectively look at all these things from a fresh angle.

Limiting perspective and dating to 'dates of real events mentioned' seems somewhat limiting

 

[maximara]

dejudge, that last sentence proves that you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

Quite right. Papyrus 46 is dated solely through palaeography NOT historical criticism ( H. A. Sanders, A Third-Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul (Ann Arbor, 1935), pp. 13–15.; Griffin, Bruce W. (1996), "The aleographical Dating of P-46" with 2005 email)


Papyrus 46 has a 150 - 250 CE with 95% confidence interval (ie 200 CE ± 50 at 2σ) which means its 99.7% confidence interval is 200 CE ± 75 at 3σ or 125 - 275 CE.

Given we have documents before the 125 CE date that reference Paul and his epistles we can show these epistles (in some form) existed before this work.
The question is how far before. Clement, Ignatius, and epistles credited to Paul but are now known to be by other authors (Hebrews).

Both 1 Clement and Hebrews behave as if the temple was still standing which makes 70 CE our terminus ad quem for these works. With one referencing Paul and the other written in his style this points to the seven epistles now credited to him as also having a terminus ad quem of 70 CE. Also the author of Hebrews seems unfamiliar with the Eucharist which both Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr reference which is based on at least Paul's vision of 1 Corinthians. But AFAIK that is the only Epistle of Paul's seven that directly references the Last Supper so the author of Hebrews knowing Paul's style but not this detail is possible.

 

[Mcreal]

Both 1 Clement and Hebrews behave as if the temple was still standing which makes 70 CE our terminus ad quem for these works.

What if 'the Temple' referred to is a temple elsewhere? say, in Ephesus, Sardis, Miletus, Pergamon, Priene, or elsewhere?

At a date other than 70 CE?

 

[GDon]

What if 'the Temple' referred to is a temple elsewhere? say, in Ephesus, Sardis, Miletus, Pergamon, Priene, or elsewhere?

At a date other than 70 CE?

In 1 Clement:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html

Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned.​

 

[maximara]

What if 'the Temple' referred to is a temple elsewhere? say, in Ephesus, Sardis, Miletus, Pergamon, Priene, or elsewhere?

At a date other than 70 CE?

1 Clem 41:2 clearly states this is "in Jerusalem alone". More over it clearly states that "the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar" and that said offering must be inspected by the high priest.

So we are talking about a Temple "in Jerusalem alone" that has "sanctuary in the court of the altar" and offerings must be inspected by the high priest.

Hebrews 10:2-3 implies that the Temple has not yet been destroyed:

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had a consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Hebrews 13:14 implies that Jerusalem has not yet been destroyed by the Romans: "For we do not have here an enduring city but we seek one that is to come."

There are little clues peppered through out Hebrews that point to a pre 70 CE date. Since this epistle was mimicking Paul's style we have good evidence that Paul's writings were somewhat well known by this author which again points to a pre-70 date for the seven epistles of Paul.

 

[dejudge]

It's not disingenuous, but rather the best one can make with what one has on hand.

The best argument using historical criticism and the evidence from antiquity is that the Pauline Corpus are all forgeries or false attribution and that Paul was not a figure of history.

I mean compare the dating of Paul to using the Historia Augusta as a historical reference. Everybody knows that Historia Augusta is not particularly reliable but sadly it is also "the principal Latin source for a century of Roman history. The historian must make use of it, but only with extreme circumspection and caution."

Everyone knows that the Christian Bible is riddled with fiction, mythology, discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems, forgeries or false attribution and events which did not happen and could not have happened.

In addition, the character called Paul was known as a Liar since at least the 4th century.

It is absurd to accept claims as history in the Christian Bible, especially from the character called Paul, without external contemporary corroboration.

The very same people who REJECT the Bible stories of Jesus are now engaged in a most blatant double standard telling people to accept Bible stories of Paul WITHOUT corroboration.

With at best only two possible contemporaries of Paul (Clement and Ignatius) to work with internal evidence plus whatever those works say regarding Paul there isn't much to work with.

The writings attributed to Clement and Ignatius do NOT claim anywhere that letters in the Pauline Corpus were written c 50-60 CE.

The writings attributed to Clement and Ignatius cannot corroborate the ridiculous narrow c 50-60 CE range for the Pauline since there are NO existing manuscripts attributed to Clement or Ignatius which are dated BEFORE Papyri 46.

The earliest existing manuscript with writings attributed to Clement is a 4th century Codex.

As I have said before C14 dating and paleographic dating just don't have the fineness needed. This is why internal hints in documents are so critical. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but as with using the Historia Augusta as a reference it is the best one can do with what one has.

Again, you openly admit your fallacious argument.

You simply believe the stories of Paul in the Christian Bible.

You think that whatever you believe about the Bible stories of Paul must be true.

Your argument is the very worst kind----The Bible says Paul was in Damascus in the time of King Aretas so it must be true.

You don't have a clue of the meaning and application of historical criticism.

 

[Mcreal]

Cheers GDon and Maximara; I should have read 1 Clement before I commented.

(Though I still think the possibility the document was written or edited, to fit into Jerusalem before the fall of the 2nd Temple, should still be considered, even if it is a low possibility)

 

[dejudge]

There are little clues peppered through out Hebrews that point to a pre 70 CE date. Since this epistle was mimicking Paul's style we have good evidence that Paul's writings were somewhat well known by this author which again points to a pre-70 date for the seven epistles of Paul.

Again, you present bizarre claims.

You seem to have forgotten that the Epistle to the Hebrews was UNKNOWN to Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" and other 2nd century and later Apologetic writings.

You seem to have forgotten that the name Paul is NOT found at all in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

In addition, it is void of logic to say Hebrews was written before c 70 CE because it "was was mimicking Paul's style" when this would imply that Hebrews ALSO "was was mimicking Paul's style" in the FORGERIES or Falsely attributed letters.

Hebrews must have been written AFTER the Pauline Corpus when it was MIMICKING the style of the letters.

 

[Mcreal]

The writings attributed to Clement and Ignatius cannot corroborate the ridiculous narrow c 50-60 CE range for the Pauline since there are NO existing manuscripts attributed to Clement or Ignatius which are dated BEFORE Papyri 46.

The prose may have been written before the extant papyrus (ie. the extant papyrus could be a true copy of a previous text); just as the prose could have been written significantly later than the material it was written on was made.

 

[dejudge]

The writings attributed to Clement and Ignatius cannot corroborate the ridiculous narrow c 50-60 CE range for the Pauline since there are NO existing manuscripts attributed to Clement or Ignatius which are dated BEFORE Papyri 46.

The prose may have been written before the extant papyrus (ie. the extant papyrus could be a true copy of a previous text); just as the prose could have been written a lot later than the material it was written on was made.

I have ZERO interest in your speculation.

Speculation and imagination are really useless at this time.

It is a fact that the writings attributed to Clement and Ignatius CANNOT corroborate the ridiculous narrow c 50-60 CE for the Pauline Corpus.

1. The earliest manuscripts with writings attributed to Clement or Ignatius are dated AFTER Papyri 46 or AFTER the 2nd-3rd century.

2. The writings attributed to Clement and Ignatius do NOT state the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE.

3. It cannot be assumed without independent non-apologetic sources that Bible stories of Paul are true.

4. In the Christian Canon itself, there is ZERO corroboration in Acts that Paul wrote letters to Churches and Pastorals.

5. Outside the Canon, Multiple writings attributed to 2nd century writers knew NOTHING of Hebrews and the Pauline Corpus.

6. Even 2nd century Christian writers who mentioned the Pauline Corpus knew NOTHING of Hebrews.

7. Non-Apologetic 2nd century writers like Celsus in "True Discourse" knew NOTHING of the Pauline Corpus or the Epistle Hebrews.

 

[maximara]

Sure, but there is also Marcion, and the context of Acts, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter, etc.

Marcion in thought to have been the person to put some version of a Paul corpus together but we are talking c140 here long after both Clement and Ignatius were long dead and gone.

Joseph B. Tyson's 2006 Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle University of South Carolina Press; annotated edition edition puts forth the idea that the Luke-Acts we know didn't come into being until c120 CE

Acts is pure and pure propaganda bordering on the 1st to 2nd century equivalent of a Dime Novel.

"Commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from AD 60 to 160" Bauckham, RJ (1983), Word Bible Commentary, Vol.50, Jude-2 Peter, Waco.

1 Peter is not much better as the works that can cross reference to it themselves have really crappy dates.