Bedouin Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I've been reading some materials about a historical vs. a mythical jesus. It seems to be widely agreed upon that the epistles of Paul predate the gospels. My question is HOW do we know this? From what I gather, there are no original manuscripts of any NT documents. So, how is dating arrived at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 how is dating arrived at? Confirmation bias and wishful thinking. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedouin Posted November 27, 2014 Author Share Posted November 27, 2014 how is dating arrived at? Confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Scholars want the epistles to be early and "authentic" in some way because they feel that if they aren't, then Christianity takes an almost fatal blow to its status as a supposedly "historical" religion. Therefore, we must have Paul writing real letters to real churches. They've already started with the conclusion (Christianity started with the same supposedly historical people mentioned in the NT) and adjust their findings accordingly. That's confirmation bias. The letters must pre-date Paul's death which was circa 62. How do we know that? A legendary document called "The Acts of Paul" alleges he was beheaded by the Roman emperor at that time. The same document says that Paul put his head back on afterwards. So he didn't actually die in 62. "Acts of the Apostles" also has "Paul" interacting with historical persons in the 50s. The letters display a supposedly "early church" atmosphere where things are small, disorganized, and is still comprised of "Jewish Christians" who are trying "Judaize" the non-Jews. The gospels are supposed to post-date all of this because Jesus predicts the fall of the Temple, which happened in 70, so they are vaticinia ex eventu. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedouin Posted November 27, 2014 Author Share Posted November 27, 2014 Okay, I think I understand. One author's take is that Paul was writing about a mystical Christ, not a person named Jesus, and the writers of the gospels, whoever they were, literally "fleshed it out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Scholars want the epistles to be early and "authentic" in some way because they feel that if they aren't, then Christianity takes an almost fatal blow to its status as a supposedly "historical" religion. Therefore, we must have Paul writing real letters to real churches. They've already started with the conclusion (Christianity started with the same supposedly historical people mentioned in the NT) and adjust their findings accordingly. That's confirmation bias. The letters must pre-date Paul's death which was circa 62. How do we know that? A legendary document called "The Acts of Paul" alleges he was beheaded by the Roman emperor at that time. The same document says that Paul put his head back on afterwards. So he didn't actually die in 62. "Acts of the Apostles" also has "Paul" interacting with historical persons in the 50s. The letters display a supposedly "early church" atmosphere where things are small, disorganized, and is still comprised of "Jewish Christians" who are trying "Judaize" the non-Jews. The gospels are supposed to post-date all of this because Jesus predicts the fall of the Temple, which happened in 70, so they are vaticinia ex eventu. I appreciate the longer explanation. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedouin Posted November 28, 2014 Author Share Posted November 28, 2014 I'm still a bit confused. I was under the impression that scholars generally agreed that the Pauline epistles predate the gospels as a way of casting doubt about Christianity and a historical Jesus, not to confirm it all. In other words Paul specifically says that his message was NOT given to him by other men, but rather by his direct communication with the Christ spirit. Nor does he place Jesus or the crucifixion/resurrection in any geographic location. So, if in fact Paul's writings do predate the gospels, this could be evidence that he took some kind of an existing tradition and formulated a theology that would appeal to Roman thought in order to keep some Judaic traditions alive after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Which in turn would mean that none of the canonical gospels could possibly have been written before 70, which would destroy the whole Christian shebang, not uphold it. Am I making any sense here or am I way off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I'm still a bit confused. I was under the impression that scholars generally agreed that the Pauline epistles predate the gospels as a way of casting doubt about Christianity and a historical Jesus, not to confirm it all. In other words Paul specifically says that his message was NOT given to him by other men, but rather by his direct communication with the Christ spirit. Nor does he place Jesus or the crucifixion/resurrection in any geographic location. So, if in fact Paul's writings do predate the gospels, this could be evidence that he took some kind of an existing tradition and formulated a theology that would appeal to Roman thought in order to keep some Judaic traditions alive after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Which in turn would mean that none of the canonical gospels could possibly have been written before 70, which would destroy the whole Christian shebang, not uphold it. Am I making any sense here or am I way off? Your first impression is incorrect. Even the most conservative scholars are perfectly happy to say that Paul's letters pre-date the gospels. Nobody formulated this idea to cast doubt on anything. Bible scholars say that the gospels are after 70 but they are still authentic because they rely upon oral history of eyewitnesses. They do not think this destroys the whole shebang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedouin Posted November 29, 2014 Author Share Posted November 29, 2014 So, basically what you're saying is that it can't be proven that the letters predate the gospels, and it is accepted that they do because it's the opinion of the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Maybe this will help… actual surviving manuscripts, with (approximate) dates. Hard evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnFundEd Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 I'm reading a fascinating book that addresses the history of the New Testament... The Fabricated Paul by Hermann Detering. I think some of his explanations makesense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I hope you post some of them on here, i would love to hear what he has to say. -peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts