Dating Paul's Writings

[JairCrawford]

I know that the earliest datings to some of Paul's letters are set to about 50 AD. But that is very conservative dating. Nevertheless this is the first place I have heard insist that none of the letters could have been composed in the first century. I am wondering, why not? What is the smoking gun?

Most scholars, whether theologians or atheists seem to all agree (from what I can ascertain) that most of the Pauline epistles (the ones which scholarly consensus points to being by one authentic author, not counting the ones widely in question) predate the gospels.

I know there is some theory about Marcion involving the Pauline epistles, but I don't know much about it in detail.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unless one is willing to accept marcionite heresy.....nothing of "Paul" can be dated earlier than 200ad.

Have fun.

[JairCrawford]

Unless one is willing to accept marcionite heresy.....nothing of "Paul" can be dated earlier than 200ad.

Have fun.

But what does any of this mean? Is the theory that Marcionite Heresy was a posthumous thing invented by the church, and that Marcion was actually a legit progenitor of Christianity and influenced the Pauline writings?

[brewer]

I'd prefer his sister.

[The Grand Nudger]

Marcion was a legit progentior of christian canon...regardless of whether or not marcion was a progenitor of christianity proper.

Apparently, they hated the man, but loved the sin....at that point.

Calling this a "theory" is ridiculous. It's a known known. The christian position..even though christians largely don;t know this...is that despite all of the shit...god...somehow, got it Right Enough™ in magic book. Ni one can say... with a straight face... that magic book is perfect start to finish. All that can be said is that despite every stumbling block.............

[Minimalist]

Jair,

Ask yourself why it is that Justin Martyr knows of Marcion but not anyone named "paul?"

[JairCrawford]

Marcion was a legit progentior of christian canon...regardless of whether or not marcion was a progenitor of christianity proper.

Apparently, they hated the man, but loved the sin....at that point.

Calling this a "theory" is ridiculous. It's a known known.

No no I mean the heresy part. Is it a theory that there originally never was any heresy by Marcion, but that was invented later by the church? I'm just trying to understand what exactly the argument is.

---

Jair,

Ask yourself why it is that Justin Martyr knows of Marcion but not anyone named "paul?"

It is interesting. But then how, under this insinuation, are the Pauline epistles unaware of gospels? The lack of gospel references in Pauline writings is highly indicative of pre-dating the gospels. But we know that Marcion knew at least some of the gospels.

[Minimalist]

There were heretics everywhere.  The notion that there was any sort of "church" in the first-2d centuries which could exercise any kind of authority is patently absurd.

What there were were scattered groups with all sorts of fucked up beliefs.

---

It is interesting. But then how, under this insinuation, are the Pauline epistles unaware of gospels?

Justin knows nothing of any gospels, either.  He mentions something called the Memoirs of the Apostles but none of it matches up with any of what passes for "gospels" now.

[JairCrawford]

There were heretics everywhere.  The notion that there was any sort of "church" in the first-2d centuries which could exercise any kind of authority is patently absurd.

What there were were scattered groups with all sorts of fucked up beliefs.

---

It is interesting. But then how, under this insinuation, are the Pauline epistles unaware of gospels?

Justin knows nothing of any gospels, either.  He mentions something called the Memoirs of the Apostles but none of it matches up with any of what passes for "gospels" now.

Right. When I say heresy, I don't mean, like, Catholic Excomunication, but rather, more of a falling out due to his teachings.

That's true but that he knows of Marcion who not only knew of gospels but tried to write his own complicates things.

[Minimalist]

I'll find you something later in one of Ehrman's books.  It's dinner time out here now and my wife is busting my balls.

---

That took no time at all.  From Ehrman's Lost Christianities  Pages 2-3

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that
the Jewish Scripture (the Christian “Old Testament”) was inspired by the one
true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews, who was not
the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed
it was not inspired.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that
Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians
who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (For them,
divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a
man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was
a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but not himself
divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two
things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ,
who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him
prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering
in its aftermath.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that
Jesus’ death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians
who thought that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with the salvation of the
world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died.
How could some of these views even be considered Christian? Or to put the
question differently, how could people who considered themselves Christian
hold such views? Why did they not consult their Scriptures to see that there


were not 365 gods, or that the true God had created the world, or that Jesus had
died? Why didn’t they just read the New Testament?

It is because there was no New Testament. To be sure, the books that were
eventually collected into the New Testament had been written by the second
century. But they had not yet been gathered into a widely recognized and authoritative
canon of Scripture.1 And there were other books written as well, with
equally impressive pedigrees—other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses
claiming to be written by the earthly apostles of Jesus.

Chew on this for a while.  I'll be back.