The Empty Tomb

[Belz...]

Since the Pauline epistles were written before the gospels, Paul's account of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in 1 Corinthians would have to be the earliest version, written ca. CE 50 - if the passage was, indeed, written by Paul. Here it is as we now have it (1 Cor. 15:3 - 8, bracketed material added)

How do we know that it was around CD 50, already ? I forget.

 

[HansMustermann]

Most of the chronology is actually a mix of Paul (e.g., Galatians puts a 14 year interval between the start of his ministry and going to Jerusalem again), Acts (which most secular scholars take for a novel these days), and plain old wishful thinking.

 

[TimCallahan]

How do we know that it was around CD 50, already ? I forget.

One thing we know for certain is that Paul's many references to the church in Jerusalem mean that he had to have been writing prior to CE 70, when the Romans flattened the city. That he makes no reference to the Romans besieging Jerusalem would mean or any such hostilities would mean he was writing before CE 66, when the Jewish revolt began.

I'm not sure about the other reasons for dating Paul's epistles in the 50s or the origin of the tradition that he was executed in CE 62.

 

[Craig B]

... I'm not sure about the other reasons for dating Paul's epistles in the 50s or the origin of the tradition that he was executed in CE 62.

The Church is very liberal in its interpretation of "evidence" concerning Paul's death!

In June 2009, Pope Benedict announced excavation results concerning the tomb of Paul at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. The sarcophagus was not opened but was examined by means of a probe, which revealed pieces of incense, purple and blue linen, and small bone fragments. The bone was radiocarbon dated to the 1st or 2nd century. According to the Vatican, these findings are consistent with the traditional claim that the tomb is Paul's. The sarcophagus was inscribed in Latin saying, "Paul apostle martyr".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#His_final_days_spent_in_Rome

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Bolding mine...

He "knows" because this isn't about evidence....it's about belief.

But that's a contradiction in terms. You can only truly 'know' something if it is a proven fact, belief alone does not constitute knowledge. If it did then we would have to conclude that those who believe in the existence of fairies and unicorns are correct in their belief.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

You're kidding right?

Of course he isn't kidding, it's a fair question and simply pretending that it's a silly question does your arguments no favours.

The fact is, although the Bible contains historical places (and possibly even some historical events) so do the Harry Potter novels, and like the Harry Potter novels, the stories within the Bible that involve miracles or magic can never be shown to be factual. For this reason, we can only consider such stories as fictional, mythological, or legendary at best.

Jesus may have been a real person, or possibly the character of Jesus might have been based upon a real person, but we can only rationaly consider that in the same way that the character of King Arthur might have been based upon a real person. There are plenty of historians who consider that Arthur could well be based upon a genuine historical figure, a Romano-British leader who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxons sometime in the late 5th to early 6th century, many even consider that Arthur's legendary advisor Merlin could also be based upon a real person, but not one of them seriously considers that Merlin was a wizard who could actualy do real magic.

Historicaly, at best, we can rationaly consider that it's possible that Jesus might have existed as a person, possibly a first century teacher of morality who taught via parables in Judea, in a similar vein to the Greek Aesop, but there's no rationality whatsoever in considering him as a supernatural miracle worker who was immune to death.

 

[Belz...]

One thing we know for certain is that Paul's many references to the church in Jerusalem mean that he had to have been writing prior to CE 70, when the Romans flattened the city. That he makes no reference to the Romans besieging Jerusalem would mean or any such hostilities would mean he was writing before CE 66, when the Jewish revolt began.

Could it be much later instead ? What's the first mention we have of those letters or the first copies of them ?

 

[Craig B]

Could it be much later instead ? What's the first mention we have of those letters or the first copies of them ?

Are you of the view that later scribes and copyist were in the habit not merely of garbling or falsifying texts, but of inventing them out of thin air, and creating entirely imaginary histories?

 

[Oystein]

One thing we know for certain is that Paul's many references to the church in Jerusalem mean that he had to have been writing prior to CE 70, when the Romans flattened the city. That he makes no reference to the Romans besieging Jerusalem would mean or any such hostilities would mean he was writing before CE 66, when the Jewish revolt began.

I'm not sure about the other reasons for dating Paul's epistles in the 50s or the origin of the tradition that he was executed in CE 62.

One anchor is the archeological finding of the Gallio inscription, from which it is known that a Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus was proconsul of the newly constituted senatorial province of Achaea, which includes Corinth. His tenure can be fairly accurately dated to between 51-52 AD or 52-53 AD. According to Acts 18:12-17, Gallio dismissed the charge brought by the Jews against the Apostle Paul. So this must have happened in CE 52 +/-1, and serves as the most accurate date to calibrate the timeline of Paul, who spent ca. 18 months in Corinth during that time.

 

[HansMustermann]

Are you of the view that later scribes and copyist were in the habit not merely of garbling or falsifying texts, but of inventing them out of thin air, and creating entirely imaginary histories?

Considering the many epistles written by other people in Paul's name, plus in the name of various apostles (heck, there's even at least one that claims to be written by all 12 apostles together,) and so on... yeah, I'd say it's pretty safe to say that some scribes WERE producing stuff out of thin air.

 

[TimCallahan]

One anchor is the archeological finding of the Gallio inscription, from which it is known that a Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus was proconsul of the newly constituted senatorial province of Achaea, which includes Corinth. His tenure can be fairly accurately dated to between 51-52 AD or 52-53 AD. According to Acts 18:12-17, Gallio dismissed the charge brought by the Jews against the Apostle Paul. So this must have happened in CE 52 +/-1, and serves as the most accurate date to calibrate the timeline of Paul, who spent ca. 18 months in Corinth during that time.

Thanks for that.

 

[Craig B]

Considering the many epistles written by other people in Paul's name, plus in the name of various apostles (heck, there's even at least one that claims to be written by all 12 apostles together,) and so on... yeah, I'd say it's pretty safe to say that some scribes WERE producing stuff out of thin air.

To the extent that it is reasonable to suppose that there was no Paul writing letters in the period prior to 70CE?

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, I wouldn't take it as the most reasonable assumption, nor as probable. But technically it would be possible that someone just sat down and wrote seven epistles in Paul's name.

I mean, they did the same with Ignatius. At the very least most of his epistles endorsing a church structure and hierarchy right from the start are forgeries, and even for the rest, let's just say that the whole surrealistic trip to Rome is full of lies and impossibilities. Including that the Romans he describes as ultra-hostile would give him ink and paper, and he'd calmly sit down and write while surrounded by hostile big cats. Or they'd let him meet with everyone from the Christian churches and stuff along the way. So whether the guy who wrote those lies was actually called Ignatius or not, he IS making a story up out of thin air.

And at any rate, writing epistles from Ignatius is something that continued a good 3 centuries after he was dead. At which point, you have to admit, there's nothing for those to come from, other than thin air.

 

[TimCallahan]

Considering the many epistles written by other people in Paul's name, plus in the name of various apostles (heck, there's even at least one that claims to be written by all 12 apostles together,) and so on... yeah, I'd say it's pretty safe to say that some scribes WERE producing stuff out of thin air.

Of the epistles attributed to Paul, I know that 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, often referred to as the pastoral epistles, are rejected by scholars across the board as having been written by Paul. Among other things, these epistle are full of admonitions on family relationships, management of slaves, etc.; all of which point to a theology involving some engagement with the world and a belief that the world will continue on. However, in 1 Corinthians, Paul urges the opposite, saying that the world is about to end (1 Cor. 7:29 - 31; 15:51, 52) and telling people not to get married if they can help it (1 Cor. 7:8, 9). All of this is in keeping with the many apocalyptic passages in the gospels.

Along with these three letters, Ephesians and Colossians, IIRC are considered suspect, though I don't recall why. I do know that most scholars accept Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans as genuinely Pauline.

There are also passages in the genuinely Pauline epistles that are plainly intrusive, thus insertions by a later editor, as in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35, where Paul's discussion of speaking in tongues is interrupted by a mini-tirade, telling women to shut-up in church, and not even to ask questions.

 

[Craig B]

... Along with these three letters, Ephesians and Colossians, IIRC are considered suspect, though I don't recall why. I do know that most scholars accept Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans as genuinely Pauline.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

around 1840, German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur accepted only four of the letters bearing Paul's name as genuine, which he called the Hauptebriefe (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians). Hilgenfeld (1875) and H. J. Holtzmann (1885) instead accepted the seven letters listed above, adding Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians. Few scholars have argued against this list of seven epistles, which all share common themes, emphasis, vocabulary and style. They also exhibit a uniformity of doctrine.

 

[ddt]

To the extent that it is reasonable to suppose that there was no Paul writing letters in the period prior to 70CE?

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html:

In the majority of commentaries and introductions to the New Testament the Dutch Radical Critics are but seldom mentioned. In W. G. Kümmel's well known Introduction to the New Testament we only learn that there is a theological school at issue here whose representatives denied the authenticity even of the Apostle Paul's so-called Principal Epistles in order to interpret them as deposits of antinomistic movements dating from about 140 C.E.

The Dutch Radical School existed from ca. 1890 to ca. 1960. AFAIK, most of their articles were written in Dutch, so poorly accessible to the world-wide community.

(and that's about all I know about them).

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the link, ddt.

 

[Belz...]

Are you of the view that later scribes and copyist were in the habit not merely of garbling or falsifying texts, but of inventing them out of thin air, and creating entirely imaginary histories?

I have no idea. I know they did some of that, but I'm merely asking what the first mention of these works is, because it's my impression that we don't know exactly when they were written. So how do we know if they were written prior to 70 CE ?

 

[TimCallahan]

I have no idea. I know they did some of that, but I'm merely asking what the first mention of these works is, because it's my impression that we don't know exactly when they were written. So how do we know if they were written prior to 70 CE ?

Again, Paul's references to going to Jerusalem in Galatians and his references to the church in Jerusalem in other epistles all point to a time prior to CE 70. Of course, this could all be part of an elaborate hoax. However, the fractious picture Paul paints in Galatians of James wanting to keep the followers of Jesus a Jewish sect, while Paul wanted to dispense with it and create a new religion, with Peter being weak and vacillating; strongly contrasts with the harmonious, smoothed-over picture painted in Acts, which was definitely written after CE 70.

 

[Belz...]

Again, Paul's references to going to Jerusalem in Galatians and his references to the church in Jerusalem in other epistles all point to a time prior to CE 70.

Oh, I believe you. I'm just not sure why it points to prior to 70 CE.